Combat proven martial arts. What are the top real world effective arts?

[Supra Vijai]

Here in lies the problem with threads such as these. You said "Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you ready for comps". A statement like this insinuates that ALL tkd clubs focus on sport bcause it is an art designed for competition, which couldnt be further from the truth. SPORT tkd clubs focus on the sport, martial arts tkd clubs focus on the martial side. The problem with so many martial arts discussions is that there are too many generalisations. A martial arts effectiveness comes down to the way its taught and the practitioner learning it. Ive seen too many martial artists from so many different arts kick *** on the 'street' to ever dismiss one of them as useless. Train in any art, make sure you get a good instructor and if "real street effectiveness" is what you want find an instructor who specialises in that form of the art. Enjoying what you do is a big part of getting good at it so find one you have fun doing.

Allow me to apologise, I missed the word sport and didn't pick up on it when I went back to edit another typo. I wasn't implying all TKD schools are the same. In fact I say as much in my last paragraph that a well trained TKD practitioner could do a lot more damage in a street fight than someone with a week or so of training in the "most combative" art on the planet which is designed to kick ***. Simple reason being discipline, years of training means the TKD practitioner will have things in muscle memory that the untrained street fighter with a shorter time training.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Allow me to apologise, I missed the word sport and didn't pick up on it when I went back to edit another typo. I wasn't implying all TKD schools are the same. In fact I say as much in my last paragraph that a well trained TKD practitioner could do a lot more damage in a street fight than someone with a week or so of training in the "most combative" art on the planet which is designed to kick ***. Simple reason being discipline, years of training means the TKD practitioner will have things in muscle memory that the untrained street fighter with a shorter time training.

No offence taken. I just felt the need to clarify that sometimes even within the one art there may be different 'aproaches' to training in so far as what they are trying to gain from it. I am no fan of olympic/sport tkd but had the opportunity to spar against a sport tkdist one time. I had absolutely no idea how quick those guys are, they could deadset kick you twice (and hard) before you would even realise you were in a fight. In saying that, its not aimed toward street effectiveness so other arts may benefit someone more if "the street" is what they were training for. The art itself is only the basic framework used for fighting, its a combination of instructor and student that can use that framework to its full potential.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, I think I'll jump in here...

I have trained in US Army Combatives, BJJ, Commando Krav Maga, and the Bujinkan. I am looking for a combat proven martial arts for winning an altercation. I am considering a move away from the Bujinkan system for the same reason that I moved away from Commando Krav Maga... the fact that its not proven to be real.

What styles have evolved through what worked in combat? I dont like competition based arts and want one that will end the fight with no rules.

First things first, Kip, you've been through this with us before.

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89388

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1313295#post1313295 (especially post #10)

and even http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89440

The next thing to address is that you don't seem to understand what you are asking for. Something that is "battle-tested", or has "survived hundreds of years" through combat doesn't necessarily make something in any way applicable to a modern self defence encounter. It depends on how it is trained. After all, there are plenty of old warrior traditions that have little to no place or relation to modern combat, whether street violence or a modern battlefield.

When it comes to looking for a "battle proven" system, unless you are looking for an old system that was proven on a battlefield unrelated to the one you may potentially face, you won't find one. The modern "testing ground" is combative themed sports, so if you are eschewing sporting systems, and older systems unrelated to your needs are also out, what will be left for you?

That also brings us to the concept of exactly what these old systems actually are, in terms of "battle proven", but I'm going to address that more in your other Ninjutsu thread. Suffice to say that you've misunderstood the very nature of these arts there. Honestly, the best advice you were given was the advice to visit rough bars and pick fights. But it's also not that practical.

I would ask how often you are in such potentially lethal, violent encounters to cause this to weigh so heavily on your mind? The way it reads from here is that your head is filled with fantasy and paranoia when it comes to violence here, and are looking for a magic technique that will make you unstoppable in three easy lessons.... and that doesn't exist outside of the movies.

I want to survive a modern street attack. Guns, knives, improvised weapons, multi attackers, etc. I went to a firearms school where the contractors for overseas jobs go. I know the laws but when it goes down I want to come out on top first and foremost. There has to be an art that would work better than others in a no rules no laws street defensive situation.

I am interested in the most effective techniques possible. Eye jabs, groin strikes, knee breaks, everything illegal in a competition that keeps you alive on the street...

The above post is what I'm refering to here. If you know the laws, then you know that there is no such thing as a "no laws defensive situation". You are asking for a movie fantasy. Eye jabs are not the most effective techniques possible. Groin strikes are not the most effective techniques possible. There are no such things as the most effective techniques possible, as it comes down to the situation itself.

All I am saying is, some martial arts styles are based quite a bit on pseudoscience and non evidence based 'techniques', rendering them inferior to the styles that have evolved and discarded techniques that are ineffective or less effective.

This is true.

Hmm, actually, I'd disagree with that straight out of hand. It is not true. All martial arts that I have ever come across have very real basis' in their approaches, what those approaches are for varies, though.

Oh, but for the record, I don't count such modern fantasy-based "systems" as the modern "koga ninjitsu", "combat ki", and so on as martial arts in this definition. They are martial fantasies. Your hypothetical Jon Kwon Do fits into this category, rather than martial arts. For them to be martial arts requires this practical basis in the first place.

Many things have stuck around for a long time that are pseudoscientific. Just 'cause there old doesn't mean they're true. Since astrology has been in the mix here. Look at that one. It's still around and about 30% of Americans think it's valid

The problem with this comment is that it is specifically the older systems that have far more basis in reality, what would be considered actual scientific principles, such as leverage, weight transference, efficacy of movement, power generation, and so on guiding them through their approaches, it's the modern made up systems that don't. Dismissing older systems as potentially "pseudo-scientific" lacks support.

 

[oaktree]

hehehe. Funny, but NO. It is not just how you train. But WHAT you are training. Like the astrology/alchemy etc. analogy. Yeah you can bust your *** for a couple decades studying these disciplines but ONE semester of a REAL science will get you further than what is possible with the others.

It will APPEAR as magical. But the placebo effect is so strong. You say you won't 'rule out' it's possibility'. You also can't rule out the 'possible' existence of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, leprechauns, ................, but there's absolutely no reason to believe in such things.

Regarding Oaktree's question. ( I am very sorry to answer a question with a question but) Are there martial arts styles that exist that do not have an type of sparring. I'm talking no tuishou, chisao, sanshou...............? I think the answer is 'yes'. So I would regard these styles' fighting technique about as relevant as learning 'american football'.
Sure, well it's not 'useless'. I mean you got in pretty good shape, learned how to condition your body a little bit, I guess. But as far as 'fighting ability' ?

Its ok to ask a question with a question.
Define sparing please. I am guessing any type of resistance or pressure testing a technique. Plenty of arts that do not engage in sport like sparing but they still train with aliveness. I do not know every single martial art most likely no one does and I can not prove a negative the negative being prove a non martial art martial art exist.

However you brought up that one does exist so please share with us which arts.

I also asked you to cite particular styles. You stated certain styles of Taijiquan. Since you or your school teaches Taijiquan(which you did not list as a self defense) do you not teach it with martial application? Which family styles of Taijiquan does not have martial application or is useless? What other styles are useless and why.

 

[fangjian]

Its ok to ask a question with a question.
Define sparing please. I am guessing any type of resistance or pressure testing a technique. Plenty of arts that do not engage in sport like sparing but they still train with aliveness. I do not know every single martial art most likely no one does and I can not prove a negative the negative being prove a non martial art martial art exist.

However you brought up that one does exist so please share with us which arts.

I also asked you to cite particular styles. You stated certain styles of Taijiquan. Since you or your school teaches Taijiquan(which you did not list as a self defense) do you not teach it with martial application? Which family styles of Taijiquan does not have martial application or is useless? What other styles are useless and why.

Yes, Sparring= pressure testing Chi sao, 'rolling', etc..
I have trained in many different styles of wushu, arnis, aikido, jiujitsu, etc. and some of them do no type of pressure testing. OR, their 'pressure testing' is really let's say, 'outdated'. Not just taijiquan. I do not teach tuishou. I mostly teach tajiquan for performance/exorcize etc. However, I do teach some martial applications of the postures for fun.

And since everyone wants me to 'name styles' so bad. I will use two popular ones since we're all familiar. I am curious. Tae Kwon Do v. Muay Thai A 'style' of martial art is a 'curriculum of techniques'. Some techniques are better than others. This is a fact. I am obviously not an expert but as far as 'kickboxing' goes, my observations of reality tell me that MT has a more effective curriculum of techniques than TKD. Higher percentage, lower risk. I think that is part of the reason that Kyokushin in it's present form, exists today. They realized that another style had superior techniques, and adjusted their style accordingly. I would also assume that bjj styles that incorporate striking in their rolling probably have the best style of ground fighting in the world. I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident. This is through the transfer of knowledge and evolving techniques.

Chris Parker
Oh, but for the record, I don't count such modern fantasy-based "systems" as the modern "koga ninjitsu", "combat ki", and so on as martial arts in this definition. They are martial fantasies. Your hypothetical Jon Kwon Do fits into this category, rather than martial arts. For them to be martial arts requires this practical basis in the first place.

But a lot of these styles ARE considered 'martial arts'. I consider them to be. Some are just better than others.

Chris Parker
The problem with this comment is that it is specifically the older systems that have far more basis in reality, what would be considered actual scientific principles, such as leverage, weight transference, efficacy of movement, power generation, and so on guiding them through their approaches, it's the modern made up systems that don't. Dismissing older systems as potentially "pseudo-scientific" lacks support.

Sorry. I am not saying that 'old' things are potentially pseudo-scientific. I am saying that 'just because something is old doesn't mean it's true'.

 

[Twin Fist]

martial arts cannot be combat proven, only the martial artist can be.

anything else is a foolish waste of time thinking about

 

[oaktree]

Yes, Sparring= pressure testing Chi sao, 'rolling', etc..
I have trained in many different styles of wushu, arnis, aikido, jiujitsu, etc. and some of them do no type of pressure testing. OR, their 'pressure testing' is really let's say, 'outdated'. Not just taijiquan. I do not teach tuishou. I mostly teach tajiquan for performance/exorcize etc. However, I do teach some martial applications of the postures for fun.

If you do not teach Tuishou and just the form and little martial application are you really teaching Taijiquan or a type of Taijiquan dance. It is in some way kinda of hypocritical to say how Taijiquan styles are not very martial when you yourself are teaching it as more of a wushu routine than an actual martial art.

It is not the art that does not do the pressure testing it is the person teaching it that decides to do this. I mean you can pressure test all the styles you listed I have seen it and many on the boards have seen it. What I have seen is particular teachers refuse to pressure test,spar or what not because for what ever reason they don't but that in no way reflects the art as useless it just means that particular teacher within that particular art does not.

And since everyone wants me to 'name styles' so bad. I will use two popular ones since we're all familiar. I am curious. Tae Kwon Do v. Muay Thai A 'style' of martial art is a 'curriculum of techniques'. Some techniques are better than others. This is a fact. I am obviously not an expert but as far as 'kickboxing' goes, my observations of reality tell me that MT has a more effective curriculum of techniques than TKD. Higher percentage, lower risk.

if we use your logic then. A Taekwondo master vs a guy who started Muay Thai for 2 days well obviously the Taekwondo guy would win right? We are using style vs style.
Does that mean Muay Thai is not good no does this mean Taekwondo is superior no.
It simply means the person practicing the techniques is not able to use the techniques in a manner that provides proper execution.

What if another art defeats a high skill Muay Thai fighter does that mean that art is better? When some other art beats the fighter who beat the Muay Thai fighter does that mean that art is the supreme? What if a person who never took up a martial art beats a Muay thai figher does that mean all martial arts are useless? See how this arguement is a logic fallacy?

I would also assume that bjj styles that incorporate striking in their rolling probably have the best style of ground fighting in the world. I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident. This is through the transfer of knowledge and evolving techniques.

Sakaruba beat alot of the Gracies using Wrestling. Many wrestlers beat BJJ players does that make BJJ not effective? Does it mean Wrestling is more effective?
Shamrock used wrestling against Gracie and lost. See how again this arguement is a logic fallacy.

 

[fangjian]

If you do not teach Tuishou and just the form and little martial application are you really teaching Taijiquan or a type of Taijiquan dance. It is in some way kinda of hypocritical to say how Taijiquan styles are not very martial when you yourself are teaching it as more of a wushu routine than an actual martial art.

Yes I do not teach the tui shou. I also do not practice TKD or catch wrestling or Pekiti Tersia. However I can make observations.

It is not the art that does not do the pressure testing it is the person teaching it that decides to do this. I mean you can pressure test all the styles you listed I have seen it and many on the boards have seen it. What I have seen is particular teachers refuse to pressure test,spar or what not because for what ever reason they don't but that in no way reflects the art as useless it just means that particular teacher within that particular art does not.



if we use your logic then. A Taekwondo master vs a guy who started Muay Thai for 2 days well obviously the Taekwondo guy would win right? We are using style vs style.
Does that mean Muay Thai is not good no does this mean Taekwondo is superior no.
It simply means the person practicing the techniques is not able to use the techniques in a manner that provides proper execution.

What if another art defeats a high skill Muay Thai fighter does that mean that art is better? When some other art beats the fighter who beat the Muay Thai fighter does that mean that art is the supreme? What if a person who never took up a martial art beats a Muay thai figher does that mean all martial arts are useless? See how this arguement is a logic fallacy?

Sakaruba beat alot of the Gracies using Wrestling. Many wrestlers beat BJJ players does that make BJJ not effective? Does it mean Wrestling is more effective?
Shamrock used wrestling against Gracie and lost. See how again this arguement is a logic fallacy.

I am thinking that if 'style A' let's say has 100 techniques. 'Style B' has all of 'style A's 100 techniques and then adds let's say 30 more. 'Style B' has a significant advantage, no?

Also I'm NOT thinking about a veteran TKD guy vs. a 2 day Muay Thai guy. I'm thinking more like, ALL things being equal. ie. 5 years training-4 days/week, 170 lb, 5'8",

Also, it's not the end all for anything but, I think that statistics/evidence suggests the most important style to be proficient in for MMA is wrestling. Numbers don't tell the whole story. But they don't lie either.

 

[fangjian]

martial arts cannot be combat proven, only the martial artist can be.

anything else is a foolish waste of time thinking about

I have to disagree. Techniques and 'bodies of techniques' can be tested and observed. This is how martial arts come to be.

My hypothetical 'Jon Kwon Do' style I made up is absolutely inferior as a fighting/s.d. method as compared to other styles. I am surprised so many disagree with me on that. You can have all the heart in the world as a 'Jon Kwon Doist', and you can be tough as nails. But the training you received in 'Jon Kwon Do' is not up to par with other styles like MT or TKD.

 

[MJS]

As usual, MJS gave you a great answer. Just to expand on it; there are arts that better fit "combat proven" then others, or rather, have better kept with there combat proven history by continuing to adapt. I prefer the "K" arts personally (Kenpo/Kajukenbo/Kali/Krav Maga) and typically encourage people to start there for real SD application.

But I agree with MJS.. it is more about the instructor and the way they teach, train and run the school than it is about the style. Certain styles and systems may give and instructor more to work with or a better foundation, but thats it. I am a big American Kenpo and FMA fan. I have been in Kenpo schools and FMA schools that I would NEVER recommend to anyone who wanted real life self defense training. Same with Kaju and Krav... there are crappy schools run by crappy instructors, so even though I would consider the art combat proven, I wouldn't recommended the school.



Agreed. A lot of us can give you some good insight by looking over the website, what it says and how they market, watching videos if there are any etc... also, having been around a while, a lot of us will have a good idea of an instructor by seeing who he has trained with and where he is coming from. It's no guarantee, but may help narrow your search. Start with the "K" arts on google -put in some key words, and post what you find.

Good points. Thanks for expanding on that.

 

[oaktree]

Yes I do not teach the tui shou. I also do not practice TKD or catch wrestling or Pekiti Tersia. However I can make observations.



I am thinking that if 'style A' let's say has 100 techniques. 'Style B' has all of 'style A's 100 techniques and then adds let's say 30 more. 'Style B' has a significant advantage, no?

Also I'm NOT thinking about a veteran TKD guy vs. a 2 day Muay Thai guy. I'm thinking more like, ALL things being equal. ie. 5 years training-4 days/week, 170 lb, 5'8",

Also, it's not the end all for anything but, I think that statistics/evidence suggests the most important style to be proficient in for MMA is wrestling. Numbers don't tell the whole story. But they don't lie either.

You still have not answered the question about which family style of Taijiquan are ineffective. You do not teach tuishou yet those who do you deem ineffective then?
If style A has 100 techniques and Style B has all of the techniques of A and adds 30 more this just means it has 30 more than style A. It does not mean B has an advantage(except 30 more) or A is at a disadvantage it simply is a quantity issue.

Baguazhang has 8 basic palms Taijiquan has depending on counting 108 movements Xingyiquan has 5 element fist to say that one is better than the other simply on how many techniques is silly.


It is a logic fallacy to think that 2 people engaging in combat are equal in every way.
This would mean both would have to be equal height,weight,speed,power,experience and the big difference think exactly the same without any varation which would be impossible making your arguement about 2 fighters being equal logic fallacy.

Interesting how you were saying before that BJJ was the best

I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident

But then Sakaruba who does wrestling lost many times to BJJ practicers and many practicers of BJJ have lost to wrestlers. Helio Gracie lost to Kimura who did Judo.

The evidence shows its not about the art or techniques but it is the person who can see the way to apply the technique and make it work at that moment in time.

My hypothetical 'Jon Kwon Do' style I made up is absolutely inferior as a fighting/s.d. method as compared to other styles. I am surprised so many disagree with me on that. You can have all the heart in the world as a 'Jon Kwon Doist', and you can be tough as nails. But the training you received in 'Jon Kwon Do' is not up to par with other styles like MT or TKD.

Depends on what Jon Kwon Do is and how they train. 1.Jon Kwon Do sits around and punches air for 2 hours 2.Second Jon Kwon Do does full contact sparing,pressure tests techniques has resistance and real life scenerios. Both use the same techniques in the curriculum so its not the techniques in question or style its the methodology of applied techniques that makes it a successful art or not.

I suppose FangJian we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for letting me see things from your perspective.

 

[Supra Vijai]

However, I do teach some martial applications of the postures for fun.

Sorry but this is something that comes up a bit in our classes. You are training and teaching martial arts. Generally speaking, how to fight. Body movements, strikes, defences the whole works. If you are going to train/teach MA then do it because it means something and not "just for fun". Something like XMA is just for fun.

And since everyone wants me to 'name styles' so bad. I will use two popular ones since we're all familiar. I am curious. Tae Kwon Do v. Muay Thai A 'style' of martial art is a 'curriculum of techniques'. Some techniques are better than others. This is a fact. I am obviously not an expert but as far as 'kickboxing' goes, my observations of reality tell me that MT has a more effective curriculum of techniques than TKD. Higher percentage, lower risk. I think that is part of the reason that Kyokushin in it's present form, exists today. They realized that another style had superior techniques, and adjusted their style accordingly. I would also assume that bjj styles that incorporate striking in their rolling probably have the best style of ground fighting in the world. I bet if you took all ground fighting systems in the world and they all fought, the bjj guys would come out on top most of the time. It's no accident. This is through the transfer of knowledge and evolving techniques.

Actually I take the opinion that no technique is superior, every tech is equal as long as it's used in the right context. A kick to the head in a sport TKD match is appropriate but not so much in a street fight, a Muay Thai knee might be better. The applies in reverse too. Some techs from Muay Thai would work great in a Muay Thai ring but not a TKD floor. Also it really just comes down to the students, what's brilliant for me wouldn't necessarily work as well for you. I can't do kicks to the head, I get about shoulder height before I start to seriously lose balance but my stomping kicks are very very effective. One of my training partners can kick me in the head any day of the week but his stomps are weak and tend to deflect off the target. Doesn't make one kick "better" just better suited for the person using it. As for the BJJ guys winning most of the fights, yes on the ground which is their world with their rules you can't match them. Also they are amazingly fit and I have no doubt they can improvise like hell when they need to. But you can't use that to say BJJ is the ultimate art. No art is the ultimate art, it's just the best art for a particular person. So going round and round in circles, it still comes down to the student.

Oh and just as a quick reply to your other post about 100 techs vs 130 techs - the second style isn't necessarily better. You would need to look at why the first style sticks to 100 techs. Also if you can end a fight using one or two solid techs, why would you want to bother learning an extra 30 apart from a desire to get full transmission of the art? It's been said to death on several threads here there are only so many ways your body can move and hit. You'd be much better off going for the style that teaches you the principles and strategies behind the movements in a way that lets you apply tech 1 to situation 1 or situation 100 equally as opposed to attack a means response b etc. Especially when you're talking about street fighting like the OP wanted which has no rules and is chaotic and random at best. I don't personally want to stand there and run through a catalogue of techs I've been taught in my head while a punch or a broken bottle comes into my face

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yes some of those guys have done a little sanshou. And they learned 'sport sanshou' for a reason. Because they know that xiandai wushu - tao lu is inferior as a s.d. / fighting method of instruction. Some guys ONLY do tao lu performances. Are they 'martial artists'? I think so. Is their style inferior for fighting technique instruction? Yup.

okie dokie

Let me say this one more time

Not all flavors of Sanshou are equal. They all can fight.... but there not all equal

Now let me ask this for the third and final time

Again, what styles are you talking about?

If you do not answer I will assume you do not want to or you do not know but I will not ask agian so you do not need to worry about it popping up from me again

 

[fangjian]

You still have not answered the question about which family style of Taijiquan are ineffective. You do not teach tuishou yet those who do you deem ineffective then?
If style A has 100 techniques and Style B has all of the techniques of A and adds 30 more this just means it has 30 more than style A. It does not mean B has an advantage(except 30 more) or A is at a disadvantage it simply is a quantity issue.

Style B DEFINITELY has an advantage. I think that the history of western boxing shows this. All things (size, height, etc. ) being equal, the new techniques of bobbing, weaving, using jabs, was superior to the J. Sullivan style. The fighter with these new techniques has a HUGE advantage. Does that make sense?

Also, it is my opinion that Muay Thai is a superior fighting system to western boxing. I think that is a decent example as well. MT has more techniques, more ways of defeating the opponent, etc.
Regarding tui shou. Tuishou is very cool, but some schools, it's ALL they do. Some schools don't do it at all. I think it's great but also a bit limited. Through observation I would suggest that there are many other types of 'sparring' that are better, and may prepare a person for combat more effectively. I also did aikido for some time. Some of it is ok. But there are better methods found in other styles to prepare for combat. If you could run like a supercomputer 'holodeck' star trek technology simulation where you get a person who trains, let's say, 'sport san shou' (the style of liu Hailong so there's no confusion) and put it up against an aikidoka of the same experience, weight etc. , I would bet 99 times out of 100 the san shou guy would win.

Depends on what Jon Kwon Do is and how they train. 1.Jon Kwon Do sits around and punches air for 2 hours 2.Second Jon Kwon Do does full contact sparing,pressure tests techniques has resistance and real life scenerios. Both use the same techniques in the curriculum so its not the techniques in question or style its the methodology of applied techniques that makes it a successful art or not.

Yeah but Jon Kwon Do's techniques are high risk and low percentage moves. They're not as refined as other styles.

I suppose FangJian we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for letting me see things from your perspective.

Likewise. Please respond to this one though, if you have time.

 

[fangjian]

okie dokie

Let me say this one more time

Not all flavors of Sanshou are equal. They all can fight.... but there not all equal

Now let me ask this for the third and final time

Again, what styles are you talking about?

If you do not answer I will assume you do not want to or you do not know but I will not ask agian so you do not need to worry about it popping up from me again

'Sport San Shou'. Let's say the one they teach to the Zhejiang Wushu San Shou Team. I'd be willing to bet that their fighting system is superior to some other styles in the world, no? Whatever one you wanna 'insert here' - Villari karate style, combat ki style, idk.

You're right. They all are not equal. I know. That's what I've been trying to say.

 

[oaktree]

Style B DEFINITELY has an advantage. I think that the history of western boxing shows this. All things (size, height, etc. ) being equal, the new techniques of bobbing, weaving, using jabs, was superior to the J. Sullivan style. The fighter with these new techniques has a HUGE advantage. Does that make sense?

Also, it is my opinion that Muay Thai is a superior fighting system to western boxing. I think that is a decent example as well. MT has more techniques, more ways of defeating the opponent, etc.
Regarding tui shou. Tuishou is very cool, but some schools, it's ALL they do. Some schools don't do it at all. I think it's great but also a bit limited. Through observation I would suggest that there are many other types of 'sparring' that are better, and may prepare a person for combat more effectively. I also did aikido for some time. Some of it is ok. But there are better methods found in other styles to prepare for combat. If you could run like a supercomputer 'holodeck' star trek technology simulation where you get a person who trains, let's say, 'sport san shou' (the style of liu Hailong so there's no confusion) and put it up against an aikidoka of the same experience, weight etc. , I would bet 99 times out of 100 the san shou guy would win.

Yeah but Jon Kwon Do's techniques are high risk and low percentage moves. They're not as refined as other styles.
Likewise. Please respond to this one though, if you have time.

You are refering to Bare Knuckle boxing vs Gloved boxing? The rules of engagement were different. Punches thrown with gloves are thrown different then thrown bare knuckled.
Was one better than the other hard to say the rules for London Prize which did not wear gloves and had wrestling in it VS. QueenBerry which had gloves and no wrestling so its not very fair to say one is superior to the other.


But your arguement was if one style had all the techniques of a pervious style and modern boxing does not have all the techniques of bare knuckle because modern boxing does not wrestle.

Since BJJ comes from Judo it has most of the techniques of Judo. BJJ has more emphasis on Ground work but against Kosen Judo they are pretty even. Judo has more emphasis on throwing techniques even though BJJ does have it. It does not mean one is superior over the other just simply means one focuses more on one aspect more.

A Muay Thai fighter would have a hard time fighting under boxing rules same as a Boxer would have a hard time fighting under Muay Thai rules. If it is a street Brawl who knows One might get a lucky punch,slip fall one might use a weapon as you can see its never fair and equal.

Tuishou depends how hard you want to do it:
Here is Chen Bing doing Tuishou:

Tuishou is just one part of Taijiquan. Chen Xiaowang spoke about Chen Taijiquan and Sanshou with Taijiquan so you can see the martial aspects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqKHOg9DZfU&feature=related

Its all there.

Plenty of people who find Aikido to be great:

Aikido vs San shou who knows if the Aikidoka knows how to use Irimi,timing,space correctly then he may win if the San shou person knows how to close the gap and bring the person into a throw then maybe the San shou person wins who knows really. It depends on the 2 people involved. It may be also that on that particular day the one person wins but 2 weeks later for the match that person looses now.

I saw a video of a black belt in Kenpo loose a fight to a con with no martial experience got knocked out cold does this mean Kenpo is useless or that this person was either 1.not good at Kenpo or 2.the con was better at fighting then him.

Its not the techniques any technique can be useful if applied at the right time and place.
Thinking one technique is superior or inferior fails to grasp the concept of application.

I like to speak about Ninjutsu for a minute because they get alot of flack for not sparing in the general sense of the word. However there is nothing wrong with their technique the throws locks and strikes work if they are trained in a live manner and are applied in the right time and right place.

 

[fangjian]

Since BJJ comes from Judo it has most of the techniques of Judo. BJJ has more emphasis on Ground work but against Kosen Judo they are pretty even. Judo has more emphasis on throwing techniques even though BJJ does have it. It does not mean one is superior over the other just simply means one focuses more on one aspect more.

I'd like to stick with this for a minute. In my way of thinking, I would assume that if you run all possibilities ( like on the 'holodeck' ) , one style will outperform another consistently. I would assume that if you got all 'ground fighting systems' (Bjj, catch, harimau, kosen ...) to go through this exorcize, one would prove through probability to come out 'on top' more often. In all probabilities.

The same for all stand up styles ( Boxing, Muay Thai, Villari Karate, Kyusho Jitsu......) I I would imagine a few would come out on top more often.
You disagree?
Hope I am making myself clearer.

 

[fangjian]

@ Oak Tree

Thanks for the clips btw. You know it's funny. My best friend's a police officer. Out of all of the techniques I've ever shown him from Bjj, Aikido, Muay Thai, Wushu, Balintawak...... He always told me he uses 'Irimi Nage' the most.

I'd be interested to see a video of someone who is considered an expert in tuishou to have a clinch sparring session with other 'clinch ' styles ( Freestyle, Greco, some FMA etc....)

 

[oaktree]

I'd like to stick with this for a minute. In my way of thinking, I would assume that if you run all possibilities ( like on the 'holodeck' ) , one style will outperform another consistently. I would assume that if you got all 'ground fighting systems' (Bjj, catch, harimau, kosen ...) to go through this exorcize, one would prove through probability to come out 'on top' more often. In all probabilities.

The same for all stand up styles ( Boxing, Muay Thai, Villari Karate, Kyusho Jitsu......) I I would imagine a few would come out on top more often.
You disagree?
Hope I am making myself clearer.

But from what we have seen is that there is no one great style over the other.
We have seen Judo beat BJJ(Kimura vs Gracie) we have seen BJJ beat wrestling
(Gracie vs Shamrock) we have seen wrestling beat BJJ(Sakuraba vs Gracie)

Then it can go into strikers and Grapplers and we have seen each style win which in some way is why it is called MMA.

Stand up depends.
TKD VS Thai Boxing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siNuSax8uQU&feature=related
You can see both styles are great and both fighters are great too. As you can see it really depends on the person in the style.
We can find TKD who focus more on Olympic type fighting and we can find people who focus more on kickboxing for health. The techniques are there
but its how you train that makes the difference between them. So its not the style or techniques that matter but the person who uses them correctly for what ever purpose at hand.

 

[MJS]

As usual, MJS gave you a great answer. Just to expand on it; there are arts that better fit "combat proven" then others, or rather, have better kept with there combat proven history by continuing to adapt. I prefer the "K" arts personally (Kenpo/Kajukenbo/Kali/Krav Maga) and typically encourage people to start there for real SD application.

But I agree with MJS.. it is more about the instructor and the way they teach, train and run the school than it is about the style. Certain styles and systems may give and instructor more to work with or a better foundation, but thats it. I am a big American Kenpo and FMA fan. I have been in Kenpo schools and FMA schools that I would NEVER recommend to anyone who wanted real life self defense training. Same with Kaju and Krav... there are crappy schools run by crappy instructors, so even though I would consider the art combat proven, I wouldn't recommended the school.



Agreed. A lot of us can give you some good insight by looking over the website, what it says and how they market, watching videos if there are any etc... also, having been around a while, a lot of us will have a good idea of an instructor by seeing who he has trained with and where he is coming from. It's no guarantee, but may help narrow your search. Start with the "K" arts on google -put in some key words, and post what you find.

Whatever you do, don't by in to the "it's not the style that matters, it's the practitioner" mentality too much. It does have a little bit of truth, but some styles ARE better than others. This is a fact.

I'd disagree.

The instructor and training methods are much more important than the style. Some styles can be absorbed more quickly and thus be more likely to be effective more quickly but without the proper instruction -- they're still ineffective. Other styles may take years to be integrated into the body's movement, but once the student does do so -- watch out.

Just to expand on what I said to K831 earlier, and to touch on what JKS and fangjian said...I agree that some arts are better than others. For example...if I wanted to improve my knife skills, I'd most likely pick a FMA, instead of Kenpo or TKD or Shotokan. OTOH, is it possible that the Kenpo, TKD or Shotokan teacher realizes that the knife defenses suck and finds ways to improve them, without looking at another art, and staying within the confines of their art? I doubt every Kenpo teacher teaches the same.

If someone wanted to learn some quick, effective things, I'd probably suggest something like KM. Why? No kata, no forms, just the barebones stuff. Could someone who does Kenpo, do the same thing? I'd say yes. I should be able to take the art, strip it down, and teach someone how to defend themselves, in a relatively short amount of time, less the kata, weapons forms, etc. That being said, thats why I said its how the art is trained. Some people perfer to train with little to no contact, some prefer to train with lots of contact. Some offer no resistance and stand there like a limp dummy when doing techs, others add resistance and aliveness. Same art, two different ways of training it.