Is there an effective beginner friendly martial art that fits my mentality?

[mograph]

Does it cost anything to walk in and observe?

It would be a rare (and obnoxious) school that would charge you to observe, IMO.
However, it's best to respect their space, walk in well before class starts, and ask. They might request that you make an appointment, or return when they have an open demo night, or whatever.

But they don't owe any of us the right to observe them whenever we wish.

 

[drop bear]

I'm saying there are way too many people who seem to think the only right way to fight is to be as aggressive as possible only to be completely stumped when someone knows the mystical art of side-steping.

Look I'm just gonna tell you this right now, I understand what you're trying to say, but I have little reason to take stock in your words of long lived wisdom if you insist on being condescending.

If everybody is gonna tell me that the only proper way to fight is to be as aggressive and violent as possible, then I might as well just get a couple of guns and call it a day.

The other reason I mentioned wrestling. Is you can be as aggressive as you want regardless as to how aggressive they are.

So you want to just sit on a guy or take their back and hold them. Go for it.

You want to drop them on their head. You can do that too.

And you should have a hard time dominating the room in a wrestling school

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Ok I'm going to have to word this very carefully. I admit that while I am largely book smart when it comes to the theory and history of martial arts, I admit I have little experience in the actual practice of it as I've simply not had the time, something I wish to change.

However, my studies have made it clear what styles of fighting click with me. Styles like Outboxing, Counterstriking, Hapkido, Destreza, Bartitsu, Fighters like Muhammad Ali and Floyd Mayweather, basically anything that centers around fighting smart or using your opponent's aggression against them as attempts to be the aggressor or instigator have historically ended...uh...poorly.

The issue comes with finding a gym that would stick because I know that for many people the preferred strategy is to fight aggression with aggression in an attempt to end the fight as soon as possible. However, if you don't do it right all that happens is you leave yourself wide open for attack. Plus, most MMA gyms in my area seem to focus largely if not entirely on BJJ, which I don't have the fondest opinion of. Not that it's bad or worthless or anything like that, I just find that centering your entire fighting style around being on the ground is rather short sighted. Plus, it's been overhyped and too many people IMO treat it as a one size fits all solution to all self-defense situations, and its flaws are so numerous that I can't really ignore them.

But I digress, I ask again, is there a beginner friendly martial art, that favors calm thinking and countering aggression that would be practical outside the ring? If not, then what fighting style however hard it would be worth looking into?

Hate to tell you this—but Bartitsu was the original overhyped fighting system, for profit. The guy who put it together wasn’t even a practitioner. Middle to Upper class Londoners were concerned about muggings, and he got the idea to bring world class practitioners to invent a “self-defense system“ out of thin air. In fact, his clients eventually realized he was just a salesmen with nothing to offer them. They abandoned the system, and went with the Jiu-Jitsu instructor…because they thought the gi was more fashionable for English gentleman.

You‘re asking the wrong questions—but thats normal when you start training. Go with the BJJ. It won’t give you everything, but you’ll learn to grapple.

As somebody who has experimented with self-learning, it is not something you will gain from, until you’ve acquired a certain level of experience and knowledge.

Study the work of the following individuals. You may find they will answer many, if not all your questions:

Varg Freeborn (philosophy and mindset)

Rory Miller (Precise terms and concepts for identifying, navigating, and avoiding violence)

Geoff Thompson (What to do when cornered)

Massad Ayoob (Meant for lawful use of guns, but the concepts are still relevant to all aspects of self-defense)

Arcadia Cognerati (gauging danger in an environment, lecture series)



The single most comprehensive and well-rounded curriculum I’ve found is Lee Morrison’s Urban Combatives.

 

[marvin8]

The other reason I mentioned wrestling. Is you can be as aggressive as you want regardless as to how aggressive they are.

So you want to just sit on a guy or take their back and hold them. Go for it.

You want to drop them on their head. You can do that too.

And you should have a hard time dominating the room in a wrestling school

Agree. But, it's not just wrestling. Striking is used by grapplers to establish a clinch. The first contact can be a punch turned into a less aggressive grab with the same timing.

https://imgur.com/BsceBRF

https://imgur.com/qSobbmd

https://imgur.com/EUjj4sE

https://imgur.com/wExwWuu

 

[JowGaWolf]

Agree. But, it's not just wrestling. Striking is used by grapplers to establish a clinch. The first contact can be a punch turned into a less aggressive grab with the same timing.

https://imgur.com/BsceBRF

https://imgur.com/qSobbmd

https://imgur.com/EUjj4sE

https://imgur.com/wExwWuu

2nd video is similar to this part of flower fist. The only difference is that there is no throw. But the Entry is the same.

 

[drop bear]

Agree. But, it's not just wrestling. Striking is used by grapplers to establish a clinch. The first contact can be a punch turned into a less aggressive grab with the same timing.

https://imgur.com/BsceBRF

https://imgur.com/qSobbmd

https://imgur.com/EUjj4sE

https://imgur.com/wExwWuu

At a high level.

You can get away with average striking if you have good wrestling.

Even for striking. Because you can wrestle you way in to a dominant position. And then punch them.

We call this a Ben Askren rule.

 

[Mallic]

Hate to tell you this—but Bartitsu was the original overhyped fighting system, for profit. The guy who put it together wasn’t even a practitioner. Middle to Upper class Londoners were concerned about muggings, and he got the idea to bring world class practitioners to invent a “self-defense system“ out of thin air. In fact, his clients eventually realized he was just a salesmen with nothing to offer them. They abandoned the system, and went with the Jiu-Jitsu instructor…because they thought the gi was more fashionable for English gentleman.

You‘re asking the wrong questions—but thats normal when you start training. Go with the BJJ. It won’t give you everything, but you’ll learn to grapple.

As somebody who has experimented with self-learning, it is not something you will gain from, until you’ve acquired a certain level of experience and knowledge.

Study the work of the following individuals. You may find they will answer many, if not all your questions:

Varg Freeborn (philosophy and mindset)

Rory Miller (Precise terms and concepts for identifying, navigating, and avoiding violence)

Geoff Thompson (What to do when cornered)

Massad Ayoob (Meant for lawful use of guns, but the concepts are still relevant to all aspects of self-defense)

Arcadia Cognerati (gauging danger in an environment, lecture series)



The single most comprehensive and well-rounded curriculum I’ve found is Lee Morrison’s Urban Combatives.

I'm actually familiar with ayoob because I found the complete disregard for human life among gun groups concerning and viewed him as a nice change of pace.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I'm actually familiar with ayoob because I found the complete disregard for human life among gun groups concerning and viewed him as a nice change of pace.

Who have you been following???

 

[Mallic]

Who have you been following???

It's not really a big YouTube name per se, so much as people I interact with in various social circles who seem to find the concept of mercy in the face of an attacker laughable.

Like they fall in with the crowd who's mindset boils down to "If you're forced to pull out your gun, shoot to kill, if only because you don't need them contradicting your story when you eventually go to court anyway"

 

[O'Malley]

It's not really a big YouTube name per se, so much as people I interact with in various social circles who seem to find the concept of mercy in the face of an attacker laughable.

Like they fall in with the crowd who's mindset boils down to "If you're forced to pull out your gun, shoot to kill, if only because you don't need them contradicting your story when you eventually go to court anyway"

That's an idiotic reasoning, happy to hear that you're not buying into that.

 

[marvin8]

At a high level.

You can get away with average striking if you have good wrestling.

Even for striking. Because you can wrestle you way in to a dominant position. And then punch them.

We call this a Ben Askren rule.

To clarify my point, skills (offense/defense) in striking range can be non-aggressive. One can go from outside striking range to taking someone down without hitting them.

If you call Ben Askren's striking average, then I believe your "rule" is outdated. Both Askren and Rousey got KOd twice as I posted. The women fighters' skill in the UFC caught up to Rousey. MMA skill levels continue to evolve with teams doing film study and fight camps.

At 2:40, Amanda Nunes is extremely critical about Ronda Rousey's coach, Edmund Tarverdyan after destroying Rousey at UFC 207.

Strikers already train how to deal with a clinch.

It's logic that any wrestler needs to train how to establish a clinch safely starting from outside striking range. In MMA, wrestlers train striking to integrate with their wrestling.

Ronda Rousey is KOd by Nunes and Holm. Rousey is an accomplished judoka.

Ben Askren is KOd by Masvidal and Paul. Askren is an accomplished wrestler.

 

[marvin8]

Study the work of the following individuals. You may find they will answer many, if not all your questions...

Massad Ayoob (Meant for lawful use of guns, but the concepts are still relevant to all aspects of self-defense)

Massad Ayoob wrote the forward to Andrew Branca's The Law of Self Defense, which is relevant to all aspects of self-defense.

 

[drop bear]

It's not really a big YouTube name per se, so much as people I interact with in various social circles who seem to find the concept of mercy in the face of an attacker laughable.

Like they fall in with the crowd who's mindset boils down to "If you're forced to pull out your gun, shoot to kill, if only because you don't need them contradicting your story when you eventually go to court anyway"

You are better off shutting down their threat to you than just hoping you can deal out more damage than them in some sort of meat grinder style fight.

A lot of RBSD guys really don't get that concept.

 

[Mallic]

You are better off shutting down their threat to you than just hoping you can deal out more damage than them in some sort of meat grinder style fight.

A lot of RBSD guys really don't get that concept.

Right, like if you can take away what makes them scary or intimidate them to the point where they decide you ain't worth it, why go for the throat when it's unnecessary?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It's not really a big YouTube name per se, so much as people I interact with in various social circles who seem to find the concept of mercy in the face of an attacker laughable.

Like they fall in with the crowd who's mindset boils down to "If you're forced to pull out your gun, shoot to kill, if only because you don't need them contradicting your story when you eventually go to court anyway"

Honestly, through this statement and some of the other preconceived notions that you've mentioned about martial arts schools, I get the feeling your social circle might be the issue

 

[Mallic]

Honestly, through this statement and some of the other preconceived notions that you've mentioned about martial arts schools, I get the feeling your social circle might be the issue

Yeah probably. Honestly it's getting to the point where I genuinely ask if some people just have a brutality fetish.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

It's not really a big YouTube name per se, so much as people I interact with in various social circles who seem to find the concept of mercy in the face of an attacker laughable.

Like they fall in with the crowd who's mindset boils down to "If you're forced to pull out your gun, shoot to kill, if only because you don't need them contradicting your story when you eventually go to court anyway"

In the 3rd world, guns are brandished as a threat, and they take that threat seriously.

In the USA, the legal mindset is “if you pull a lethal weapon, it was because you reasonably believed you had to kill them.”

The American lawyer asks—“If you didn’t shoot to kill, then how was your life in danger?”

Most 1st world countries take a “duty to retreat” approach with the law, so their logic isn’t so different. The difference, you can’t carry a “purpose-built” lethal weapon.”

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Right, like if you can take away what makes them scary or intimidate them to the point where they decide you ain't worth it, why go for the throat when it's unnecessary?

It doesn’t quite work that way. Study Rory Miller. He will explain in great detail. There are also good instructionals on this by Lee Morrison.

 

[Mallic]

In the 3rd world, guns are brandished as a threat, and they take that threat seriously.

In the USA, the legal mindset is “if you pull a lethal weapon, it was because you reasonably believed you had to kill them.”

The American lawyer asks—“If you didn’t shoot to kill, then how was your life in danger?”

Most 1st world countries take a “duty to retreat” approach with the law, so their logic isn’t so different. The difference, you can’t carry a “purpose-built” lethal weapon.”

But doesn't that basically encourage you to be as ruthless as humanly possible? Sounds to me like this mindset is in place not because it's the only proper way to do things but because the law is set up in such a way that you can actually get into more trouble then if you don't go out of your way to kill them.

Also the 3rd world mentality is entirely different as you're much more likely to run into knife users then gun users outside the us.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

But doesn't that basically encourage you to be as ruthless as humanly possible? Sounds to me like this mindset is in place not because it's the only proper way to do things but because the law is set up in such a way that you can actually get into more trouble then if you don't go out of your way to kill them.

Also the 3rd world mentality is entirely different as you're much more likely to run into knife users than gun users outside the us.

Not necessarily. You’re assuming that authorities are motivated enough to police and disarm. Depending on the country, they are poorly paid, poorly trained, and extort the local gangs.

In the US, gangsters kill each other with guns. In places like the Philippines, they up the ante with fragmentation grenades.

I strongly advise you read, watch, and listen to the above mentioned people before you ask more questions.