Different "families" of martial arts

[jks9199]

How about footwork, defensive techniques, escapes, etc?

Blocks are strikes or blows; escapes and counters are part of holds. Footwork ties it all together. Was on my phone earlier, and not conducive to lengthy typing.

So... let me break a couple arts down for examples. Boxing -- almost all strikes, but there's some holds (clinch work) and throws. Typical karate would be heavily strikes, with some holds and throws, too -- though that can change depending on how it's understood. Judo and aikido are most holds and throws, with some strikes. BJJ is heavily holds, some throws, and some striking. Realize that these are huge, broad categories, and, of course, individual practice can be different.

 

[Sami Ibrahim]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

My classification of martial arts is even more simplistic but it meets my needs. I place each school, instructor and practitioners in one of two categories depending on which of the two is a better fit (it is not always a perfect fit). My interest is in training in the warrior traditions that have yet to be fully bastardized for commercialization, the ones that have yet to be neatly packaged for world-wide distribution or fully transformed into a sport or a form of entertainment or become a bunch of parlor tricks. I am OK with Warrior traditions that have sports and entertainment components as long as the Warrior tradition its self is still in tact and still the primary focus of training.

1. Warrior & Warrior disciplines

2. Other Stuff

I don't divide the Martial Arts into grappling vs striking etc because my general rule of thumb (not always the case) the less bastardized Warrior disciplines will be more well rounded and by necessity cover all of the ranges and a wide range of weapons, they may also include a competitive component and an entertainment component but neither would be the focus, while the more bastardized they become the more neatly packaged and narrow the scope. You can have the same martial art, for example Jujutsu and you could be looking at a version still in tune with their warrior past to include training in armor, using weapons and blending striking and grappling methods or a version in which winning sports competitions has become the only focus. You could be learning a Karate that has you shirtless, blending striking and grappling methods and wide array of weapons and conditioning or one where everyone has on a uniform covered in patches with various colored belts and emphasizing techniques to win a point tournament. So I don't lump all of any kind of martial art into one category but on a case by case bases as I encounter and examine it I will mentally classify it as true to the warrior ways or place it in the other stuff category.

 

[thanson02]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

I have seen this breakdown and it works. Like others, I would throw throwing in with grappling since you need to grab someone to throw them. I would also add Weapons and Hybrid/Mixed systems to the list. Weapons would include Kendo/Kumdo, Haidong Gumdo, Kali, etc. In Hybrid, I would put Hapkido, Kuk Sool Won, Hwa Rang Do, etc.

You can also break it down by country, traditional vs sport, or any other way that makes sense to you.

 

[Reedone816]

Sometimes it lost in students, for example this student prefer striking than grappling while other like to grapple more than striking. Several generations pass, those of the same root becomes two different arts looked from the outside.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sometimes it lost in students, for example this student prefer striking than grappling while other like to grapple more than striking. Several generations pass, those of the same root becomes two different arts looked from the outside.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk

To me, that's almost an ideal situation - having two students take the same art in two completely different directions. If the two branches continue to respect each other, it prevents some of the dogma that can happen over time.

 

[Reedone816]

Yes, that is why when the student already reach a certain level of unstanding, we usually ordered by our master to train at other lineage.
Just like other master like to send their student to train with us.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk

 

[Buka]

To me - this is a complicated question, in that it (The Arts) can be categorized in a lot of different ways. At least in my foolish head.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I like that terminology, Tony. It's a much better grouping, in my mind, than the difference between "ground grappling" and "standing grappling".

I actually got that from Ellis Amdur. He requires potential students of his branch of Araki Ryu to have a background (at least 6 months) in some form of body-to-body grappling like BJJ, Greco-Roman, Sumo, etc before starting Araki Ryu. (And to continue that training after starting Araki Ryu) He says the body dynamics of that sort of grappling fit with his Ryu, while arms-length grappling does not.

 

[Rabbitthekitten]

Thanks for all your input. This has been a really interesting read.

 

[Flying Crane]

My classification of martial arts is even more simplistic but it meets my needs. I place each school, instructor and practitioners in one of two categories depending on which of the two is a better fit (it is not always a perfect fit). My interest is in training in the warrior traditions that have yet to be fully bastardized for commercialization, the ones that have yet to be neatly packaged for world-wide distribution or fully transformed into a sport or a form of entertainment or become a bunch of parlor tricks. I am OK with Warrior traditions that have sports and entertainment components as long as the Warrior tradition its self is still in tact and still the primary focus of training.

1. Warrior & Warrior disciplines

2. Other Stuff

I don't divide the Martial Arts into grappling vs striking etc because my general rule of thumb (not always the case) the less bastardized Warrior disciplines will be more well rounded and by necessity cover all of the ranges and a wide range of weapons, they may also include a competitive component and an entertainment component but neither would be the focus, while the more bastardized they become the more neatly packaged and narrow the scope. You can have the same martial art, for example Jujutsu and you could be looking at a version still in tune with their warrior past to include training in armor, using weapons and blending striking and grappling methods or a version in which winning sports competitions has become the only focus. You could be learning a Karate that has you shirtless, blending striking and grappling methods and wide array of weapons and conditioning or one where everyone has on a uniform covered in patches with various colored belts and emphasizing techniques to win a point tournament. So I don't lump all of any kind of martial art into one category but on a case by case bases as I encounter and examine it I will mentally classify it as true to the warrior ways or place it in the other stuff category.

You...BASTARD!!!

 

[Kong Soo Do]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

Yes, the list could be simplistic. And depending on the art in question it could also be inaccurate to a degree. For example, karate. Is it a striking art? Yes, but it is also a a grappling art, joint locks, throws, cavity pressing and weapons. Some may teach it only as a striking art, but the art itself can (and does) contain quite a bit more. Taekwondo is another example. Often thought of as a striking art and in 99% of the cases that is correct. But there is a circle of instructors that teach TKD in such a way that you'd think you're looking at Hapkido. In other words, it contains joint locks and throws. Not as a casual add-on but as a front-line foundation. And why not, TKD is based on karate which has all of those elements.

Just a thought or two to toss into the mix.

 

[JR 137]

I split them into two very distinct categories...

Dojos that suck
Dojos that don't suck

Way too much crossover any other way. Way too many people doing drastically different things within a single art and emphasizing different aspects to categorize an individual art.

Every "grappling" art has striking (some teachers don't teach it), and every "striking" art has grappling (again, some teachers don't teach it).

There's great and awful examples/dojos of every art out there. And degrees of great and awful. I'd rather train with adults in a "lesser art" that hit hard and train hard than with a bunch of kids playing tag lead by an incompetent teacher in a "better" art. But that's just me.

Only way to truly classify them is dojos that suck and dojos that don't. Everyone's idea of what sucks is obviously different though.

 

[Steve]

Similar to @JR 137 above, I do mentally sort styles, and also individual martial artists, into "drank the kool aid" or not.

 

[Buka]

I split them into two very distinct categories...

Dojos that suck
Dojos that don't suck

Way too much crossover any other way. Way too many people doing drastically different things within a single art and emphasizing different aspects to categorize an individual art.

Every "grappling" art has striking (some teachers don't teach it), and every "striking" art has grappling (again, some teachers don't teach it).

There's great and awful examples/dojos of every art out there. And degrees of great and awful. I'd rather train with adults in a "lesser art" that hit hard and train hard than with a bunch of kids playing tag lead by an incompetent teacher in a "better" art. But that's just me.

Only way to truly classify them is dojos that suck and dojos that don't. Everyone's idea of what sucks is obviously different though.

Similar to @JR 137 above, I do mentally sort styles, and also individual martial artists, into "drank the kool aid" or not.

I think we all profile to some extent. (who, us, on MT? Nah!)

I always used to mentally sort by "I wish they would come down and play" and "I don't think they would enjoy it much" and it had nothing to do with being tough or any other such nonsense.

Nowadays, I tend to sort by nifty gis. Hey, I can do that, I like nifty gis. Don't wear one, but I like them.

I also sort by what would work with what I'm doing at any particular time. Boxing and Aikido wouldn't work right now for me, but maybe it would later. (again later, not never later)