# What do u think are the most effective styles/techniques out there for the average man?



## Towel Snapper (Sep 13, 2014)

So I know this is the classic troll question that trolls love to answer with the typical "its not the style its the practitioner lark"

But us sane individuals know, that the style AND the practitioner count.

After all most styles are just a syllabus or list of techniques to learn, each style has a different list and each technique has a different degree of effectiveness. (granted its far more complex than this but just answer as best you can)

So give me first a list of styles that you think are the most effective. e.g. you may list BJJ as one of the most effective styles since it has been shown to do well against other single styles, and men of much greater strength and size. 

Then give me a list of techniques that you think are most effective. e.g. you may not think TKD is one of the effective styles out there due to its poor record of wins against other stand up striking styles, BUT even though the style may not be effective, the style might still contain a technique that is really effective and worth learning, e.g. perhaps the spinning side kick.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 13, 2014)

Honestly, if a woman came to me and asked me what she should learn to defend herself, I would recommend boxing or MT kickboxing and Gracie Jiujitsu. In boxing/kickboxing she will hit and get hit. In Gjj she will learn to grapple against people larger than her in compromising positions, and how to fight in all ranges. Most importantly, she will get in better shape and condition.

A *good* MMA gym could work as an alternative.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 13, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> So I know this is the classic troll question that trolls love to answer with the typical "its not the style its the practitioner lark"



You are right, which makes me wonder why you'd bother asking.



Towel Snapper said:


> But us sane individuals know, that the style AND the practitioner count.



You are incorrect. The style does not matter. It is the practitioner.



Towel Snapper said:


> After all most styles are just a syllabus or list of techniques to learn,



This too is incorrect. The techniques are only a portion of what a martial art offers.



Towel Snapper said:


> each style has a different list and each technique has a different degree of effectiveness. (granted its far more complex than this but just answer as best you can)



Also incorrect (but hey, at least your record is perfect...). There are very few, if any techniques that are unique to a particular style or system. Different systems will stress different techniques or types of techniques, but I'd love to see you provide an example of a technique that is unique to any one system.

As for effectiveness... that is a combination of the practitioner and the specific circumstances. Whatever technique you can perform that is appropriate to the specific circumstances at that point in time will be the most effective.

[Remainder deleted - there is no point in answering questions that are based on so many false assumptions.]


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 13, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> You are right, which makes me wonder why you'd bother asking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



trololololol


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 13, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Honestly, if a woman came to me and asked me what she should learn to defend herself, I would recommend boxing or MT kickboxing and Gracie Jiujitsu. In boxing/kickboxing she will hit and get hit. In Gjj she will learn to grapple against people larger than her in compromising positions, and how to fight in all ranges. Most importantly, she will get in better shape and condition.
> 
> A *good* MMA gym could work as an alternative.



Thank you great answer!


----------



## K-man (Sep 13, 2014)

We are all a little biased in our opinions, some far more than others. For simplicity, effectiveness and most bang for your buck, I think it is hard to go past Krav Maga. It takes elements of other styles to make a pretty comprehensive fighting system. For example much of the ground component is BJJ, the kicking is heavily Muay Thai, the punching is Boxing, the strikes are Karate and the locks and holds are Jujutsu/Aikido. Take downs are Judo/Aikido style. It also includes use of and defence against knives, sticks, long-arms and hand guns.

And as to being tested. It is used by military and police forces around the world.
:asian:


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2014)

What do you want out of your training?  You ask 100 people, and you'll get dozens of different answers.   And so, you'll have dozens of different "most effective styles."  

Shoot, if you're just looking to shed a few pounds and don't want anything else, cardio kickboxing or tae bo might be the "most effective" style for you.  

I personally think that just about any style CAN be effective in a fight or for self defense if trained well and pressure tested.  But some styles are more consistently trained well and pressure tested than others.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 13, 2014)

9mm
Sharp knife
pointed stick

these to me are very effective styles of defense not that they can be learned effectively by all, even if many seem to think they know how to use them.


----------



## Steve (Sep 13, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> 9mm
> Sharp knife
> pointed stick
> 
> these to me are very effective styles of defense not that they can be learned effectively by all, even if many seem to think they know how to use them.


You might be onto something....


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 13, 2014)

I think it goes back to the styles that really condition you for fighting. Styles that make you get hit and make you hit back, and styles that strengthen and toughen up your body are going to create a more effective martial artist than styles like this;






and this;






If your instructor is a fat tub of lard, go elsewhere.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 13, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> trololololol




Towel Snapper,

A serious question here. 


Are you saying you are a Troll? And your post was a troll post? 
Or are you calling a staff member (moderator) for this forum a troll? 


And as I have told a judge or two before when I ask such questions, I say Do not answer these questions for your own benefit. 


If you are a troll then you may want to rethink that and try to be a positive member of this site. 


If you are calling a staff member or any other member a troll based upon responding to your post, you may want to rethink this attitude as well. Insulting the staff and or disregarding the staff can bring actions from PM's to even being told you are no longer welcome here. 
If you have a problem with a member it is best to use the Report To Moderator Button which is the little triangle at the bottom of the post that if you mouse over it will display "Report Post". 


So, as a piece of advise I would offer you, is that you may want to understand the terms of service for this site and also to understand that your actions here, have not painted the best picture. 


So there are a few ways to answer. Nothing, a denial, an answer to the questions, or an apology. All have their pro's and con's. 
I look forward to your positive contributions


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 14, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> So I know this is the classic troll question that trolls love to answer with the typical "its not the style its the practitioner lark"



You seem to be under a misapprehension at to what "troll" means.  It does not mean "someone who expresses an opinion with which I disagree." It means "someone who expresses opinions that they don't necessarily even believe themselves just for the purpose of getting someone else upset and starting an argument."

I can guarantee that none of the people on this board who claim "it's not the style but the practitioner" are saying it to upset others or start an argument.  If anything, it's a phrase more likely to be used to _avoid _upsetting people and starting an argument.




Towel Snapper said:


> After all most styles are just a syllabus or list of techniques to learn, each style has a different list and each technique has a different degree of effectiveness. (granted its far more complex than this but just answer as best you can)



You are misinformed. A style is a collection of  tactical concepts, physical principles, and training methods that may or may not have a fully defined and delimited syllabus of techniques.



Towel Snapper said:


> So give me first a list of styles that you think are the most effective. e.g. you may list BJJ as one of the most effective styles since it has been shown to do well against other single styles, and men of much greater strength and size.
> 
> Then give me a list of techniques that you think are most effective. e.g. you may not think TKD is one of the effective styles out there due to its poor record of wins against other stand up striking styles, BUT even though the style may not be effective, the style might still contain a technique that is really effective and worth learning, e.g. perhaps the spinning side kick.



Tell me "effective" for what specific purpose and we can offer some meaningful answers.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 14, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> trololololol



Also incorrect, Dirty Dog is not a troll.... listen and you might learn something.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 14, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Tell me "effective" for what specific purpose and we can offer some meaningful answers.




Not to answer for the OP, but I believe that "effective" is the development of fighting ability, pure and simple. IMO, that's what separates legitimate styles/schools from fraudulent styles/schools.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Sep 14, 2014)

Rich Parsons said:


> Towel Snapper,
> 
> A serious question here.
> 
> ...



The Snapp-er just became the Snapp-ed lol

To answer the original question, you can't go wrong with a good old-fashioned punch to the face


----------



## Danny T (Sep 14, 2014)

[h=2]What do u think are the most effective styles/techniques out there for the average man? [/h]For the average man as to what?
The average Judoka would not fare well in a boxing competition nor the average boxer in a Judo competition or in a gymnastic competition however, a martial gymnastic artist may do rather well.
Style can be important 'if' the practitioner has no real training or experience in a style based action. Like a wrestler in a muay thai event. How about taking a FMA trained man and put them in a situation vs a BJJ man as the action begins the FMA man pulls a knife style will suddenly go out the window as individual's desire to survive takes hold.  

Style in football or basketball doesn't assure the championship.

If you are inquiring to self-defense in general as this is the  forum for it. I opine, martial art styles have very little to do with  self-defense. 

If someone asked me to train them in fight back defensive actions only I'd recommend a FMA (Pekiti-Tirsia in particular) and Combat Submission Wrestling. These two 'styles' incorporate blunt and edged weapons, firearms, catch wrestling, judo, bjj, muay thai, boxing, wing chun, jkd, savate, and silat giving the individual an huge amount of skill development.


----------



## Dylan9d (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> We are all a little biased in our opinions, some far more than others. For simplicity, effectiveness and most bang for your buck, I think it is hard to go past Krav Maga.
> 
> And as to being tested. It is used by military and police forces around the world.
> :asian:



Military and civillian Krav Maga differ alot, also with most associations it's all about money. My last effort to pick up Krav Maga with Krav Maga Global was ended prematurely because of the whole business mentality, and when i look back to 6 years ago when i trained with the IKMF i really see that it wasn't any different there.

So i wouldn't take up Krav Maga at all.

Just in reality, how many times a year do you need self defense techniques? I haven't had to use anything i have learned last 2 years at least, so i have a better idea for people that think about these topics:

Just choose what you are interested in rather than the "most effective"


----------



## K-man (Sep 16, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> Military and civillian Krav Maga differ alot, also with most associations it's all about money. My last effort to pick up Krav Maga with Krav Maga Global was ended prematurely because of the whole business mentality, and when i look back to 6 years ago when i trained with the IKMF i really see that it wasn't any different there.
> 
> So i wouldn't take up Krav Maga at all.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with you at all. Just that there was a specific question in regard to effective styles. Whether or not it's all about money is not relevant. But for the record, here it is no more expensive than any other martial art.
:asian:


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> I don't disagree with you at all. Just that there was a specific question in regard to effective styles. Whether or not it's all about money is not relevant. But for the record, here it is no more expensive than any other martial art.
> :asian:




Do you think civi krav maga is like mc dojo karate? How do you learn the good stuff?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 16, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> You are right, which makes me wonder why you'd bother asking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the bold and underlined is the best possible answer.  Styles survive because there are practitioners who learn them correctly and make them work for that practitioner


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> I think the bold and underlined is the best possible answer.  Styles survive because there are practitioners who learn them correctly and make them work for that practitioner


I disagree.  Some styles actively inhibit skill development.  If you're training at a school with solid instructional design and coaching methods, you will learn skills and develop expertise.  

Said another way, if it takes a remarkable martial artist to make your style work, you're probably in a crappy school.


----------



## K-man (Sep 16, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Do you think civi krav maga is like mc dojo karate? How do you learn the good stuff?


I'm a bit slow so you might have to explain the difference between civilian Krav and military Krav to me. I mean the ex-commando who was instructing at the weekend was pretty full on and my Krav classes aren't anything like McDojo. You learn good stuff from good instructors. You test it in stressful situations. 

I've experienced McDojo karate first hand. It took me a while to realise what I had gotten into. Back then we thought people were all honourable. We had an unqualified instructor wearing a black belt for a start. I think you need to understand what a McDojo is before you start labelling Krav schools McDojos. 

When you started this thread I suggested the closest thing to what you asked about, in my opinion, was Krav. Why would I have suggested that if I thought it was McDojo? *Dylan9d* has obviously had a bad experience to have made the comment he did. Perhaps you might be better served asking him of his experience. I mean I only teach the stuff.
:asian:


----------



## Dylan9d (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm a bit slow so you might have to explain the difference between civilian Krav and military Krav to me. I mean the ex-commando who was instructing at the weekend was pretty full on and my Krav classes aren't anything like McDojo. You learn good stuff from good instructors. You test it in stressful situations.
> 
> I've experienced McDojo karate first hand. It took me a while to realise what I had gotten into. Back then we thought people were all honourable. We had an unqualified instructor wearing a black belt for a start. I think you need to understand what a McDojo is before you start labelling Krav schools McDojos.
> 
> ...




Another question about your Krav Maga: are you affiliated to one of the bigger organisations like KMG, IKMF or KMWW, or maybe even John Whitman?

Btw i never said my instructor was bad, Krav Maga is nice for people with no martial arts experience, to learn something quickly. For the practitioner that is involved 10+ years in martial arts i dont think it can add something usefull. I think for those people there are way more usefull things to learn in other martial arts rather than the "novice" stuff that Krav instructors are teaching.


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> I'm a bit slow so you might have to explain the difference between civilian Krav and military Krav to me. I mean the ex-commando who was instructing at the weekend was pretty full on and my Krav classes aren't anything like McDojo. You learn good stuff from good instructors. You test it in stressful situations.
> 
> I've experienced McDojo karate first hand. It took me a while to realise what I had gotten into. Back then we thought people were all honourable. We had an unqualified instructor wearing a black belt for a start. I think you need to understand what a McDojo is before you start labelling Krav schools McDojos.
> 
> ...



Do you teach spinning heel kicks in your Krav Maga? 

Jumping crescent kicks? 

Or eye gouges?

Apparently the civi krav maga is often watered down with less effective techniques.


----------



## K-man (Sep 16, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Do you teach spinning heel kicks in your Krav Maga?
> 
> Jumping crescent kicks?
> 
> ...


I don't teach jumping kicks in anything, or spinning kicks either for that matter. Eye gouges are part of every RBSD course. What do you think Krav is? Who told you it is often watered down? I think it is the most effective fighting system available, along side things like Silat, Combatives and some of the FMAs.  
:asian:


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 16, 2014)

K-man said:


> I don't teach jumping kicks in anything, or spinning kicks either for that matter. Eye gouges are part of every RBSD course. What do you think Krav is? Who told you it is often watered down? I think it is the most effective fighting system available, along side things like Silat, Combatives and some of the FMAs.
> :asian:



Ok thats a new perspective Ive never heard before everyone else on the net forums etc tells me most civi schools are watered down.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Sep 16, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> What do u think are the most effective styles/techniques out there for the average man?



WWII Combatives or S.P.E.A.R.


----------



## Buka (Sep 16, 2014)

There's a whole lot of great schools everywhere. Hopefully, there's one near enough to where someone lives that they can realistically get there on a regular basis.

I'm primarily a stand up fighter, it's what I love and what I do. But for the last twenty years when someone asks me about where they should train - I suggest a BJJ school. Especially a Gracie school if available. Why do I say that? Just my opinion. We all got opinions, that's just mine.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 16, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> After all most styles are just a syllabus or list of techniques to learn, each style has a different list and each technique has a different degree of effectiveness.



In that case go with Punch-Do, Kick-Jutsu and Violence-Fu.

Anyway boxing is great if you want to get functional skills and fast.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 16, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Not to answer for the OP, but I believe that "effective" is the development of fighting ability, pure and simple. IMO, that's what separates legitimate styles/schools from fraudulent styles/schools.



Well, the OP hasn't answered&#8230; but I thought I'd question this answer of yours.

If "effective" is "the development of fighting ability", the question has to be in what context? Fighting ain't just fighting&#8230; having a match in a cage isn't really the same as dealing with an assault in real life&#8230; nor is it the same as working a door.

And, for the record, no, that's not what "separates legitimate styles/schools from fraudulent ones"&#8230; at all. There are plenty of "legit" styles that don't really focus on, or have much interest in, anything you would recognise as "fighting skill"&#8230; or even "fighting"&#8230; that does't make them fraudulent&#8230; it means they have a different focus. And really, just because it's not your preferred focus doesn't mean a damn thing with regards to legitimacy.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> I disagree.  *Some styles actively inhibit skill development.*  If you're training at a school with solid instructional design and coaching methods, you will learn skills and develop expertise.
> 
> Said another way, if it takes a remarkable martial artist to make your style work, you're probably in a crappy school.



I never knew that.  Can you tell me which styles actively inhibit skill development?  Do you know why they would?

I would have thought that a school would make becoming a remarkable martial artist and making their style work, go hand in hand.


----------



## Dylan9d (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> I don't teach jumping kicks in anything, or spinning kicks either for that matter. Eye gouges are part of every RBSD course. What do you think Krav is? Who told you it is often watered down? I think it is the most effective fighting system available, along side things like Silat, Combatives and some of the FMAs.
> :asian:



Maybe it's not watered down, but it is HIGHLY commercialised.

Krav Maga organisations are like businesses, it's all about making money. You have that in other martial arts as well but not how it is in Krav Maga. I trained for a year with IKMF and another 6 months with KMG. Both organisations try to milk their students, same goes for KMWW.

All those organisations try to push out as many instructors as possible in the shortest amount of time wich will affect the quality of lessons, i was lucky to get instruction from a guy that practiced Krav for about 6 years. 

Most programs for Krav Maga are 180hr instructorprograms and cost about 4000 euro's. 
I did Silat/Pukulan for 9 years, after 8 years my teacher said, ok now you are good enough to teach, i could defend myself very good but he didn't felt that i was ready to instruct people. I trained 5x a week for 3 hours (mostly private with my teachers son). Those 9 years costed me a couple packs of smokes, a case of beer and some gas for driving my teacher around.

My point is: Krav Maga is more business than selfdefense.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, the OP hasn't answered&#8230; but I thought I'd question this answer of yours.
> 
> If "effective" is "the development of fighting ability", the question has to be in what context? Fighting ain't just fighting&#8230; having a match in a cage isn't really the same as dealing with an assault in real life&#8230; nor is it the same as working a door.
> 
> And, for the record, no, that's not what "separates legitimate styles/schools from fraudulent ones"&#8230; at all. There are plenty of "legit" styles that don't really focus on, or have much interest in, anything you would recognise as "fighting skill"&#8230; or even "fighting"&#8230; that does't make them fraudulent&#8230; it means they have a different focus. And really, just because it's not your preferred focus doesn't mean a damn thing with regards to legitimacy.



Actually fighting is just fighting. A person who has natural fighting ability tends to be a superior martial artist to someone who isn't a natural fighter. 

And let's stop the nonsense. The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict. The reason you have arts retreating to a non fighting focus these days is to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill. 

Which is fine, but now those styles are more spiritual pursuits,or historical/cultural pursuits, than actual martial arts. Sort of like Yoga, painting, or learning a new language. Nothing wrong with that..... unless you're trying to defend yourself of course.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Actually fighting is just fighting. A person who has natural fighting ability tends to be a superior martial artist to someone who isn't a natural fighter.



Seriously? You still want to stick to your frankly desperately limited understanding, and argue this? Really? Okay...

No, son, fighting isn't "just fighting". Don't believe me? Try your BJJ tactics and MMA cage-fight ability in a ranged fire-fight. Go on. I'll wait.



Hanzou said:


> And let's stop the nonsense.



Right...



Hanzou said:


> The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict. The reason you have arts retreating to a non fighting focus these days is to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill.



And where, exactly, are you getting that lunacy from? I don't think there's really anything in that whole section that's reflected in reality&#8230;  



Hanzou said:


> Which is fine, but now those styles are more spiritual pursuits,or historical/cultural pursuits, than actual martial arts. Sort of like Yoga, painting, or learning a new language. Nothing wrong with that..... unless you're trying to defend yourself of course.



Yeah&#8230; look, to be blunt, you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, Horatio&#8230;


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Seriously? You still want to stick to your frankly desperately limited understanding, and argue this? Really? Okay...
> 
> No, son, fighting isn't "just fighting". Don't believe me? Try your BJJ tactics and MMA cage-fight ability in a ranged fire-fight. Go on. I'll wait.



Since when is shooting someone fighting someone?



> And where, exactly, are you getting that lunacy from? I don't think there's really anything in that whole section that's reflected in reality



So all of those Samurai arts didn't really come from the Samurai?



> Yeah look, to be blunt, you don't have a clue what you're talking about here, Horatio



Right....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> So all of those Samurai arts didn't really come from the Samurai?



Well there are the arts that came from Samurai.... and there are arts that did not and as a matter of fact the majority of them did not come from Samurai

Now if  you are specifically talking about the arts from Japan then many of them did.... but there are arts that are from many other countries that do not come form Japan and have nothing to do with Samurai.

So the answer to your question would depend on the scope of that question. Are you only talking about Martial Arts from Japan or all marital arts?


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 17, 2014)

That's okay, Xue, I'll tackle it&#8230; probably tomorrow&#8230; need to head off fairly soon&#8230; but, Hanzou, no&#8230; you're way off again&#8230; or, rather, still. More tomorrow.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 17, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> That's okay, Xue, I'll tackle it&#8230; probably tomorrow&#8230; need to head off fairly soon&#8230; but, Hanzou, no&#8230; you're way off again&#8230; or, rather, still. More tomorrow.




I was fairly certain you would. I really have no interest in being part of this beyond some need for historical accuracy, beyond that, its all yours  have a good one


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Since when is shooting someone fighting someone?



Weren't you the one who brought the battlefield into this? How do you think most fighting is done on the battlefield these days?

Since when is punching someone fighting someone?
Since when is choking someone fighting someone?
Since when is stabbing someone fighting someone?
Since when is hacking someone with a sword fighting someone?
Since when is shooting someone fighting someone?
Since when is bombing someone fighting someone?

Are you drawing some sort of arbitrary line in the middle there somewhere?



Hanzou said:


> So all of those Samurai arts didn't really come from the Samurai?



You do know that the vast majority of martial arts out there have nothing to do with the Samurai, right?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Xue Sheng said:


> Well there are the arts that came from Samurai.... and there are arts that did not and as a matter of fact the majority of them did not come from Samurai



I was using the Samurai arts as an example of arts that come from fighting or battle.



> Now if  you are specifically talking about the arts from Japan then many of them did.... but there are arts that are from many other countries that do not come form Japan and have nothing to do with Samurai.



I know this.



> So the answer to your question would depend on the scope of that question. Are you only talking about Martial Arts from Japan or all marital arts?



In that particular example I was only talking about the Samurai arts from Japan. I'm well aware that other arts did not originate from the samurai, but every martial art came from a warrior culture, military group, or an exceptional fighter.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Weren't you the one who brought the battlefield into this? How do you think most fighting is done on the battlefield these days?



Clearly based on the title of the thread, we're talking about martial arts and the average man, not the soldier on the battlefield. My point was that someone who is the superior fighter tends to be the superior martial artist. Martial Arts is based around fighting, and have always been based around fighting.



> You do know that the vast majority of martial arts out there have nothing to do with the Samurai, right?



Of course.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm sure somebody else already said this but there is no better style,  just those who practice the style,  some have practiced and are good at what they do.  Some practice and are great at what they do. 

Some people might have a style that works better for them but if you're comparing styles all together to see what is more effective i think it's not dependant on the style but who practices the style. 

Keep training,  get practice,  don't be afraid to ask for questions or help (it would probably be a good idea to in the future to avoid calling people trolls even if what is posted seems blunt) 
Best of luck


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Clearly based on the title of the thread, we're talking about martial arts and the average man, not the soldier on the battlefield.





			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict.





			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Since when is shooting someone fighting someone?



Make up your mind. If you want to limit the discussion to civilian arts, then don't bring battlefield arts into it. On the battlefield, most of the fighting _is_ shooting people. Even for the samurai, much of the fighting involved shooting people. (Generally with bows & arrows, although guns were eventually introduced.)



			
				Hanzou said:
			
		

> Martial Arts is based around fighting, and have always been based around fighting.



Chris's point is that the requirements for effective fighting can change in different contexts. I disagree with Chris on a lot, but I agree with him on this. You brought up the Samurai. The fact is that if you transported me back in time to a medieval Japanese battlefield, all my BJJ experience wouldn't be much help to me.



Except that


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Make up your mind. If you want to limit the discussion to civilian arts, then don't bring battlefield arts into it. On the battlefield, most of the fighting _is_ shooting people. Even for the samurai, much of the fighting involved shooting people. (Generally with bows & arrows, although guns were eventually introduced.)



I was talking about the history of the arts, and their origins. 



> Chris's point is that the requirements for effective fighting can change in different contexts. I disagree with Chris on a lot, but I agree with him on this. You brought up the Samurai. The fact is that if you transported me back in time to a medieval Japanese battlefield, all my BJJ experience wouldn't be much help to me.



Again, you guys seem to be missing my point. The title of this thread is which style do you think is more effective for the average man. I said that its the style that makes you the better fighter, because a better fighter has a better chance of surviving a situation than a non-fighter. For example, boxing is better than a lot of MAs because it actually teaches you have to take a punch, and how to give a punch. It makes you a better fighter overall, and that's why its so effective.

That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about fighting a Samurai with modern Karate, or dodging bullets like Remo Williams. I'm simply saying that the most effective martial art style for the average person is the style that turns them from a couch potato into a fighter. 

Frankly, that's usually on the sport side of things.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 17, 2014)

I'm not sure what the debate is about, even...
The thread title makes it clear that the question is about "the average man" (I will assume they meant "man" the species, rather than "man" the gender).
The "average" person is untrained in any martial art, and uninterested in investing the time and effort needed to become well trained. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the best style for this "average" person is Run-Fu. Alternatively, at close range they might have excellent results with Chic-Chic-POW.


----------



## donald1 (Sep 17, 2014)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm not sure what the debate is about, even...
> The thread title makes it clear that the question is about "the average man" (I will assume they meant "man" the species, rather than "man" the gender).
> The "average" person is untrained in any martial art, and uninterested in investing the time and effort needed to become well trained. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the best style for this "average" person is Run-Fu. Alternatively, at close range they *might have excellent results with Chic-Chic-POW.*



What's that?


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2014)

donald1 said:


> What's that?



That usually refers to the sound of a shotgun.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 17, 2014)

Chic-Chic-POW? Imagine the sound of a gun being racked. Shotgun, Semi-auto pistol, whatever.

I've also heard it referred to as Glock-Fu but I prefer Ruger anyway...


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> Maybe it's not watered down, but it is HIGHLY commercialised.
> 
> Krav Maga organisations are like businesses, it's all about making money. You have that in other martial arts as well but not how it is in Krav Maga. I trained for a year with IKMF and another 6 months with KMG. Both organisations try to milk their students, same goes for KMWW.
> 
> ...


Then surely that depends on the school. I charge much the same for Krav as Karate. I prefer my guys to be graded by others so that costs them extra but takes place within a seminar which gives extra value anyway. I think it costs me $200 a year for my affiliation and I buy tee shirts, belts and certificates from the organisation. What I teach is not watered down. I am not permitted to teach guys under 18 or girls under 16. I make nothing out of it as the rent still is more than I get in training fees.

You are fortunate to have had the instruction in Silat available for that price. The last Silat event I wanted to attend was $800 for two days. I charge my Krav guys $900 for the year!
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Again, you guys seem to be missing my point. The title of this thread is which style do you think is more effective for the average man. I said that its the style that makes you the better fighter, because a better fighter has a better chance of surviving a situation than a non-fighter. For example, boxing is better than a lot of MAs because it actually teaches you have to take a punch, and how to give a punch. It makes you a better fighter overall, and that's why its so effective.
> 
> Frankly, that's usually on the sport side of things.


I think most of us have got your point. If we are not competing in MMA our style is not effective. 

As to taking a punch. I was one of the attackers in scenario training at the weekend. I had a full face head guard chest protector and cup. After 30+ guys came through I can tell you I took a lot of punches. Under a stress situation a lot of the guys didn't pull their punches.

You have no idea of anything outside your sport based training yet take every opportunity to put every one else down!



Hanzou said:


> And let's stop the nonsense. The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict. *The reason you have arts retreating to a non fighting focus these days is to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill.*
> 
> 
> Which is fine, but *now those styles are more spiritual pursuits,or historical/cultural pursuits, than actual martial arts*. *Sort of like Yoga, painting, or learning a new language*. *Nothing wrong with that..... unless you're trying to defend yourself of course.*


So now we have arts that developed on the battlefield, which according to you is all of them, that are no longer martial and are as useful for defending yourself as yoga, painting or learning a new language. 

If that is not putting down all other styles what do you call it. I'll settle for arrogant nonsense.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 17, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think most of us have got your point. If we are not competing in MMA our style is not effective.



Nope. My point is that some styles develop and toughen the body. Some styles are nothing more than dance routines that people do on the weekend. One set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts.



> You have no idea of anything outside your sport based training yet take every opportunity to put every one else down!



My training isn't sport based.



> So now we have arts that developed on the battlefield, which according to you is all of them, that are no longer martial and are as useful for defending yourself as yoga, painting or learning a new language.
> 
> If that is not putting down all other styles what do you call it. I'll settle for arrogant nonsense.



That isn't putting down all styles, just certain styles.


----------



## K-man (Sep 17, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Nope. My point is that some styles develop and toughen the body. Some styles are nothing more than dance routines that people do on the weekend. One set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts.
> 
> My training isn't sport based.
> 
> That isn't putting down all styles, just certain styles.


Ok, name names. You are dancing round sniping at everything I have trained and what most others have trained as well. You have listed BJJ as your style but have avoided stating your other experience apart from 'karate background'.

Then you say that one set of styles develops fighters. Perhaps you'd care to list those? What styles give little kids black belts? You have dissed my training yet basically I don't take students under 18. No junior BBs in any of my training.

You training might not be sport based but from what you have been posting it is not RB either. 

But at least you now admit that you are putting down certain styles.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 17, 2014)

Towel Snapper said:


> Then give me a list of techniques that you think are most effective.



When I was a kid, I liked to play sword fight among other kids. We used our arm as the sword. When my arm can touch on any part of my opponent's body besides his arm, I won. Most kids would swing their arms in front of their body like mad men. One kid had a very unique attacking style. He would straight his arm in front of his body and ran full force toward his opponent. He would only give his opponent 2 options. Either try to use arm to deflect his straight arm, or move out of his attacking path. His strategy was just like the rhino that combined both offense and defense into one. 

If we can have strong shield that can protect our head. At the same time we also have a sharp spear like the rhino's horn, I'll say that's an "effective" technique.


----------



## Dylan9d (Sep 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> Then surely that depends on the school. I charge much the same for Krav as Karate. I prefer my guys to be graded by others so that costs them extra but takes place within a seminar which gives extra value anyway. I think it costs me $200 a year for my affiliation and I buy tee shirts, belts and certificates from the organisation. What I teach is not watered down. I am not permitted to teach guys under 18 or girls under 16. I make nothing out of it as the rent still is more than I get in training fees.
> 
> You are fortunate to have had the instruction in Silat available for that price. The last Silat event I wanted to attend was $800 for two days. I charge my Krav guys $900 for the year!
> :asian:



Wich organisation are you affiliated to?

And what Silat teacher was that, asking 800 for 2 days, most likely a charlatan? Real Silat or Pukulan teachers don't charge much other than expenses.

My old KMG instructor bought a house in Thailand from his profits, since he is also the director for KMG in Thailand. He told me he is making more money with Krav Maga than with the contractingbusiness he has.


----------



## K-man (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> Wich organisation are you affiliated to?
> 
> And what Silat teacher was that, asking 800 for 2 days, most likely a charlatan? Real Silat or Pukulan teachers don't charge much other than expenses.
> 
> My old KMG instructor bought a house in Thailand from his profits, since he is also the director for KMG in Thailand. He told me he is making more money with Krav Maga than with the contractingbusiness he has.


I won't post that in the public domain but he is a top guy. I'm not complaining about the price as you have high costs with flights, accommodation, etc unless you have large numbers attending. It was just that I was away at the time. My only reason for posting was to show that cost is relative.
:asian:


----------



## Towel Snapper (Sep 18, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I was a kid, I liked to play sword fight among other kids. We used our arm as the sword. When my arm can touch on any part of my opponent's body besides his arm, I won. Most kids would swing their arms in front of their body like mad men. One kid had a very unique attacking style. He would straight his arm in front of his body and ran full force toward his opponent. He would only give his opponent 2 options. Either try to use arm to deflect his straight arm, or move out of his attacking path. His strategy was just like the rhino that combined both offense and defense into one.
> 
> If we can have strong shield that can protect our head. At the same time we also have a sharp spear like the rhino's horn, I'll say that's an "effective" technique.





Are saying use the headbutt?


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> Ok, name names.



We all know what styles I'm talking about. There's no need to name names.  



> You are dancing round sniping at everything I have trained and what most others have trained as well. You have listed BJJ as your style but have avoided stating your other experience apart from 'karate background'.



My karate, Judo (2 months) and Bjj background is personally the only experience that is important to me. 



> Then you say that one set of styles develops fighters. Perhaps you'd care to list those? What styles give little kids black belts? You have dissed my training yet basically I don't take students under 18. No junior BBs in any of my training.



Again, we know what styles those are. There's no need for me to list any of them.



> You training might not be sport based but from what you have been posting it is not RB either.



Nor would I desire it to be, for a variety of reasons.



> But at least you now admit that you are putting down certain styles.



I never denied that I was.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 18, 2014)

Okay, let's get back to this&#8230; 

Hanzou, you wanted to know exactly what was wrong in the following? Alrighty, then&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> Since when is shooting someone fighting someone?



Since when is it not?!? Do you think they're trying to pin ribbons on each other? Playing an enthusiastic game of "tag"?

Do you think that a firefight is limited to battlefields only?



Hanzou said:


> So all of those Samurai arts didn't really come from the Samurai?



Er&#8230; what "samurai arts" are you talking about there, Horatio?



Hanzou said:


> Right....



Yes, you genuinely, absolutely, have no clue what you're talking about.



Hanzou said:


> I was using the Samurai arts as an example of arts that come from fighting or battle.



No, you weren't. Your original comment was:


Hanzou said:


> And let's stop the nonsense. The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict. The reason you have arts retreating to a non fighting focus these days is to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill.



Nothing in there about "samurai"&#8230; hmm&#8230; but, just in case that's what you thought you were saying, then you really don't know how the vast, vast majority of "samurai arts" came to be founded.

I'll put it this way. I am very familiar with the founding stories of some couple of dozen of still extant Ryu-ha, and passingly familiar with probably three times that many&#8230; and none of them actually match your description. Then we get to the bizarre idea of "forced to teach their abilities"&#8230; what the hell? Where do you get this garbage from?

"The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict"&#8230; uh, no, the majority weren't&#8230; and those that were, do you know exactly how they were designed to be applied? Here's a hint&#8230; it wasn't necessarily combatively on the battlefield, son&#8230; And, as far as your last line there ("to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill"), you really don't have a clue what you're dealing with&#8230; 58th time now&#8230; fighting ain't fighting&#8230; and "fighting skill" isn't a single concept&#8230; 

So, when you say "let's stop the nonsense", it'd help if you didn't follow it up with such absolute nonsense yourself, kay?



Hanzou said:


> I know this.



Actually, I'm not sure you realise just how little you do know here.



Hanzou said:


> In that particular example I was only talking about the Samurai arts from Japan. I'm well aware that other arts did not originate from the samurai, but every martial art came from a warrior culture, military group, or an exceptional fighter.



Really? You were "only talking about the samurai arts from Japan"&#8230; by getting pretty much everything about them wrong? Lovely.



Hanzou said:


> Clearly based on the title of the thread, we're talking about martial arts and the average man, not the soldier on the battlefield. My point was that someone who is the superior fighter tends to be the superior martial artist. Martial Arts is based around fighting, and have always been based around fighting.



And, again, you're fairly off base in pretty much all counts there&#8230; the average man can't be a soldier? And, even harder for you to hear, martial arts are based around fighting? And have always been? Gotta tell you&#8230; that's really not the case. And, even more importantly, for those arts that are more combatively (and practically) based, it really, really, really depends on the context of the system, and what type of combat they were geared towards. 

59th time&#8230; fighting ain't fighting&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> I was talking about the history of the arts, and their origins.



Then you might want to learn about them first.

Tell you what, as you're discussing "samurai arts", I'm going to throw a number of systems names at you&#8230; can you tell me which of these match your description of "history"?

Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu.
Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu.
Owari Kan-ryu.
Hozoin Ryu.
Yagyu Shinkage Ryu.
Yagyu Shingan Ryu.
Araki Ryu.
Morishige Ryu.
Unkou Ryu.
Kashima Shinryu.
Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu.
Takenouchi Ryu.
Takagi Yoshin Ryu.
Kukishin Ryu.
Ono-ha Itto Ryu.
Chikubujima Ryu.
Chokugen Ryu.
Tendo Ryu.
Toda-ha Buko Ryu.
Kiraku Ryu.
Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu.
Fusen Ryu.
Negishi Ryu.
Tamiya Ryu.
Asayama Ichiden Ryu.

Let me know what you come up with, will you?



Hanzou said:


> Again, you guys seem to be missing my point. The title of this thread is which style do you think is more effective for the average man. I said that its the style that makes you the better fighter, because a better fighter has a better chance of surviving a situation than a non-fighter. For example, boxing is better than a lot of MAs because it actually teaches you have to take a punch, and how to give a punch. It makes you a better fighter overall, and that's why its so effective.



You're making some rather big assumptions here&#8230; sure, boxing gets you used to hitting and being hit&#8230; do you really, genuinely think that that's unique to boxing? Or even to sporting systems? And, for the record, what you're talking about it training methodologies, which is a part of the style, but not the whole story by any stretch of the imagination&#8230; so your idea of "its the style" is a bit out as well&#8230; it's certain aspects of the style, dependant on the context and application.



Hanzou said:


> That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about fighting a Samurai with modern Karate, or dodging bullets like Remo Williams. I'm simply saying that the most effective martial art style for the average person is the style that turns them from a couch potato into a fighter.
> 
> Frankly, that's usually on the sport side of things.



Frankly, that could be almost anything. Sporting or non-sporting.



Hanzou said:


> Nope. My point is that some styles develop and toughen the body. Some styles are nothing more than dance routines that people do on the weekend. One set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts.



And our point is that you don't have anywhere near enough of a clue about what is involved in anything outside of the tiny area that you're familiar with to make any such claims&#8230; and the association of unrelated ideas ("one set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts") is just showing either a deep prejudice or a desperate lack of understanding&#8230; honestly, I'd say a bit of both.



Hanzou said:


> My training isn't sport based.



Really? So you do BJJ, but not sports based, and in another post, not reality based either? So it's what, callisthenics?



Hanzou said:


> That isn't putting down all styles, just certain styles.



Okay, before you go too far down this path, I'm just going to highlight something here...



> *1.10 Forum and Art Bashing
> 
> 1.10.2 No Art bashing.
> 
> ...



Simply put, even just putting down "certain styles" is against the TOS here&#8230; even being as vague and evasive about it as you are&#8230; so I'm going to suggest you reign in that side of your thought process, and either recognise that not everyone shares your worldview, or, if you can't help yourself, avoid threads where you would bring a ban on yourself. Or just find a different place to post.



Hanzou said:


> We all know what styles I'm talking about. There's no need to name names.



Considering that such actions have consequences, sure&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> My karate, Judo (2 months) and Bjj background is personally the only experience that is important to me.



Okay. I'll detail mine, then. Karate, TKD, BJJ, some boxing, RBSD, Koryu Kenjutsu, Iaido, Kyudo, some Aikido, touches of Wing Chun, my Ninjutsu studies, and probably another half-dozen I'm forgetting.

My point is that your experience, bluntly, is so narrow that you might as well be telling me you know all about European cuisine because you once had a bowl of pasta, so you can tell me what's wrong with all the other dishes.



Hanzou said:


> Again, we know what styles those are. There's no need for me to list any of them.



Right.



Hanzou said:


> Nor would I desire it to be, for a variety of reasons.



Then what is it? And, if you're championing "actual fighting skill", why on earth would you not want your training to be reality based? You prefer fantasy based?



Hanzou said:


> I never denied that I was.



You probably should&#8230; ban hammers have a rather permanent effect here&#8230;


----------



## Dylan9d (Sep 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> You are fortunate to have had the instruction in Silat available for that price. The last Silat event I wanted to attend was $800 for two days. I charge my Krav guys $900 for the year!
> :asian:



Btw i think $900 is also to much for a year of training, means you ask $75 a month (if you train 12 months a year), means 59, because i live in Holland, if you asked that here you would be the most expensive Krav Maga school in Holland, so yes you are VERY overpriced. And in my opinion for some very basic training, not worth the money.

Most Krav schools here ask 40 - 45 a month (= about $50)


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> Btw i think $900 is also to much for a year of training, means you ask $75 a month (if you train 12 months a year), means &#8364;59, because i live in Holland, if you asked that here you would be the most expensive Krav Maga school in Holland, so yes you are VERY overpriced. And in my opinion for some very basic training, not worth the money.
> 
> Most Krav schools here ask &#8364;40 - &#8364;45 a month (= about $50)



You can't really compare though unless you know how many hours training you are paying for, a year could be one evening a month or every evening. it also depends on the economy of the country concerned.


----------



## K-man (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> Btw i think $900 is also to much for a year of training, means you ask $75 a month (if you train 12 months a year), means &#8364;59, because i live in Holland, if you asked that here you would be the most expensive Krav Maga school in Holland, so yes you are VERY overpriced. And in my opinion for some very basic training, not worth the money.
> 
> Most Krav schools here ask &#8364;40 - &#8364;45 a month (= about $50)


Well my Aikido lessons at $2500 a year must be way over the top!


----------



## Dylan9d (Sep 18, 2014)

Tez3 said:


> You can't really compare though unless you know how many hours training you are paying for, a year could be one evening a month or every evening. it also depends on the economy of the country concerned.



In Holland it's &#8364;40 for 4 times a week training.

When i taught Silat-Pukulan i asked &#8364;20 a month to the small group i had and that covered the rent of the community center we trained in.

And yes $2500 a year is just a shakedown sorry but i can't understand how people can ask such prices.


----------



## K-man (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> In Holland it's &#8364;40 for 4 times a week training.
> 
> When i taught Silat-Pukulan i asked &#8364;20 a month to the small group i had and that covered the rent of the community center we trained in.
> 
> And yes $2500 a year is just a shakedown sorry but i can't understand how people can ask such prices.


Perhaps you get what you pay for. :hmm:


----------



## Dylan9d (Sep 18, 2014)

K-man said:


> Perhaps you get what you pay for. :hmm:



I had lessons from some awesome 1st generation Indo's here, all very skilled teachers and somehow none asked such a huge amount of money, they all taught me their lessons for free. I also believe opinions are there to be voiced, so mine stays the same, shakedown :idunno:


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 18, 2014)

Dylan9d said:


> Btw i think $900 is also to much for a year of training, means you ask $75 a month (if you train 12 months a year), means &#8364;59, because i live in Holland, if you asked that here you would be the most expensive Krav Maga school in Holland, so yes you are VERY overpriced. And in my opinion for some very basic training, not worth the money.
> 
> Most Krav schools here ask &#8364;40 - &#8364;45 a month (= about $50)






75 Australian dollars is £41 or 52 Euros. Very little in fact. 40 Euros are approx. $57 A$


----------



## tshadowchaser (Sep 18, 2014)

Darn people your making me wonder why I have never had to pay for a lesson in the last 35 or so years of my 40+ years of training.
school in my area charge from 5o$ US to 125$ US a month no matter what school they are


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 18, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay, let's get back to this&#8230;
> 
> Hanzou, you wanted to know exactly what was wrong in the following? Alrighty, then&#8230;
> 
> Since when is it not?!? Do you think they're trying to pin ribbons on each other? Playing an enthusiastic game of "tag"?



When someone gets shot by someone else, they tend to say that the other guy was shot, not beaten down in a fight.



> Do you think that a firefight is limited to battlefields only?



Why would I think that? I'm simply saying that someone shooting a gun at you isn't fighting you. They're shooting at you.



> Nothing in there about "samurai"&#8230; hmm&#8230; but, just in case that's what you thought you were saying, then you really don't know how the vast, vast majority of "samurai arts" came to be founded.



I mentioned that the Martial Arts originated from the battlefield. You said that was nonsense, and I pointed out the Samurai arts to point out how your statement was wrong.



> And, again, you're fairly off base in pretty much all counts there&#8230; the average man can't be a soldier?



When the average man becomes a soldier, he's not an average man anymore.



> And, even harder for you to hear, martial arts are based around fighting? And have always been? Gotta tell you&#8230; that's really not the case. And, even more importantly, for those arts that are more combatively (and practically) based, it really, really, really depends on the context of the system, and what type of combat they were geared towards.



Feel free to list the martial arts that don't revolve around fighting.



> You're making some rather big assumptions here&#8230; sure, boxing gets you used to hitting and being hit&#8230; do you really, genuinely think that that's unique to boxing? Or even to sporting systems? And, for the record, what you're talking about it training methodologies, which is a part of the style, but not the whole story by any stretch of the imagination&#8230; so your idea of "its the style" is a bit out as well&#8230; it's certain aspects of the style, dependant on the context and application.



Where did I say that taking a hit was unique to boxing?



> Really? So you do BJJ, but not sports based, and in another post, not reality based either? So it's what, callisthenics?



Calisthenics is definitely part of it.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 18, 2014)

Fighting is fighting but not what I don`t like to call fighting.

mmmh love me fighting.


----------



## EddieCyrax (Sep 18, 2014)

I do not know Chris Parker personally, but if his martial arts skills are as good as his thread sparring skills, he is a beast.

You better be very well educated and read to enter his domain.

Perhaps if one listened more than they spoke they could learn something.

I continue to learn from his knowledge.

Chris, it is always educational and entertaining.....Thanks, Eddie


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 19, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> When someone gets shot by someone else, they tend to say that the other guy was shot, not beaten down in a fight.



Then you don't have much of a grasp of what you're talking about when you bring up "fighting". And you are completely out of your depth in discussing anything aside from MMA training ideas and concepts. Perhaps it's time you realised that your corner of "martial arts"/"fighting" is neither representative of the vast majority, nor particularly relevant to most of it&#8230; and open yourself up to the idea that other understandings, perspectives, and insights can help you improve your own. Of course, if you just want to live in your bubble, that's fine&#8230; but expect to be called on the lunacy you often come up with, as it's based on no actual knowledge at all.



Hanzou said:


> Why would I think that? I'm simply saying that someone shooting a gun at you isn't fighting you. They're shooting at you.



Yeah&#8230; see above.



Hanzou said:


> I mentioned that the Martial Arts originated from the battlefield. You said that was nonsense, and I pointed out the Samurai arts to point out how your statement was wrong.



Ha, that's what you thought you were doing? Really? So, in order to argue against me saying that your ideas weren't based in reality, you say something even more removed from reality, and think that proved me wrong? Dude, you do realise that the first thing I thought of was samurai arts when you started talking old historical arts&#8230; it's my immediate frame of reference&#8230; and you, my friend, are absolutely nowhere near able to converse with me on that level, let alone think you can correct me. I mean&#8230; you're arguing with me over samurai history? Really? 

God, I needed that laugh&#8230; 



Hanzou said:


> When the average man becomes a soldier, he's not an average man anymore.



Lovely&#8230; completely rubbish, of course, but lovely.

Mate, they're still "average men" (and women)&#8230; that's a great part of the strength&#8230; it's normal, average, everyday people who volunteer to sign up&#8230; who choose to make the sacrifice they do&#8230; but they don't suddenly become uber-humans&#8230; they have a particular training, but I gotta say&#8230; jingoistic hyperbole and rhetoric aside (and look, I get that&#8230, it's simply not true. Perhaps you might want to take a closer look at reality before you decide to continue along this path, yeah?



Hanzou said:


> Feel free to list the martial arts that don't revolve around fighting.



Go back to my list (I note you've ignored my question about them&#8230, and see if you can spot them&#8230; again, I'll wait.



Hanzou said:


> Where did I say that taking a hit was unique to boxing?



There was the implication that boxing (and only boxing-style training methodologies) have that benefit. And that simply showed a complete ignorance of a huge portion of other systems, training methods, and so on.



Hanzou said:


> Calisthenics is definitely part of it.



Cute. Want to try actually answering the question now? If you don't train for sport, and don't train for reality application, what are you training for?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 19, 2014)

K-man said:


> Well my Aikido lessons at $2500 a year must be way over the top!



For a price like that I had better be able to fly after taking the lessons!


----------



## K-man (Sep 19, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> For a price like that I had better be able to fly after taking the lessons!


I can!


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Then you don't have much of a grasp of what you're talking about when you bring up "fighting". And you are completely out of your depth in discussing anything aside from MMA training ideas and concepts. Perhaps it's time you realised that your corner of "martial arts"/"fighting" is neither representative of the vast majority, nor particularly relevant to most of it&#8230; and open yourself up to the idea that other understandings, perspectives, and insights can help you improve your own. Of course, if you just want to live in your bubble, that's fine&#8230; but expect to be called on the lunacy you often come up with, as it's based on no actual knowledge at all.
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure about the MMA ideas and concepts either tbh.
> 
> ...



Well said Chris, as always.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 19, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Then you don't have much of a grasp of what you're talking about when you bring up "fighting". And you are completely out of your depth in discussing anything aside from MMA training ideas and concepts. Perhaps it's time you realised that your corner of "martial arts"/"fighting" is neither representative of the vast majority, nor particularly relevant to most of it and open yourself up to the idea that other understandings, perspectives, and insights can help you improve your own. Of course, if you just want to live in your bubble, that's fine but expect to be called on the lunacy you often come up with, as it's based on no actual knowledge at all.



I do believe that all of this began because I said that a natural fighter is better at martial arts than someone who isn't a fighter, and the martial arts that makes someone a better fighter are the more effective arts for the average man. 

I'm still trying to figure out how your tangent on guns relates to any of that.




> Yeah see above.



And yeah, like I said, I don't consider someone shooting a gun at you to be fighting you. They're simply shooting at you.




> Ha, that's what you thought you were doing? Really? So, in order to argue against me saying that your ideas weren't based in reality, you say something even more removed from reality, and think that proved me wrong? Dude, you do realise that the first thing I thought of was samurai arts when you started talking old historical arts it's my immediate frame of reference and you, my friend, are absolutely nowhere near able to converse with me on that level, let alone think you can correct me. I mean you're arguing with me over samurai history? Really?



Which is ironic because your expertise in old Japanese arts is exactly why I mentioned the samurai arts, and found your comment that martial arts didn't originate from battlefield arts so bizarre. 

However in the end, the point is that martial arts revolve around fighting, and have always revolved around fighting. 





> Lovely completely rubbish, of course, but lovely.
> 
> Mate, they're still "average men" (and women) that's a great part of the strength it's normal, average, everyday people who volunteer to sign up who choose to make the sacrifice they do but they don't suddenly become uber-humans they have a particular training, but I gotta say jingoistic hyperbole and rhetoric aside (and look, I get that), it's simply not true. Perhaps you might want to take a closer look at reality before you decide to continue along this path, yeah?



Again, they're average when they sign up. A soldier is most certainly not an average person. They're training and experiences are certainly not what the average person experiences.



> Go back to my list (I note you've ignored my question about them), and see if you can spot them again, I'll wait.



Why not simply list them since you clearly know so much about them?



> There was the implication that boxing (and only boxing-style training methodologies) have that benefit. And that simply showed a complete ignorance of a huge portion of other systems, training methods, and so on.



The only implication was in your mind. Again, boxing was simply an example. Nowhere did I say that boxing is the only methodology where you give and take hits.

You seem to be assuming quite a bit in this thread.



> Cute. Want to try actually answering the question now? If you don't train for sport, and don't train for reality application, what are you training for?



I said that I don't desire my training to resemble RBSD training, which is akin to Systema and Krav with the hair pulling, groin strikes, scratching, and other fun stuff. I train for physical fitness and self defense, however, our self defense doesn't go quite as overboard as you see in RBSD systems.


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 20, 2014)

I'll give you one more chance here.



Hanzou said:


> I do believe that all of this began because I said that a natural fighter is better at martial arts than someone who isn't a fighter, and the martial arts that makes someone a better fighter are the more effective arts for the average man.



This came up because you were positing "fighting skill" and "fighting" as a single context, and I challenged you on that by attempting to grow your understanding, highlighting that what is a good "fighting skill" in one context isn't necessarily a good one in another form of fighting/conflict/combat/violence. 



Hanzou said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how your tangent on guns relates to any of that.



It was a demonstration of a form of "fighting" which was so far removed in terms of relevant, practical skill sets to what you were presenting as universal.



Hanzou said:


> And yeah, like I said, I don't consider someone shooting a gun at you to be fighting you. They're simply shooting at you.



You really need to come to a broader understanding&#8230; especially if you think you're training for self defence&#8230; your mentality is so damn limited, if these posts are anything to go by, that I'd say you don't have much understanding of what it even is.



Hanzou said:


> Which is ironic because your expertise in old Japanese arts is exactly why I mentioned the samurai arts, and found your comment that martial arts didn't originate from battlefield arts so bizarre.



I'm sorry, "ironic"?!? How so? You made incorrect generalisations, I corrected it. You said that you were referring to "samurai arts", and I pointed out that that just confirmed that you were wrong then&#8230; and you think it's ironic that you're not understanding what I'm saying (as, frankly, you don't have the education in the subject)? Huh?

Your original comment was that someone was such a "bad-***" on the battlefield that they then either "chose or were forced (?!?!) to teach others"&#8230; I told you that was incorrect&#8230; as it is&#8230; I asked you to give me an example of an art that fits your description&#8230; as I am familiar with the histories of quite a number (dozens, literally) of these systems, and none of them are what you describe&#8230; and you think it's bizarre that I'm commenting on how things actually were because it doesn't match the way you imagine things maybe happened?!?

Here's a clue. Realize that you don't know what the reality is here, and listen. Understand that, when I say that you're not correct, you're not correct. Don't argue back&#8230; and then, when you ask for clarification, I might provide it. Right now, I've actually given you the information&#8230; but I've allowed you to follow the trail. You haven't done so. 



Hanzou said:


> However in the end, the point is that martial arts revolve around fighting, and have always revolved around fighting.



Again, nope. And for those that do have something along those lines as part of their focus, it is always highly context dependant. 64th time now&#8230; fighting ain't just fighting...



Hanzou said:


> Again, they're average when they sign up. A soldier is most certainly not an average person. They're training and experiences are certainly not what the average person experiences.



And, again, lovely&#8230; but completely wrong. Love that you have this romantic image, but it's not doing you any favours in an argument here.



Hanzou said:


> Why not simply list them since you clearly know so much about them?



I already did&#8230; have you picked out which is which yet?



Hanzou said:


> The only implication was in your mind. Again, boxing was simply an example. Nowhere did I say that boxing is the only methodology where you give and take hits.



"For example, boxing is *&#8203;better than many other MAs because it actually teaches you have to take a punch, and how to give a punch.* It makes you a better fighter overall, and that's why it's so effective". Post #44.

And, again, I asked you if you thought that boxing, and sporting systems were the only way such training could be found. That was followed by my referencing of "boxing (and boxing-style training)"&#8230; so&#8230; care to read a little more carefully?



Hanzou said:


> You seem to be assuming quite a bit in this thread.



Really? So you weren't singling boxing out as having a training methodology not found in "many other MA's"?



Hanzou said:


> I said that I don't desire my training to resemble RBSD training, which is akin to Systema and Krav with the hair pulling, groin strikes, scratching, and other fun stuff. I train for physical fitness and self defense, however, our self defense doesn't go quite as overboard as you see in RBSD systems.



What exactly do you think RBSD actually is&#8230;?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2014)

Geoff Thompson Interview | On Guard Combat Systems

Words from one of the very best.


----------

