Best combo for street self defence

[Buka]

Yes I think it’s safe to say we do, I said earlier that boxing is the best hands only style, look what happened when a ufc champ Conor McGregor took on the boxing champ, he got wrecked, if an aikido champ went against a Gracie, it’s only going to end one way

I'm all in with you on boxing having great hands. Period.

But let's not lose sight of why, the ONLY why, Connor McGregor took that boxing match.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Yes I think it’s safe to say we do, I said earlier that boxing is the best hands only style, look what happened when a ufc champ Conor McGregor took on the boxing champ, he got wrecked, if an aikido champ went against a Gracie, it’s only going to end one way

That's a bad comparison to prove boxing is the best hands only style. Not only did he take on the 'boxing champ' but he did so in boxing rules. Meaning not just "only hands", but having to fight with all the other limitations of boxing. This means they've got to use specific gloves, that are different than the ones McGregor is used to, and the round system was boxing rounds rather than UFC rounds, which can mess with someone's stamina (which is already McGregor's biggest issue in the UFC).

To add to that, the two champs aren't on the same level. Mayweather has won 50 matches with no losses, while McGregor won 22 matches and 7. So you're taking someone who never loses against someone who does lose, and expect it to prove something that the guy who never loses won again? Add to that the guy who is 22 and 7 now was 21 and 3 at the time, lost this match and 3 of his next 4, so he just reached the dip in his athletic career when this match happened.

To add to that, one win/loss doesn't prove anything. That's the issue with style vs. style. Take pretty much any sport, and you'll see multiple instances per week of the better team losing to the worse team. That's why most sports don't have 1 game eliminations. Look at baseball world series or NBA finals from last year; both finals went 4 and 2. That means that twice the "worse team" won. If you wanted to prove anything specific here, you'd need to take multiple boxing champs, multiple ufc champs, and have them face off against each other multiple different times. Only then could you have anything statistically significant enough to make any sort of claim from.

To add to that, even if there were neutral rounds/gloves/other rules (keeping just hands), Mayweather and McGregor were equal in their respective sport, and managed to fight enough times, with enough other champs added in to determine which is better, it still wouldn't prove that boxing is the best hands only style. All it would prove is that boxing is better than MMA at hands-only fighting. Which is expected, since MMA doesn't try to be the best at any one thing-it shouldn't be the best hands style, foot style, throwing style or ground grappling style. So it's not a good benchmark for that, and does nothing to suggest that boxing is better than wing chun, karate, muay Thai, kalaripayattu, bando, or any number of other arts, when it comes to hands.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

That's a bad comparison to prove boxing is the best hands only style. Not only did he take on the 'boxing champ' but he did so in boxing rules. Meaning not just "only hands", but having to fight with all the other limitations of boxing. This means they've got to use specific gloves, that are different than the ones McGregor is used to, and the round system was boxing rounds rather than UFC rounds, which can mess with someone's stamina (which is already McGregor's biggest issue in the UFC).

To add to that, the two champs aren't on the same level. Mayweather has won 50 matches with no losses, while McGregor won 22 matches and 7. So you're taking someone who never loses against someone who does lose, and expect it to prove something that the guy who never loses won again? Add to that the guy who is 22 and 7 now was 21 and 3 at the time, lost this match and 3 of his next 4, so he just reached the dip in his athletic career when this match happened.

To add to that, one win/loss doesn't prove anything. That's the issue with style vs. style. Take pretty much any sport, and you'll see multiple instances per week of the better team losing to the worse team. That's why most sports don't have 1 game eliminations. Look at baseball world series or NBA finals from last year; both finals went 4 and 2. That means that twice the "worse team" won. If you wanted to prove anything specific here, you'd need to take multiple boxing champs, multiple ufc champs, and have them face off against each other multiple different times. Only then could you have anything statistically significant enough to make any sort of claim from.

To add to that, even if there were neutral rounds/gloves/other rules (keeping just hands), Mayweather and McGregor were equal in their respective sport, and managed to fight enough times, with enough other champs added in to determine which is better, it still wouldn't prove that boxing is the best hands only style. All it would prove is that boxing is better than MMA at hands-only fighting. Which is expected, since MMA doesn't try to be the best at any one thing-it shouldn't be the best hands style, foot style, throwing style or ground grappling style. So it's not a good benchmark for that, and does nothing to suggest that boxing is better than wing chun, karate, muay Thai, kalaripayattu, bando, or any number of other arts, when it comes to hands.

Side note: I agree with OP that boxing is probably the best style if you limit a fight to just punching, nothing else. But that's a horrible example to use as evidence.

 

[Flying Crane]

But why good sir when clearly I am right

If you believe that, then you are naive.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes I think it’s safe to say we do, I said earlier that boxing is the best hands only style, look what happened when a ufc champ Conor McGregor took on the boxing champ, he got wrecked, if an aikido champ went against a Gracie, it’s only going to end one way

I am not aware of this event, but I will accept it at face value for the sake of discussion. I have heard of Conor McGregor but that is about it. I don’t watch MMA nor boxing, they simply hold no interest for me.

So you take the outcome of one event that took place within a certain venue, and you believe that you can make a sweeping conclusion from it? Hmmm…

 

[Rich Parsons]

Yes I think it’s safe to say we do, I said earlier that boxing is the best hands only style, look what happened when a ufc champ Conor McGregor took on the boxing champ, he got wrecked, if an aikido champ went against a Gracie, it’s only going to end one way

This is not a challenge and anyone reads it that way, please read this again. Please

If there are two people who train two different arts. Let us say person A and person B, study art X & Y respectively.

If they have three "fights" on the same day, one by person A's fighting style of X's rules with the second being person B's fighting style of Y's rules, and then the third with no rules (empty hands, with all moves allowed and all body targets open).

One could argue which system is better as it would be one in favor one each and one totally with no rules.
Yet that also favors those with more athleticism or hard contact.
And gosh forbid one of the two ways is actually using a weapon. (* Illegal in almost all areas where laws are present *)

Yet what this means is that on that day those two people met under those conditions and rules or lack there of , and the out come was determined.

On a different day it could be different.


Full Disclosure: I am not a fan of UFC because Dana White and how he has handled a few instances including Conor's interactions with the others. I also think Conor is a PoS. Not speaking of his skills or how he is in shape, or who could beat whom. So this is not a defense for the UFC nor for Conor directly or indirectly, it is to point out that it truly does depend.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If the system of training doesn't make a person better at that thing. Then what is the point of the system?

This isn't directed to you. I'm just using your statement as a lead into a general statement about the entire discussion of "is it the individual or the system."

Depends on the individual and what they want to get out of the system. Not everyone who trains Jow Ga kung fu wants to be able to fight with it. Some people just want to look good doing the forms. Ultimately it's up to the individual as to what purpose the system will serve them.

With that said. There are flawed systems out there. But again. If you want to be a cool stuntman with cool fighting scenes then it's ok for the system to be flawed for fighting yet valid for entertainment.

For example: Gun Kata = Flawed system. But for entertainment. Totally awesome.

Now if you are going to look at Gun Kata and debate if it's an valid fighting system, then my question is why? If you are going to debate if it's the system or the individual that makes Gun Kata a valid system, then my question is why? It would be like debating if an SUV is a valid boat. If people want to debate the statement. "It's the individual not the system" then you must first look at the system and determine what category you are defining.

Are you defining Fighting Systems, Spiritual Systems, or Entertainment Systems.

For example. For every valid Fighting System. It is the individual not the system, that makes the actual fighting valid. Proof of this is that 2 different people can take the same system for the same amount of years under the same teacher and after the same number of training years. It is possible to have one person that excels in the system and the other person that sucks at it. Think of it like tennis. Not everyone is going to be good at tennis no matter how long they train. Why is this the case? Because it's the individual and not the system.


Some people are good at using Aikido to fight with. Why are those people good with using Aikido and other aren't. Sometimes it's the training methods and not the system. Sometimes it's the individual and not the system, like with Rokus. Sometimes it's the teacher, teaching the system in a way that's not valid for fighting. But I can tell you that if the goal is to fight with Aikido then the training will reflect that purpose and a lot of the spiritual context would fall off. Sort of like Tai chi. People who actually want to learn to use it to fight with will have this in their training.

But ultimately it's going to be up to the individual an the path that they want to take. Train it for exercises or train it for applicable use. If the system isn't valid for fighting then there's no need to include that system into the debate of "is it the individual or the system." when it comes to fighting systems. That's just a pointless and it leads to no intelligent benefit. Compare things of the same category within the same Context. Until Chi Ball martial arts train as a fighting system, it should no longer be used as an example of "it's the system." That's just comparing 2 different things with 2 different purposes and functions. An Suv is not a Boat so stop using it as an example of "why it's the system." Compare boats with boats Compare fighting systems with fighting systems.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Side note: I agree with OP that boxing is probably the best style if you limit a fight to just punching, nothing else. But that's a horrible example to use as evidence.

Filipino Martial Arts - I think would be a good Hands only answer to Boxing. And then I would say it would depend upon the weight class, the time in training (Practice hours) and sparing / application.

Of course, FMA practitioners also are known for drinking and smoking and eating bad food, so they might have a disadvantage in that area.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Side note: I agree with OP that boxing is probably the best style if you limit a fight to just punching, nothing else. But that's a horrible example to use as evidence.

This is my perspective as well. If we are only talking about punching then yes. But if boxing had to use their hands to defend against strikes that are illegal in boxing, then boxing isn't going to have the best hands. If boxing had to use their hands to defend against a wrestler, then their hands would fail them.

Everything must be put in context. When the context changes then so will the reality of "Boxer has the best hands."

Kung Fu has great footwork, but it works better on a floor that doesn't give, than a mat that does. The way that I move on a hard floor isn't the same energy and speed that I move on a surface that gives. Context is everything.

 

[Flying Crane]

Filipino Martial Arts - I think would be a good Hands only answer to Boxing. And then I would say it would depend upon the weight class, the time in training (Practice hours) and sparing / application.

Of course, FMA practitioners also are known for drinking and smoking and eating bad food, so they might have a disadvantage in that area.

Wait, you mean that context matters, and it depends on numerous variables? Who wudda guessed??

 

[Flying Crane]

Side note: I agree with OP that boxing is probably the best style if you limit a fight to just punching, nothing else. But that's a horrible example to use as evidence.

I don’t, but ya know, that’s why we all have opinions.

 

[drop bear]

This isn't directed to you. I'm just using your statement as a lead into a general statement about the entire discussion of "is it the individual or the system."

Depends on the individual and what they want to get out of the system. Not everyone who trains Jow Ga kung fu wants to be able to fight with it. Some people just want to look good doing the forms. Ultimately it's up to the individual as to what purpose the system will serve them.

With that said. There are flawed systems out there. But again. If you want to be a cool stuntman with cool fighting scenes then it's ok for the system to be flawed for fighting yet valid for entertainment.

For example: Gun Kata = Flawed system. But for entertainment. Totally awesome.

Now if you are going to look at Gun Kata and debate if it's an valid fighting system, then my question is why? If you are going to debate if it's the system or the individual that makes Gun Kata a valid system, then my question is why? It would be like debating if an SUV is a valid boat. If people want to debate the statement. "It's the individual not the system" then you must first look at the system and determine what category you are defining.

Are you defining Fighting Systems, Spiritual Systems, or Entertainment Systems.

For example. For every valid Fighting System. It is the individual not the system, that makes the actual fighting valid. Proof of this is that 2 different people can take the same system for the same amount of years under the same teacher and after the same number of training years. It is possible to have one person that excels in the system and the other person that sucks at it. Think of it like tennis. Not everyone is going to be good at tennis no matter how long they train. Why is this the case? Because it's the individual and not the system.


Some people are good at using Aikido to fight with. Why are those people good with using Aikido and other aren't. Sometimes it's the training methods and not the system. Sometimes it's the individual and not the system, like with Rokus. Sometimes it's the teacher, teaching the system in a way that's not valid for fighting. But I can tell you that if the goal is to fight with Aikido then the training will reflect that purpose and a lot of the spiritual context would fall off. Sort of like Tai chi. People who actually want to learn to use it to fight with will have this in their training.

But ultimately it's going to be up to the individual an the path that they want to take. Train it for exercises or train it for applicable use. If the system isn't valid for fighting then there's no need to include that system into the debate of "is it the individual or the system." when it comes to fighting systems. That's just a pointless and it leads to no intelligent benefit. Compare things of the same category within the same Context. Until Chi Ball martial arts train as a fighting system, it should no longer be used as an example of "it's the system." That's just comparing 2 different things with 2 different purposes and functions. An Suv is not a Boat so stop using it as an example of "why it's the system." Compare boats with boats Compare fighting systems with fighting systems.

No. That is martial arts sales gobbledygook for our system doesn't do the thing we say it does.

If you do system A and everyone gets consistently better then system A works.

If you do system B and the only person who can make it work is the 6 foot elite athlete. Then system B doesn't work.

The reason it is the individual is because the training is obviously having no effect. The more genetically gifted do better. The less do worse.

By default this would make it a system that you probably shouldn't train.

This is literally how training works.

 

[drop bear]

Side note: I agree with OP that boxing is probably the best style if you limit a fight to just punching, nothing else. But that's a horrible example to use as evidence.

But because of boxing, kick boxing, MMA and so on. There is a fair bit of evidence as to what works.

 

[Buka]

This isn't directed to you. I'm just using your statement as a lead into a general statement about the entire discussion of "is it the individual or the system."

Depends on the individual and what they want to get out of the system. Not everyone who trains Jow Ga kung fu wants to be able to fight with it. Some people just want to look good doing the forms. Ultimately it's up to the individual as to what purpose the system will serve them.

With that said. There are flawed systems out there. But again. If you want to be a cool stuntman with cool fighting scenes then it's ok for the system to be flawed for fighting yet valid for entertainment.

For example: Gun Kata = Flawed system. But for entertainment. Totally awesome.

Now if you are going to look at Gun Kata and debate if it's an valid fighting system, then my question is why? If you are going to debate if it's the system or the individual that makes Gun Kata a valid system, then my question is why? It would be like debating if an SUV is a valid boat. If people want to debate the statement. "It's the individual not the system" then you must first look at the system and determine what category you are defining.

Are you defining Fighting Systems, Spiritual Systems, or Entertainment Systems.

For example. For every valid Fighting System. It is the individual not the system, that makes the actual fighting valid. Proof of this is that 2 different people can take the same system for the same amount of years under the same teacher and after the same number of training years. It is possible to have one person that excels in the system and the other person that sucks at it. Think of it like tennis. Not everyone is going to be good at tennis no matter how long they train. Why is this the case? Because it's the individual and not the system.


Some people are good at using Aikido to fight with. Why are those people good with using Aikido and other aren't. Sometimes it's the training methods and not the system. Sometimes it's the individual and not the system, like with Rokus. Sometimes it's the teacher, teaching the system in a way that's not valid for fighting. But I can tell you that if the goal is to fight with Aikido then the training will reflect that purpose and a lot of the spiritual context would fall off. Sort of like Tai chi. People who actually want to learn to use it to fight with will have this in their training.

But ultimately it's going to be up to the individual an the path that they want to take. Train it for exercises or train it for applicable use. If the system isn't valid for fighting then there's no need to include that system into the debate of "is it the individual or the system." when it comes to fighting systems. That's just a pointless and it leads to no intelligent benefit. Compare things of the same category within the same Context. Until Chi Ball martial arts train as a fighting system, it should no longer be used as an example of "it's the system." That's just comparing 2 different things with 2 different purposes and functions. An Suv is not a Boat so stop using it as an example of "why it's the system." Compare boats with boats Compare fighting systems with fighting systems.

I don't mean to cherry pick, but this "Some people just want to look good doing the forms."

I have honestly never met anyone who wanted that. Not even friends of mine who live by Kata.

Man, I gotta' get out more.

 

[drop bear]

But the system may be great at making you better, but not me based on my physicality. Point is, a system can be great, but not great for every single person. No two people are alike and not everything is jumping in the ring to fight a match. There is absolutely no way I could train BJJ, does that make BJJ a bad art? No, it means I have had a knee replacement, nor would Judo or even Aikido be a great choice for me. JKD might, Wing Chun works, Muay Thai likely not. Does that mean Muay Thai, Bjj, Judo and Aikido are lacking? or that they just don't fit me?

That is fine. But it doesn't change the rule of objectively works.

So while I made the argument that folk wrestling is a system more suited to self defence. That doesn't mean judo doesn’t work.

Because judo objectively works.

If we are discussing system that have no evidence they objectively work. Then having a bad knee doesn't make them work.

Fighting doesn't care about your bad knee. Or bad day or busy schedule. You absolutely can fit martial arts around your lifestyle. But you just won't be as effective if you do. If someone doesn't have a bad knee or bad day or busy schedule then they are more likely to beat you up.

You can even do combat sports with a bad knee bad day or busy schedule. You just won't be comparatively very good at it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

That is fine. But it doesn't change the rule of objectively works.

So while I made the argument that folk wrestling is a system more suited to self defence. That doesn't mean judo doesn’t work.

Because judo objectively works.

If we are discussing system that have no evidence they objectively work. Then having a bad knee doesn't make them work.

Fighting doesn't care about your bad knee. Or bad day or busy schedule. You absolutely can fit martial arts around your lifestyle. But you just won't be as effective if you do. If someone doesn't have a bad knee or bad day or busy schedule then they are more likely to beat you up.

You can even do combat sports with a bad knee bad day or busy schedule. You just won't be comparatively very good at it.

yes, your point is..... I was never talking styles or systems or better or worse and you just made my argument for me, thank you.... it depends on the individual as to what will work best....again, thanks

I was only addressing Steve's post

Can we stop with the "it's all the individual" stuff? That is complete nonsense.

And per your post, you appeared to have just agreed with me, the individual matters, quite a lot actually, and its not nonsense...again, thanks

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't mean to cherry pick, but this "Some people just want to look good doing the forms."

I have honestly never met anyone who wanted that. Not even friends of mine who live by Kata.

Man, I gotta' get out more.

I suppose people who do XMA or Modern Wushu would fall into this category. It is meant as a performance art.

But they are doing very different forms from traditional Kata or Chinese forms.

 

[drop bear]

yes, your point is..... I was never talking styles or systems or better or worse and you just made my argument for me, thank you.... it depends on the individual as to what will work best....again, thanks

I was only addressing Steve's post

And per your post, you appeared to have just agreed with me, the individual matters, quite a lot actually, and its not nonsense...again, thanks

Only if you don’t care about the results. Because we are back to satisfaction does not always equal effectiveness.

If you care about the results there are less opportunities to provide satisfaction because you have to take from a much smaller pool of options.

The individual argument tries to disguise this by suggesting there is much more impact by a person's genetics than by the thing you are selling them.

If we looked at this medically it is the equivalent of me selling a covid vaccine made from chocolate.

Some people would get better. Some people would die. It would depend on the individual.

Now chocolate is easier to take than a needle full of mystery gunk. So I could argue that for people who are afraid of needles my cure is more appropriate.

But I don't think it is an ethical approach and if you think about it critically. It is not a very persuasive argument.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Only if you don’t care about the results. Because we are back to satisfaction does not always equal effectiveness.

You're still trying to argue for, or against something I am not talking about at all. And I'm not biting, so thanks again

 

[Buka]

I suppose people who do XMA or Modern Wushu would fall into this category. It is meant as a performance art.

But they are doing very different forms from traditional Kata or Chinese forms.

I agree. And I've known some wushu guys and gals in my day. I know a lot of martial people, know a lot of guys who do a lot of form work, I've watched them do so at their dojo. Man, it's a workout and a half. They do their forms with a sense of purpose, almost like they're angry and killing something with it.

They do look good doing them, but they don't seem to even know that, they're way too far into the internal aspects and I'd not want to stumble into their path. That would suck.