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

[Supra Vijai]

There's a thread in the Aikido forums discussing what a fight would look like between 2 Aikidoka and also Aikidoka vs other styles, it was agreed that a real fight between 2 Aikidoka would go something like this: 2 Aikidoka enter the ring, bow, then leave.

Apples to Oranges was a great analogy used before. That said, seeing 2 opponents from different styles spar can be fun and very educational. I know I learn a few things when sparring with someone at KM who has a different background and likewise they learn from me but in the end neither is better and the number of 'wins' is fairly equal (assuming same level or experience with MA). Size doesn't factor into it as much neither does strength or weight because that's what the old techs were all about, utilizing what you have to defeat an opponent of all shapes and sizes.

Also the biggest issue with crossing styles is going to be the different rules. A Judo player will have their set of rules in their mind whereas an MMA guy would have his own. To have a truly fair contest you would need to design a whole new set of rules that doesn't favour one or the other and still manage to keep the match meaningful. In terms of different wrestling styles an example that was given to me a while ago by my instructor was: In Olympic wrestling you win if the opponents back touches the ground so when taken down you will try stay on your side or front as much as possible. In MMA you want to be on your back and have them in your guard so you can block/parry/attack/submit etc. If you get them both into a match, the MMA guy will say he wins in that situation because the opponent is on their front allowing a choke or submission but the Greco Roman wrestling guy will say he's managed to stay on his front so he hasn't lost. See the issue?

 

[jks9199]

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?

No, because there was also a change in rules. The rules that John Sullivan and others fought under weren't the same as today's rules; they were much closer to modern MMA than modern boxing. One of our members (who escapes me for the moment) has several excellent articles about how things changed as the rules changed.

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.

For kickboxing, Muay Thai is superior to boxing. But put the same gloves on, limit the targets to the front of the upper body and head, and you'll find them about the same, I suspect. A Golden Gloves boxer going up against a comparably skilled Thai boxer under Muay Thai rules will probably get his *** handed to him, unless he really prepares for the specifics of the fight. Do it under US Amateur Boxing rules, and I'd say the events stacked in the boxer's corner. Comparing sporting martial arts is easy -- but you have to hold them to the same rules. Comparing arts for real combat is different...

When you look at any hand to hand or DT training, whether it's a formal martial arts class, a self defense course, or a LE/Military Defensive Tactics program, you're asking a different question -- which does it bring us back to the OP's question, in a roundabout way. Rory Miller summed up a good tool for assessment:

I agree completely, but (and I was thinking about something/somebody specific) sometimes you get incredible insight into becoming more efficient at things that don’t work. Thinks that have no tactical application.
And that was my blindspot. US Marshal Jones said that in order for a technique to be valid it must have three elements. The list now has four, so I must have added one and I’m not sure which it was:
· Anything you teach must have a tactical use. Reholstering quickly doesn’t have a tactical use. Outside of handcuffing, breaking a turtle (the judo guys know what I mean) not only has no self-defense use but there’s no way to do it without being the bad guy, legally.
· It must work moving or standing still. If you can’t hit hard when both you and the threat are moving, you can’t hit hard. If you can’t put a bullet on target on a moving target while you, yourself are moving, for all tactical purposes you can’t shoot.
· It must work whether you can see or not (and this is likely the one I added, because JJ is primarily a shooter and there are lots of shooting skills that rely on sight… but at the same time he insisted that everything except target acquisition be done by touch.)
· The technique must work when you are scared, under an adrenaline dump. If the technique needs a clear head and pinpoint precision to work, it doesn’t work.

These are classic, and I apply them to my training…but I am training for things. For very specific things. Not just one thing, either. Getting out of a place alive when things go to **** is a different skill than handcuffing. It’s also a different problem armed than it is unarmed. But the skills and training always serve the goals.

​

To reiterate: One way to determine if a given art or technique is combat effective, ask yourself 4 questions;

1. Does it serve a tactical purpose?
2. Does it rely on either being able to move -- or being unable to move?
3. Will it work in conditions where you can't see clearly?
4. Will it work when you're not at optimal -- in the adrenaline dump, when you're exhausted, or hurt, or whatever moves you out of ideal?

When you look at an art -- look at more than one technique. Are the tactics designed for the battlefield you're preparing to face? A tanker today probably isn't well served by studying even the best manual or treatise on tactics for 18th century set-piece battles, or even WWI trench warfare. The tactics being used by the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for house clearing don't work and aren't applicable to LE here in the US. Different rules... different missions... different tactics. Civilian self-defense is different than LE arrest and control.

Look at how the art trains, too. Is it recognizing real situations -- or does it require mats and no obstructions? Is it built around attacks that are likely? Does the training put the practitioners at controlled risk? (If not -- how are they really preparing for actual attacks? Ever seen people practice "self defense" with attacks that never enter into range?)

Something else I'll throw in, since the "100 vs 130 techs" argument was pulled... There's a point where too many choices and too many options can lead to paralysis. Most of the folks I know with real experience facing real violence pare their training down to the fewest and simplest responses that handle the most threats. I move forward, off the line, covering. Everything else is built from that. If you're in the way; I go through you, or I move you. Bruce Lee is quoted as saying that he "didn't fear the man who knows a thousand punches; I fear the man who practiced one punch a thousand times."

Any art can be effective in handling real violence. Some arts most certainly are closer to being effective than others -- if trained with that emphasis. But in the end, it's not the art -- it's how it's trained.

 

[Supra Vijai]

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.

I'm still reading that as it comes down to the practitioner For instance with Ninjutsu, how the Bujinkan train is different to how the Genbukan train if I'm not wrong and that's different to how we train. Different attitudes and approaches to the one art. Plus the instructors' persoanlity and other experience would come into play as you said. I think you've also mentioned in the past that you've covered a range of weapons in different arts but found some to be more adaptable to todays environment etc. In the context of the particular art though, it would be highly appropriate and adequate I would think?

 

[fangjian]

I'll see if I can simplify it even more. If I have a boxing style that only has straight punches and I face a boxing style that has straight punches and hooking punches? I am at a disadvantage.


Is this not a relevant way to ask the question?

-It's why we add new stuff to our curriculums. To get an 'edge'.

 

[oaktree]

I'll see if I can simplify it even more. If I have a boxing style that only has straight punches and I face a boxing style that has straight punches and hooking punches? I am at a disadvantage.


Is this not a relevant way to ask the question?

-It's why we add new stuff to our curriculums. To get an 'edge'.

Its very general. Lets say someone thinks they have the advantage and throws hooks you could duck and throw plenty of straight leads into the mid-section.
If you have good timing you could bob and weave and make him overshoot the hook leaving a nice opening.

Just because you have more than one technique does not mean you are at an advantage. Fighting is about outsmarting your opponent, looking for openings,explotation of your opponents weakness.
Many people think Wing Chun is inferior again it depends on the person and the training involved. Just because your experience or my experience tells us one thing does not make it the absolute experiences for all others.

Have a wonderful night. :wavey:

 

[MJS]

Its very general. Lets say someone thinks they have the advantage and throws hooks you could duck and throw plenty of straight leads into the mid-section.
If you have good timing you could bob and weave and make him overshoot the hook leaving a nice opening.

Just because you have more than one technique does not mean you are at an advantage. Fighting is about outsmarting your opponent, looking for openings,explotation of your opponents weakness.
Many people think Wing Chun is inferior again it depends on the person and the training involved. Just because your experience or my experience tells us one thing does not make it the absolute experiences for all others.

Have a wonderful night. :wavey:

Good points. Its funny, because many times, when I'm working techs., I tend to find myself repeating specific defenses for a particular attack. Now, I have numerous right punch defenses, yet why is it I fall back on the same one?

Your post also got me thinking about Bill Wallace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Wallace_(martial_arts)

"He was known for his fast left leg kicks,[5] especially his roundhouse kick and his hook kick, which was clocked at about 60 mph.[4] He focused on his left leg due the Judo-related injury to his right knee, using the right leg primarily as a base."

So here you have a guy who used 1 leg, had 2 bread and butter kicks, and constantly scored with them.

 

[MJS]

I'm still reading that as it comes down to the practitioner For instance with Ninjutsu, how the Bujinkan train is different to how the Genbukan train if I'm not wrong and that's different to how we train. Different attitudes and approaches to the one art. Plus the instructors' persoanlity and other experience would come into play as you said. I think you've also mentioned in the past that you've covered a range of weapons in different arts but found some to be more adaptable to todays environment etc. In the context of the particular art though, it would be highly appropriate and adequate I would think?

Yup, thats primarily my stand on this. Yes, I've looked at different arts, and have adapted my training accordingly. Yet others in Kenpo dont agree with that line of thinking. This is all fine of course, but I think it goes to show that its the person more than the art.

 

[K831]

To reiterate: One way to determine if a given art or technique is combat effective, ask yourself 4 questions;

1. Does it serve a tactical purpose?
2. Does it rely on either being able to move -- or being unable to move?
3. Will it work in conditions where you can't see clearly?
4. Will it work when you're not at optimal -- in the adrenaline dump, when you're exhausted, or hurt, or whatever moves you out of ideal?

When you look at an art -- look at more than one technique. Are the tactics designed for the battlefield you're preparing to face? Civilian self-defense is different than LE arrest and control.

Look at how the art trains, too. Is it recognizing real situations -- or does it require mats and no obstructions? Is it built around attacks that are likely? Does the training put the practitioners at controlled risk? (If not -- how are they really preparing for actual attacks? Ever seen people practice "self defense" with attacks that never enter into range?)

Something else I'll throw in, since the "100 vs 130 techs" argument was pulled... There's a point where too many choices and too many options can lead to paralysis. Most of the folks I know with real experience facing real violence pare their training down to the fewest and simplest responses that handle the most threats. I move forward, off the line, covering. Everything else is built from that. If you're in the way; I go through you, or I move you. Bruce Lee is quoted as saying that he "didn't fear the man who knows a thousand punches; I fear the man who practiced one punch a thousand times."

Any art can be effective in handling real violence. Some arts most certainly are closer to being effective than others -- if trained with that emphasis. But in the end, it's not the art -- it's how it's trained.

Great response, the only part I am not sure I agree with is the Bruce Lee quote... pretty sure it was kicks, not punches.

Seriously though, the list 1-4 is pretty good. I remember when I tested with the police department, looking at all the gear (boots, duty belt, chest rig etc) and thinking, wow, I'm glad I moved from a school/style that focused on high kicks and spinning moves to Kenpo. Hard and unrealistic to jump and kick in all that gear. How well the style fits a realistic situation (when its dark, your tired or hurt or scared) and what tactics drive its techniques is pretty key.

Agreed that how the art trains and whether or not it uses real situations is key too. However, this is part art, and again, part instructor.

On the subject of "analysis paralysis"... I couldn't agree more. This has always been my main frustration with Kenpo. I love the art, but too many techniques, forms etc. The simplicity and streamlined approach of Krav or Kali with the mechanics of Kenpo. There we go!

Anyhow, great response.

As to the topic of style 1 vs style 2 - yes, I believe some styles are better than others for all purpose real life SD, however, that is all negated by the right (or wrong) instructor.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think even more important than anything else is finding a way to stick with your training. (irregardless of what it is) To many people start training then stop mostly never to return. Some people train, stop, train, stop, train always getting a little skill and then because they stop it diminishes and they start over again. Instead by finding someone that is good and also is teaching what you are looking for you can train and continue to train and get better over time and keep your skills because you are training! Instead of being that guy/gal in a conversation who "use to" train whose skills are relatively gone at this point!

Taking the above in consideration it is important to find some thing that you like, train in, can understand and have faith in your training and finally let go and let your training come forth in a violent encounter where you have to protect yourself or your loved ones! That part is the hard part! :shrug:

If combative or personal protection is what you are looking for there are lot's of systems that may work for you. However, in the end you either have it or you don't! It does boil eventually on you being able to make your training work!

 

[Xue Sheng]

'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.

Thanks for the answer.

You do realize that what the Chinese Government teaches their Military and police is also called Sanshou don't you?

And it is very VERY different from what you see in the ring

 

[clfsean]

'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.

Funny choice... I happen to know one of the coaches of the Zhejiang team from Hangzhou. Met him years back & learned xingyi from him.

He's paid by day to teach wushu at the university & for the team the modern stuff that he has to. At night, he teaches the police in Hangzhou the stuff he learned as a kid & other TMA styles.

Chances are the sport sanda guys wouldn't exactly know what to do with him.

 

[fangjian]

Thanks for the answer.

You do realize that what the Chinese Government teaches their Military and police is also called Sanshou don't you?

And it is very VERY different from what you see in the ring

Well I know that sanshou is the word that is used to generally refer to any free sparring, so that doesn't surprise me.
I can't say I am aware of what they teach there. I assume all the different units would get different types of training depending on what their specialty is. I was in the US Army for about 10 years. I learned about zero hand to hand skills. It was all about 'basic' CQB. Now they got a lot of great stuff for hand to hand for many different MOS's.

I'd love to see what they teach to their soldiers/LE and where they draw their techniques from. Sport SanShou? Traditional BaJi?

 

[clfsean]

Well I know that sanshou is the word that is used to generally refer to any free sparring, so that doesn't surprise me.
I can't say I am aware of what they teach there. I assume all the different units would get different types of training depending on what their specialty is. I was in the US Army for about 10 years. I learned about zero hand to hand skills. It was all about 'basic' CQB. Now they got a lot of great stuff for hand to hand for many different MOS's.

I'd love to see what they teach to their soldiers/LE and where they draw their techniques from. Sport SanShou? Traditional BaJi?

Gung Lik Kuen, Ying Yi Kuen Ng Ying, San Da... smidgets of everything they have available really. Things that are easy & quick to digest with effectiveness.

 

[Flying Crane]

It is ludicrous to suggest that all martial arts styles are equal.

I couldn't be bothered to read thru the entire thread so I apologize if this has already been asked.

Fangjian, since you feel so strongly about this, could you give us a list of methods that you feel are objectively superior, and a list of methods that you feel are objectively inferior? And maybe some reasons why you think so?

 

[Flying Crane]

-It's why we add new stuff to our curriculums. To get an 'edge'.

maybe. It could also be because you don't really understand how to use what you have and you are on a quest for a magic bullet that doesn't exist. You'll have to decide for yourself what your reasons are.

 

[fangjian]

I couldn't be bothered to read thru the entire thread so I apologize if this has already been asked.

I hate when that happens. Sometimes I wanna respond to a certain question or comment, but I don't wanna' read through 22 pages of a thread. lolz

Fangjian, since you feel so strongly about this, could you give us a list of methods that you feel are objectively superior, and a list of methods that you feel are objectively inferior? And maybe some reasons why you think so?

Well, when I use the word ' style ', let's say that all I mean is a 'body of techniques and methodologies' that a 'school' adheres to. Now let's say that I have a system of fighting that uses the techniques: Hook punches, Uppercuts, Overhands, and no defense besides just 'putting your arms up in a basic 'shell'. The rules?: Only striking with the fists and no, let's say 'dirty tricks'.

Now let's say a new system evolves some time after that uses all of the same techniques of our old system but also now uses: straight punches, 8 different kinds of kicks, complex footwork, parrying, methods of bating, intricate combinations, etc. Also the rules are less strict. Allows use of kicks, elbows, clinch work etc.

All I am saying is that it seems reasonable that our newly evolved system is superior to the old one. Is it possible that someone from the old system can win? Of course!!! But his/her chances are not as good ( in ALL scenarios ). That doesn't seem unreasonable.

maybe. It could also be because you don't really understand how to use what you have and you are on a quest for a magic bullet that doesn't exist. You'll have to decide for yourself what your reasons are.

I understand SOME of what I have. I know it makes me sound arrogant to say 'some styles are superior/inferior'. I KNOW. But it just seems like an observation of reality to me.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I think you can find cases of every MA having a practitioner that used it to defend him/herself. Under that condition all MA are valid.

I just pointed out in another thread you started that tactics and strategy determine the effectivness of the techniques that are used. many MA have a wrist lock, how and when they apply that wrist lock is what makes them different and their differing philosophies would decide whether such a technique is appropriate for them in the first place.

 

[fangjian]

I think you can find cases of every MA having a practitioner that used it to defend him/herself. Under that condition all MA are valid.

Yes I am aware that all MA are 'valid'. But that doesn't mean they are all 'equal'

I just pointed out in another thread you started that tactics and strategy determine the effectivness of the techniques that are used. many MA have a wrist lock, how and when they apply that wrist lock is what makes them different and their differing philosophies would decide whether such a technique is appropriate for them in the first place.

Wristlocks. I have landed a few wristlocks from Chin Na on a few BJJ'rs. Which was totally awesome, btw!!! hehe

Let's have a style of martial arts and call it Bjj. Now lets say someone 'masters' all of the stuff in their 'curriculum'. Then he/she adds tons and tons of chin na ( plus let's say tons of catch as catch can too) that they incorporated into ground fighting and called their style '..ummmmm Ecuadorian Jiu Jitsu Ejj. Wouldn't the Ejjr's have a huge edge?

 

[Aiki Lee]

Sorry. I practice only JMA, i don't really know what Chin na is.

I believe I understand your thought behind the more is better arguement. After all my martial art practices striking, grappling, groundfighting, classical and modern weapons, multiple attackers and de-escalation. But it is not the techniques that matter here, it is how well one can apply the principles of the art in a different situation.

Some martial arts have principles that do not work well with the principles of another system. Neither is better just different and it comes down to taste. The question shouldn't be "what is the more effective art?" it should be "what is effective for me?"

I think you are missing clfsean's point about apples and oranges. You say arts aren't equal. He is basically saying the same but for a different reason. You basically say an art can be inferior (1 does not equal 2, because 1< 2) Clfsean, I believe is saying arts are not inferior because they are not meant for the same thing (1 does not equal "A" because "A" is not a number) I agree with this second approach.

Adding techniques does not make a person more effective. If a boxer spends time practicing punching only, and fights a person with both various striking and grappling abilities it doesn't matter how many different things they know, what matters is how well the person is trained at what he will do during the fight. Whichever fighter has the better strategy will set up his technique better. It doesn't matter how many techniques you know, what matters is how well you apply what you know.

That's why you can't really compare some martial arts

By the way Clifsean, if I am misinterpreting you please correct me.

 

[fangjian]

I believe I understand your thought behind the more is better arguement. After all my martial art practices striking, grappling, groundfighting, classical and modern weapons, multiple attackers and de-escalation. But it is not the techniques that matter here, it is how well one can apply the principles of the art in a different situation.

Not necessarily 'more' is better either. It could be that 'less' (bs) is better.

Ok you sound like you have a good curriculum where you are. Let's say you know everything I do. But you know what? I don't train or teach for 'multiple attackers'. I've addressed it a couple times. I've thought about doing it at my place, but just never got around to it. ( which is true, btw hehe)
But all other things being equal, and you having everything I have. These added methods of dealing with multiple attacker, I would consider your style superior to mine. Is this not reasonable, Himura san?