Most Brutal martial art?

[Tez3]

That's so neat. Wish I could understand it.

But overall, my belief is that an art's brutality isn't defined by punches or kicks, most arts have those, however more or less they apply them. But rather by the art's intent or willingness to maim, dislocate joints, or otherwise cause excessive pain, or turn an opponent's weapon against them.

However it's not the art though is it? It's the person who is willing to maim, cause pain etc. All the arts have the techniques you can use to do these but it's the willingness of the person to use them.

 

[oftheherd1]

Punches are the most common cause of death in fights. Elbows you have to get in close to use them so less likely than a punch which you can use at distant. The only way a kick can kill someone is to the head and no ones going to throw a head kick in a street fight. Punches are the most brutal because they're fast and can be hard to see coming a right cross is harder to defend than a kick

The last time I was in Korea, one KATUSA sergeant kicked a newby KATUSA in the sternum, driving the xiphoid process into the heart, causing his immediate death. Organs can also be ruptured causing death if they are hit just right.

Granted those are much less common, but don't assume only injuries to the head can cause death. Have you ever been taught to punch or kick a kidney, the liver, or heart plexus?

 

[oftheherd1]

However it's not the art though is it? It's the person who is willing to maim, cause pain etc. All the arts have the techniques you can use to do these but it's the willingness of the person to use them.

It can be. But are there no grappling or striking arts you know of that routinely teach damaging an opponent in a real fight? In the Hapkido I learned, many, I guess most, of the techniques did just that. And we were only taught to treat practice opponents carefully.

 

[Headhunter]

The last time I was in Korea, one KATUSA sergeant kicked a newby KATUSA in the sternum, driving the xiphoid process into the heart, causing his immediate death. Organs can also be ruptured causing death if they are hit just right.

Granted those are much less common, but don't assume only injuries to the head can cause death. Have you ever been taught to punch or kick a kidney, the liver, or heart plexus?

Yes I have thank you

 

[Tez3]

It can be. But are there no grappling or striking arts you know of that routinely teach damaging an opponent in a real fight? In the Hapkido I learned, many, I guess most, of the techniques did just that. And we were only taught to treat practice opponents carefully.

That's again down to the human element, it's the manner of teaching not the martial art itself that makes it dangerous. You could have those same instructors with their outlook teach any style of martial art and have the same effect, you could have instructors who teach pulling punches, no touch sparring etc teach Hapkido and they would make it a very 'soft style'. There's nothing in Hapkido that is more dangerous than any other martial art, it is the way of teaching ie the human element that makes it more 'deadly'.
You are talking of teaching methods not the style itself.

 

[wingchun100]

If you are into martial arts to be brutal and vicious then you are in it for the wrong reasons.

I would say it depends on your situation. If you live in a violent neighborhood and can't afford to move, then you might need to be vicious.

 

[oftheherd1]

That's again down to the human element, it's the manner of teaching not the martial art itself that makes it dangerous. You could have those same instructors with their outlook teach any style of martial art and have the same effect, you could have instructors who teach pulling punches, no touch sparring etc teach Hapkido and they would make it a very 'soft style'. There's nothing in Hapkido that is more dangerous than any other martial art, it is the way of teaching ie the human element that makes it more 'deadly'.
You are talking of teaching methods not the style itself.

First, I am just a milk-toast. I am not trying to say I am Johnny BA, running amuck, strewing dead bodies along the streets and filling ER's with the halt and maimed. I think most Hapkido is taught very similarly to how it was taught to me; that is, the techniques are meant to take away an opponent's will or ability to fight.

 

[Tez3]

First, I am just a milk-toast. I am not trying to say I am Johnny BA, running amuck, strewing dead bodies along the streets and filling ER's with the halt and maimed. I think most Hapkido is taught very similarly to how it was taught to me; that is, the techniques are meant to take away an opponent's will or ability to fight.

I'm don't know what you mean by 'milk toast'.

I'm also not sure if we are talking about the same thing. My point is that all the martial arts I know have 'deadly' techniques ( most techniques are variations on the same one in reality) however the method of teaching can determine whether those techniques are seen as 'deadly' or not. Look at punches, for easiness let's go the boxing way and call it a 'cross', now it can be taught punching into air as an exercise for fitness, it can be taught as a pulled punch as in no touch sparring or it can be taught as in boxing as a potential KO. The punch is the same one but the method of teaching is different so is the perception of the punch.
Hapkido can be taught in different ways if people wanted to, the art remains the same one so the 'deadliness' is down to the attitude of those teaching not the art itself. It's the point many make about TKD as well, taught as an Olympic sport is one way, taught as fitness for kids it's another way and taught as a deadly maiming art is another yet all the techniques are the same, the only difference is the way humans teach... the human attitude makes an art deadly or not.

 

[drop bear]

That could have something to do with them being the most common type of strike used in street fights by far.

Chicken or egg?

is it brutal because it is common or is it common because it is brutal.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I'm don't know what you mean by 'milk toast'.

I believe he meant milquetoast.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I believe he meant milquetoast.

Milk toast is an accepted American slang. When we don't want to be all Frenchy French.

 

[Tez3]

Milk toast is an accepted American slang. When we don't want to be all Frenchy French.

Ah, you mean wuss.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Ah, you mean wuss.

Yeah! So it would be like a double negative.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Ah, you mean wuss.

Actually French Canadians all sound like lumberjacks, to us. Sissy lumberjacks, but lumberjacks just the same. Who messes with lumberjacks?

 

[Tez3]

Actually French Canadians all sound like lumberjacks, to us. Sissy lumberjacks, but lumberjacks just the same. Who messes with lumberjacks?

Oh you just had to say that didn't you, well you've asked for it now.

 

[Tez3]

On a very sad note though about the Pythons. Michael Palin writes emotional post for Terry Jones following announcement that Python star has dementia

 

[Juany118]

Oh you just had to say that didn't you, well you've asked for it now.

You beat me to it... lol

 

[Tez3]

Milk toast is an accepted American slang. When we don't want to be all Frenchy French.

I looked up the etymology, it's not French at all, it's very American from a comic strip 'Lait' is French for milk and 'pain grille' is toast.

 

[oftheherd1]

I'm don't know what you mean by 'milk toast'.

I'm also not sure if we are talking about the same thing. My point is that all the martial arts I know have 'deadly' techniques ( most techniques are variations on the same one in reality) however the method of teaching can determine whether those techniques are seen as 'deadly' or not. Look at punches, for easiness let's go the boxing way and call it a 'cross', now it can be taught punching into air as an exercise for fitness, it can be taught as a pulled punch as in no touch sparring or it can be taught as in boxing as a potential KO. The punch is the same one but the method of teaching is different so is the perception of the punch.
Hapkido can be taught in different ways if people wanted to, the art remains the same one so the 'deadliness' is down to the attitude of those teaching not the art itself. It's the point many make about TKD as well, taught as an Olympic sport is one way, taught as fitness for kids it's another way and taught as a deadly maiming art is another yet all the techniques are the same, the only difference is the way humans teach... the human attitude makes an art deadly or not.

Toast in milk gets soggy and lacks form or strength. Applied to a person it means someone who is weak and/or non-aggressive.

I think I see what you mean, and in general I can agree. Any martial art can surely be used in a brutal manner. I suspect in times past, it was expected that most would be intended to hurt of kill an opponent. In more gentile society these days, that would generally be frowned upon unless used in self defense against a deadly attack.

Hapkido can be taught in different ways if people wanted to, the art remains the same one so the 'deadliness' is down to the attitude of those teaching not the art itself.

Surprisingly, there are techniques that are known to be able to cause death, but few of the techniques are deadly. And I never said Hapkido was taught as a deadly art. Some techniques would no doubt be considered brutal, but not all or even most, deadly. But most techniques are intended to manipulate joints. That is why I suggest that Hapkido is more brutal; the intent of most techniques is to cause pain and/or damage.

Granted some can be stopped before a joint is dislocated, in fact that has to be with a practice opponent. But in a real fight, doing so would leave one at a greater disadvantage to attack.

That's again down to the human element, it's the manner of teaching not the martial art itself that makes it dangerous. You could have those same instructors with their outlook teach any style of martial art and have the same effect, you could have instructors who teach pulling punches, no touch sparring etc teach Hapkido and they would make it a very 'soft style'. There's nothing in Hapkido that is more dangerous than any other martial art, it is the way of teaching ie the human element that makes it more 'deadly'.
You are talking of teaching methods not the style itself.

I think that is called Aikido. And that is not a put down to Aikido. But from what I have seen, Aikido just wants an attacker to go away. If they get hurt during a technique, oh well. But the intent is just to defend until the attacker gets tired and leaves. If I am wrong in that, I hope some of our Aikido practitioners will step up and correct me.

Again, let me point out that I never said Hapkido was a "deadly" martial art. You are correct that most if not all martial arts can be used in a deadly manner.

 

[Tez3]

Toast in milk gets soggy and lacks form or strength. Applied to a person it means someone who is weak and/or non-aggressive.

As I said I looked it up and it comes from an American comic strip being the name of someone who was a wuss. It's not French but a parody of French. World Wide Words: Milquetoast

And I never said Hapkido was taught as a deadly art

I know but the title of the thread is 'the most brutal' ie 'deadly so it fits with the thread.