Muay Thai vs Taekwondo #2

[DeLamar.J]

Muay Thai:boxing:

 

[Kenpo_man]

If you wanted to become a good ball player and were going to step onto the field to prove yourself, which sport would you train in, baseball or football?

No offence, but I think your a little off the mark. Lets all remember that Muay Thai did not start out as a sport. It was a battlefield tested art just like the majority of eastern martial arts out there. From research I've conducted myself, I've learned that Thai soldiers have trained in Muay Thai for many years including present time. It was effective then against real threats just as it could be now. http://www.wmtc.nu/html/wmc03_mthist.html

I don't think the question is so out of place as your analogy makes it seem. I'm asking about people's opinions of the techniques used in either art. I have never studied TKD and thus claim no true knowledge of it, but I have been told by people who have studied it that they never saw a leg kick being thrown. On the other hand, having trained in muay thai myself I can attest that there are no throat strikes and no groin shots. TKD seems to have more of the nasty stuff(I know a knee to the dome is nasty but I'm alluding to groin strikes, eye pokes, throat poking . . . that kind of nasty). Muay Thai has real contact and it advocates keeping the hands up whereas TKDists generally (and I know there are exceptions but based on what I've seen at tournaments . . .) keep their hands quite low. My question is asking which art is better for preparing for violent confrontation based on these differences.

 

[FearlessFreep]

keep their hands quite low.

I've only seen a few practitioners do that. My previous instructor advocated keeping your head up with your front hand about eye level and your rear hand abt chin level, but I trained once or twice with *his* first instructor who advocated hunching the shoulders with the hand higher almost looking between the arms. My current instructor told me I was to high up and said to crouch or hunch my shoulder ('like boxing' he saays, and throws a few quick jabs and crosses and blocks his face), I'm guessing where you see the low hands might be more sport-oriented schools or practioners because I've heard that some will do it confident that they can get their hands up in time for a high kick but it's to bait an attack Just speculating

 

[Jagermeister]

My biased answer is muay thai.

 

[Adept]

As a black belt in TKD, I'd have to say Muay Thai.

As a rule of thumb, a greater proportion of muay thai fighters are better conditioned, with more relevant (ie, full power) sparring and ring time. They know how to win fights, as opposed to scoring points.

 

[Odin]

As a black belt in TKD, I'd have to say Muay Thai.

As a rule of thumb, a greater proportion of muay thai fighters are better conditioned, with more relevant (ie, full power) sparring and ring time. They know how to win fights, as opposed to scoring points.

I agree.

 

[terryl965]

It is sad when people generalize that TKD is all about points, I relize the Art of TKD is all in all about lost for the most part, but there are still some old timers out there.

Is not Mauy Tai not a sport as well with rules for fighting in the ring, we will see where they sport takes them in about 20 years.

Lastly as I have said before it is about the fighter not the Art really, I know guys that have never trained but would kill most people in the street, no matter what art they train in.

Your Friend in the Arts
Terry

 

[CMS]

Having studied both TKD and Muay Thai, I'd have to say JuJitsu, or FMAs. Seriously, both arts may have started as combat systems, but as practiced today, both are sport systems with differant rule sets. (Just as football and baseball are both ball games with differant rule sets.) I guess you could argue that a football player will do better in a "street fight" than a baseball player, but not neccesarily.

The question originally posed refered to an arena, which implied a sporting situation. In this context, the likelyhood of the winner would depend on which art the rules favored.

Asking which is better is like trying to gauge whether a hammer is better than a screw driver. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Why not study both? Throw in a grappling art such as BJJ and a weapons based art such as Kali or Escrima while you're at it. They're all great stuff, and each improves the other.

 

[Marginal]

No offence, but I think your a little off the mark. Lets all remember that Muay Thai did not start out as a sport. It was a battlefield tested art just like the majority of eastern martial arts out there.

On the same level of relevance to how the art's trained today,so was TKD.

 

[Kenpo_man]

On the same level of relevance to how the art's trained today,so was TKD.

I hope my mentioning that Muay Thai started as a battlefield art didn't make anyone think I was implying the TKD wasn't. In fact, I'm sure I heard somwhere that the Korean military trains in it.

http://www.barrel.net/history.html

A little history on TKD for anyone who's interested. Lots of info!

 

[Touch Of Death]

The original question had to do with which style was most effective in the ring. On that I will give it to Muay Thai; however, self defense does not require a ring. TKD if understood and used by the right person would be just as effective at controlling the distance if not more so.
Sean

 

[arnisador]

On the same level of relevance to how the art's trained today,so was TKD.

A battlefield-tested art? When?

Tae Kwon Do is modified Shotokan Karate. Yes, the Korean military trains in it, but has there been significant battlefield use of it? I know of one death by TKD in the DMZ after the Korean War, but that was a surprise attack, not a battle per se.

The fact that there are military units that train in TKD doesn't make it battle-tested.

 

[Marginal]

A battlefield-tested art? When?

Not to dodge the question, but my point was that battlefield origions are not relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. The claim that commonly pops up, is that was refined from Shotokan by Korean troops during the Korean war. If that is the case, then TKD became a style in its own right through the environment the troops found themselves in. Therefore, it is a battlefield art.

 

[Kenpo_man]

Not to dodge the question, but my point was that battlefield origions are not relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. The claim that commonly pops up, is that was refined from Shotokan by Korean troops during the Korean war. If that is the case, then TKD became a style in its own right through the environment the troops found themselves in. Therefore, it is a battlefield art.

The battlefield origins of the arts are more than relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. If an art started as a sport, would that not make it a little less viable as a choice for learning to defend one's self in the street. The point of this thread is too compare two arts in their effectiveness for street defence. I brought up the battlefield origins in response to CMS using the baseball/football analogy. I figured he was trying to say that Muay Thai was more of a sport than was TKD. This is why I brought up the battlefield origins; to explain that Muay Thai originated as a means to do battle against opponents who meant to do real harm. Unless I misinterpreted CMS's point (which is more than likely, lol), I think that the original aims of the arts are very relevant to this thread.

 

[Marginal]

The battlefield origins of the arts are more than relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. If an art started as a sport, would that not make it a little less viable as a choice for learning to defend one's self in the street.

Most MA's have civillian roots. Especially HTH varieties as soldiers were far more likey to poke other people with spears, swords, shoot them with arrows etc. Weapons tend to be more effective in a confrontation after all.

On the other hand, Judo was culled from multiple battlefield arts. Kano unified them under a central theory, and systematized the teaching methods. His goal was to create a sport.

BJJ was then taken from Judo. It is no more a battlefield art in intent or practice than Judo was regardless of its roots. Both were intended to be sports from their inception. Calling an art a battlefield art lends it a certain cache, (as in "Ooh! danger! It's a KILLING ART!!!!!!!!!) but it really doesn't mean anything except to the MA historians out there.

The point of this thread is too compare two arts in their effectiveness for street defence.

And an ancient Thailander learning how to hit people with a sword (or did they use sticks? I can't remember) doesn't say much about current MT training methods. Whatever it was in the past, it's a ring sport now.

I think that the original aims of the arts are very relevant to this thread.

The current aims of an art are far more relevant to this thread.

 

[arnisador]

On the other hand, Judo was culled from multiple battlefield arts. Kano unified them under a central theory, and systematized the teaching methods. His goal was to create a sport.

Well...his goal was to preserve the ancient arts, and the sport aspect seemed to be a way to do that.

 

[Kenpo_man]

Most MA's have civillian roots. Especially HTH varieties as soldiers were far more likey to poke other people with spears, swords, shoot them with arrows etc. Weapons tend to be more effective in a confrontation after all.

And an ancient Thailander learning how to hit people with a sword (or did they use sticks? I can't remember) doesn't say much about current MT training methods. Whatever it was in the past, it's a ring sport now.

The thai method of fighting with weapons was more commonly known as krabi krabong, a completely separate art from muay thai. Muay thai developed as an art to use when a soldier lost his weapon. It incorporated deadly techniques to use against an armed or unarmed foe until another weapon could be found. It makes sense then to look back to the origins of the arts and the aims of the techniques back then seeing as those are the very techniques being used today in the ring or at tournaments. I have to agree that the arts as they are practiced today are more relevant to this thread, but if you read back, I never argued against that.

 

[Kenpo_man]

No offence, but I think your a little off the mark. Lets all remember that Muay Thai did not start out as a sport. It was a battlefield tested art just like the majority of eastern martial arts out there. From research I've conducted myself, I've learned that Thai soldiers have trained in Muay Thai for many years including present time. It was effective then against real threats just as it could be now. http://www.wmtc.nu/html/wmc03_mthist.html

I don't think the question is so out of place as your analogy makes it seem. I'm asking about people's opinions of the techniques used in either art. I have never studied TKD and thus claim no true knowledge of it, but I have been told by people who have studied it that they never saw a leg kick being thrown. On the other hand, having trained in muay thai myself I can attest that there are no throat strikes and no groin shots. TKD seems to have more of the nasty stuff(I know a knee to the dome is nasty but I'm alluding to groin strikes, eye pokes, throat poking . . . that kind of nasty). Muay Thai has real contact and it advocates keeping the hands up whereas TKDists generally (and I know there are exceptions but based on what I've seen at tournaments . . .) keep their hands quite low. My question is asking which art is better for preparing for violent confrontation based on these differences.

This is the post where I mentioned the origins of muay thai. I don't think I tried to make it sound overly deadly nor did I stay on the subject long. I moved on very quickly to what the arts would be teaching today as that was my original interest. It was in response to CMS's analogy that I mentioned it and that is the only reason it came up at all. I thought he was trying to say Muay Thai techniques were all sport oriented and I kindly disagreed. Lets get back to the point of the thread because I personally have found the answers given and the reasons for them to be intriguing. I find it sort of silly to argue over something that had so little importance placed on it in the first place.

 

[Kenpo_man]

Having studied both TKD and Muay Thai, I'd have to say JuJitsu, or FMAs. Seriously, both arts may have started as combat systems, but as practiced today, both are sport systems with differant rule sets. (Just as football and baseball are both ball games with differant rule sets.) I guess you could argue that a football player will do better in a "street fight" than a baseball player, but not neccesarily.

The question originally posed refered to an arena, which implied a sporting situation. In this context, the likelyhood of the winner would depend on which art the rules favored.

Asking which is better is like trying to gauge whether a hammer is better than a screw driver. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Why not study both? Throw in a grappling art such as BJJ and a weapons based art such as Kali or Escrima while you're at it. They're all great stuff, and each improves the other.

Now this just drives me crazy. I ask which art people would rather study for street defence. Some people answer one way or the other and a few write posts like this. I personally think Kenpo (trained properly, i.e. beyond the memorization of moves and a real study of their principles) is one of the most effective martial arts out there for street defence (with an obvious lack of ground fighting skills). Does mentioning that give anybody here any idea whether I would study TKD or MT for street defence and why? That was the question posed after all.

 

[terryl965]

Now this just drives me crazy. I ask which art people would rather study for street defence. Some people answer one way or the other and a few write posts like this. I personally think Kenpo (trained properly, i.e. beyond the memorization of moves and a real study of their principles) is one of the most effective martial arts out there for street defence (with an obvious lack of ground fighting skills). Does mentioning that give anybody here any idea whether I would study TKD or MT for street defence and why? That was the question posed after all.

Kenpo_Man I know just enough about MT to get me in trouble and TKD I have been in for twenty five years, I would choose TKD by comfort I know my Art and yes I have used it in street stituation and it worked for me.

The one thing I have notice about this type of question is nobody ever ask the right question about which ART, you see when you say TKD people only think about Sport TKD because that is what the mases are teaching out there, but when you ask MT I think about ring fighting because that is what I know about it the sport not fair I know, but like I said enough to get me in trouble.

Could you please give some examples of MT for street and I'll give some TKD for street as well and maybe through some comparisions we can have a honest and wider decussion on the subject for all to enjoy.

Thanks
Terry