Ranking Martial Arts for Self Defensw

Status
Not open for further replies.
I stopped after they seriously suggested that aikido's founder gained his reputation because he was a superhuman and that's why people can't replicate what he did. We're probing the sewers of intelligence here.
I would have thought you'd agree that ueshiba had what most would consider superhuman powers through ki. Considering you've used this video to make a similar point about the power of ki in the past. And whats happening in that video surely seems superhuman to most folks. Or am I misunderstanding something?
 
I’m happy to rank them. And feel free to add them. I think the gist in the opinion for kung fu is that there are some serious practitioners who pressure test and supplement the training but most who train are not well prepared.
A true statement in each and every style of martial art. Which proves my point that it is never about style, it is about the individual that is training at a certain moment in time, and equally, the teaching style. Which then also lends itself to my assertion that the entirety of this exercise equates to mental masturbation. Thusly, and in keeping with the aim of this thread, I hereby rank MY engorged martial art as a new designation SSSS above the previous pinnacle of Ameri do te. What ranks A and below is nothing more than insignificant rebellion against the obvious and incontrovertible truth.
 
the tl;dr version is that they created a relative ranking system. They did give arts a letter grading, with S at the top, then A through F, though I think in the end it was calibrated mostly to be a ranking of arts relative to each other.

The simple criteria was how well prepared folks were after a 'year or two' of training in the styles as they are commonly trained.

The video is so long, because they actually chat about each style at length, so whether or not you agree with them, you'll at least understand their rationale for where they placed the style and why.

So, the question is, how would you rank the following styles? If you don't know or aren't comfortable ranking a style, just ignore it. If you're not interested in participating, it's okay. Don't sweat it. Just a little fun. I'll list all the styles out below, in the order they ended them with in the video.

Tier 1: Wrestling and catch wrestling
Tier 2: GJJ and MMA
Tier 3: BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai, and Lethwei
Tier 4: Kickboxing
Tier 5: Western Boxing
Tier 6: Capoeira, JJJ, Karate, JKD, Kenpo, Krav Maga
Tier 7: Kali/Escrima
Tier 8: Aikido, TKD, WC
Tier 9: Ninjutsu, Pencak Silat, Systema, and Tai Chi

I can't believe how low Wing Chun and Kali are on that list. And ranking them lower than Capoeira? That's a joke...
 
I would have thought you'd agree that ueshiba had what most would consider superhuman powers through ki. Considering you've used this video to make a similar point about the power of ki in the past. And whats happening in that video surely seems superhuman to most folks. Or am I misunderstanding something?
"Ki", while a useful visualisation tool, does not exist in a physical sense. There's nothing superhuman in what Saotome does in the video: hundreds of folks in Japanese and Chinese arts can do it to various extents because it can be trained. Saotome is apparently relaxed (= no unnecessary muscle contraction) but maintains structure through a system of tensions in his tissues, a bit like this chair:

1654070672238.png


When Saotome's partner strikes him, he runs into that structure and thus cannot affect him. Saotome then uses the same system to prevent his partner from getting up.

The lady in this video demonstrates the same skills, although at a much lower level as, based on the rank of the test, she must have been training for a couple of years at most.


Saotome got that from Ueshiba (but probably had to figure out most stuff on his own, using his teacher more as a reference point). Ueshiba used the same system to move his body as one unit, which allowed him to resist incoming forces just like in Saotome's demo, as well as generate uncanny power. This is him in his 80s (I suggest to watch from 4:40 till the end):

 
Last edited:
... the other guy is a former cop. Not sure what his MA credentials are, but it looks like he's been in the self defense game for a while.
Mostly Muai Thai. And he is Streetbeefs veteran 💪:
 
I think this is a red herring. If the concepts are sound then they are applicable.

It is why the better boxer still dominates in bare knuckle even though he is trained for fighting with gloves on.
The point is that German Longsword doesn't need to "evolve" just because some 27-year-old kid thinks it's "stagnant." It doesn't need to.
 
Just adding a little more context, Rokas gets some hate on this forum, but in case anyone is interested, the other guy is a former cop. Not sure what his MA credentials are, but it looks like he's been in the self defense game for a while.
That's an Appeal to Authority. It doesn't matter if he's a cop, a nuclear physicist, or a pregnant mom. What matters is if the argument holds up, or if it even starts out from a logical base.
 
In the case of karate, yes. It certainly did not start as a commercial enterprise or feel good hobby. Many of the top guys in the 1800's, and even the early 1900's, worked in the security field as field agents, bodyguards, anti-Satsuma rebels and policemen, unrestrained by modern ROE and PC policies. Their fighting skills had a strong chance of being put to use in life threatening situations. I could supply a couple handfuls of documented names, dates and places, but won't. This has already been well established by noted MA historians.

What is "combat?" I think The physical use of force between two (or more) individuals seeking to subdue the other (to a greater or lesser extent) is a reasonable general definition for our purposes. "Effectiveness" is variable, depending on the situation. It may be to successfully capture, restrain, fend off, disable, maim, kill, or just escape with minimum damage.

I appreciate and share your desire for accuracy and veracity. Not sure, though, if your questions were rhetorical, meant to illicit more info and discussion, or if you have a differing (as yet unstated) opinion on the subject.
I think you're missing the point. "Combat" is a vague word that gets thrown around a lot here on MT and in martial arts circles in general. I've seen it mean anything from a sporting match where there's not generally an expectation of death or serious bodily injury (such as boxing or MMA) through 2-person dueling with lots of ceremony and "rules" (such as Hamilton/Burr) or a multiples-vs-one duel such as Peeke vs. the Spanish rapier masters. I've seen "combat" used to refer to armed civilian self defense such as Cyrano de Bergerac using his rapier to fight off a large band attempting to assassinate him or a modern U.S. citizen using a firearm to defend against a mugger or a home invation and I've seen "combat" applied to Greek Phalanx's and Roman gladiatorial contests (many of which were not "to the death"). I've seen "combat" applied to modern U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq (which have fairly restrictive Rules of Engagement) and to Custer's Last Stand.

One thing I can tell you is that "combat" is an ill-defined word and trying to apply classical "TMA" (however you might want to define that) to many of these examples just doesn't work.

So you might want to argue, for instance, that <cough> "Karate" was developed for one-on-one or one-to-many dueling or for civilian self defense, but it's still going to have a hard time being applied to modern military actions in Afghanistan or against a Greek Phalanx. Even if you want to try to argue, for instance, civilian self defense, frankly, what is legal, socially acceptable, and applicable has changed from 1800 Okinawa to now and it's certainly different between 1800 Okinawa and 2022 U.S.

It's the same as when people say "fighting." I love it when someone asks, "What is the best fighting knife?" :p

So, yeah, are you sure? And what is "combat?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
One more general comment. A lot of folks getting worked up about the topic, about whether folks are qualified to comment on this or that.
But I'm still curious whether anyone disagrees with the relative rankings. I mean, do you disagree that someone with a year or two of training in a particular style will be well prepared for self defense (however you like to define the term)? I look at the rankings and think for the most part, it's pretty accurate.

Particularly if I think of it more as a relative spectrum (i.e., this style over that style) vs a concrete rating (i.e., this style gets a B). There are several styles I'd move up or down one click, but the only one I think got a bum deal is TKD.
It's not something that you can agree or disagree with. The "rankings" are analogous to ranking the best musical notes.
 
Oh , I believe that is exactly what this thread and that video were meant to do. Do go on. I will start the popcorn.
Believe it or not, there was a time on this forum when folks' first reaction would have been to have a little fun and shared their opinions.

A true statement in each and every style of martial art. Which proves my point that it is never about style, it is about the individual that is training at a certain moment in time, and equally, the teaching style. Which then also lends itself to my assertion that the entirety of this exercise equates to mental masturbation. Thusly, and in keeping with the aim of this thread, I hereby rank MY engorged martial art as a new designation SSSS above the previous pinnacle of Ameri do te. What ranks A and below is nothing more than insignificant rebellion against the obvious and incontrovertible truth.
yes and no. I totally agree that how folks train matters. And some styles build in contact or lack of contact as a feature of the art. For example, take a guy like Machida... definitely a traditional karate martial artist. But he has also trained sumo, is a BJJ black belt, and has modified his training so that he saw a lot of success in MMA. Most karate guys can't do that, or at least, without changing their training model and mindset in a similar way. Depending on the school, this could be a significant shift in mindset. Another example, I can't remember his name now, but I'm pretty sure one of the founding members of bullshido was a kung fu instructor who often commented about the significant changes he had to make as a practitioner... not unlike some of the comments you've made over the last few months.

Mostly Muai Thai. And he is Streetbeefs veteran 💪:
yeah, also references being a cop and a bouncer.

That's an Appeal to Authority. It doesn't matter if he's a cop, a nuclear physicist, or a pregnant mom. What matters is if the argument holds up, or if it even starts out from a logical base.
Only if I insist he's correct because he's a cop. I haven't even argued that he is correct, so it's just context shared. :)
 
Lethwei. From what I understand, and this may be inaccurate, this is similar to Muay Thai except it has older training methods, focuses on skills that were more important in the past, and teaches archaic weapons. While I’d personally like that over MT, that causes the issue that it likely was more effective for SD in the past vs. now.
Lethwei is basically the same as other Asian kickboxing arts (Muay Thai, San Shou), but with headbutting actually allowed and encouraged.

There's a long history of debate in the MMA scene about the banning of headbutting, because it's extremely effective (and bloody) and Lethwei matches are one of the only places in the overground to actually see it (other than pro wrestling).

If I'm not mistaken, even Vale Tudo doesn't allow headbutts.
 
Something occurred to me. I know most haven't watched the video... it is long, for sure. One of the points of discussion in the video is the idea that every style has value, and that a lot of the practicality or effectiveness depends on how it is trained.

So, for example, in the discussion about BJJ, Mike raises a concern that all of the fractured rulesets might actually reduce the overall effectiveness of the style. His concern was that if folks are training only for a niche ruleset, they will not be as well rounded. (I'm summarizing extensively here). It's a fair point, and for what it's worth, I think this can be a bug or a feature, depending on whether a person embraces the diverse rulesets or settles into just one.
 
I've been busy and still haven't gotten all the way through the video, but I do have some thoughts forming. However I will wait until I finish the video before I post my commentary.
 
Believe it or not, there was a time on this forum when folks' first reaction would have been to have a little fun and shared their opinions.


yes and no. I totally agree that how folks train matters. And some styles build in contact or lack of contact as a feature of the art. For example, take a guy like Machida... definitely a traditional karate martial artist. But he has also trained sumo, is a BJJ black belt, and has modified his training so that he saw a lot of success in MMA. Most karate guys can't do that, or at least, without changing their training model and mindset in a similar way. Depending on the school, this could be a significant shift in mindset. Another example, I can't remember his name now, but I'm pretty sure one of the founding members of bullshido was a kung fu instructor who often commented about the significant changes he had to make as a practitioner... not unlike some of the comments you've made over the last few months.


yeah, also references being a cop and a bouncer.


Only if I insist he's correct because he's a cop. I haven't even argued that he is correct, so it's just context shared. :)
Hi Steve, I’m not sure which comments of mine you are referencing. Significant changes I made as a practitioner? If you mean boxing, my Sigung was also a boxer in the navy so we have always had that in the style. I am curious what you mean.
 
So, for example, in the discussion about BJJ, Mike raises a concern that all of the fractured rulesets might actually reduce the overall effectiveness of the style. His concern was that if folks are training only for a niche ruleset, they will not be as well rounded. (I'm summarizing extensively here). It's a fair point, and for what it's worth, I think this can be a bug or a feature, depending on whether a person embraces the diverse rulesets or settles into just one.
In my experience most people training BJJ only engage in the rulesets when they are about to compete and the folk that compete are probably in the minority

Of course there are generic rules for rolling safely, but I don't see anyone training for a specific niche ruleset on an ongoing basis
 
In my experience most people training BJJ only engage in the rulesets when they are about to compete and the folk that compete are probably in the minority

Of course there are generic rules for rolling safely, but I don't see anyone training for a specific niche ruleset on an ongoing basis
An even smaller minority is no gi BJJ(whether they compete or not), and look at the differences there. A belt ranking in jacketed wrestling like judo and BJJ isn't the same as someone with a lot of no gi experience. That's a whole other level.

Two people with the same colored belt, but one has more no gi exposure, they're gonna be better prepared to defend themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top