What do u think are the most effective styles/techniques out there for the average man?

[Hanzou]

Weren't you the one who brought the battlefield into this? How do you think most fighting is done on the battlefield these days?

Clearly based on the title of the thread, we're talking about martial arts and the average man, not the soldier on the battlefield. My point was that someone who is the superior fighter tends to be the superior martial artist. Martial Arts is based around fighting, and have always been based around fighting.

You do know that the vast majority of martial arts out there have nothing to do with the Samurai, right?

Of course.

 

[donald1]

I'm sure somebody else already said this but there is no better style, just those who practice the style, some have practiced and are good at what they do. Some practice and are great at what they do.

Some people might have a style that works better for them but if you're comparing styles all together to see what is more effective i think it's not dependant on the style but who practices the style.

Keep training, get practice, don't be afraid to ask for questions or help (it would probably be a good idea to in the future to avoid calling people trolls even if what is posted seems blunt)
Best of luck

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Clearly based on the title of the thread, we're talking about martial arts and the average man, not the soldier on the battlefield.

The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict.

Since when is shooting someone fighting someone?

Make up your mind. If you want to limit the discussion to civilian arts, then don't bring battlefield arts into it. On the battlefield, most of the fighting is shooting people. Even for the samurai, much of the fighting involved shooting people. (Generally with bows & arrows, although guns were eventually introduced.)

Martial Arts is based around fighting, and have always been based around fighting.

Chris's point is that the requirements for effective fighting can change in different contexts. I disagree with Chris on a lot, but I agree with him on this. You brought up the Samurai. The fact is that if you transported me back in time to a medieval Japanese battlefield, all my BJJ experience wouldn't be much help to me.



Except that

 

[Hanzou]

Make up your mind. If you want to limit the discussion to civilian arts, then don't bring battlefield arts into it. On the battlefield, most of the fighting is shooting people. Even for the samurai, much of the fighting involved shooting people. (Generally with bows & arrows, although guns were eventually introduced.)

I was talking about the history of the arts, and their origins.

Chris's point is that the requirements for effective fighting can change in different contexts. I disagree with Chris on a lot, but I agree with him on this. You brought up the Samurai. The fact is that if you transported me back in time to a medieval Japanese battlefield, all my BJJ experience wouldn't be much help to me.

Again, you guys seem to be missing my point. The title of this thread is which style do you think is more effective for the average man. I said that its the style that makes you the better fighter, because a better fighter has a better chance of surviving a situation than a non-fighter. For example, boxing is better than a lot of MAs because it actually teaches you have to take a punch, and how to give a punch. It makes you a better fighter overall, and that's why its so effective.

That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about fighting a Samurai with modern Karate, or dodging bullets like Remo Williams. I'm simply saying that the most effective martial art style for the average person is the style that turns them from a couch potato into a fighter.

Frankly, that's usually on the sport side of things.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm not sure what the debate is about, even...
The thread title makes it clear that the question is about "the average man" (I will assume they meant "man" the species, rather than "man" the gender).
The "average" person is untrained in any martial art, and uninterested in investing the time and effort needed to become well trained. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the best style for this "average" person is Run-Fu. Alternatively, at close range they might have excellent results with Chic-Chic-POW.

 

[donald1]

I'm not sure what the debate is about, even...
The thread title makes it clear that the question is about "the average man" (I will assume they meant "man" the species, rather than "man" the gender).
The "average" person is untrained in any martial art, and uninterested in investing the time and effort needed to become well trained. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the best style for this "average" person is Run-Fu. Alternatively, at close range they might have excellent results with Chic-Chic-POW.

What's that?

 

[Steve]

What's that?

That usually refers to the sound of a shotgun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

Chic-Chic-POW? Imagine the sound of a gun being racked. Shotgun, Semi-auto pistol, whatever.

I've also heard it referred to as Glock-Fu but I prefer Ruger anyway...

 

[K-man]

Maybe it's not watered down, but it is HIGHLY commercialised.

Krav Maga organisations are like businesses, it's all about making money. You have that in other martial arts as well but not how it is in Krav Maga. I trained for a year with IKMF and another 6 months with KMG. Both organisations try to milk their students, same goes for KMWW.

All those organisations try to push out as many instructors as possible in the shortest amount of time wich will affect the quality of lessons, i was lucky to get instruction from a guy that practiced Krav for about 6 years.

Most programs for Krav Maga are 180hr instructorprograms and cost about 4000 euro's.
I did Silat/Pukulan for 9 years, after 8 years my teacher said, ok now you are good enough to teach, i could defend myself very good but he didn't felt that i was ready to instruct people. I trained 5x a week for 3 hours (mostly private with my teachers son). Those 9 years costed me a couple packs of smokes, a case of beer and some gas for driving my teacher around.

My point is: Krav Maga is more business than selfdefense.

Then surely that depends on the school. I charge much the same for Krav as Karate. I prefer my guys to be graded by others so that costs them extra but takes place within a seminar which gives extra value anyway. I think it costs me $200 a year for my affiliation and I buy tee shirts, belts and certificates from the organisation. What I teach is not watered down. I am not permitted to teach guys under 18 or girls under 16. I make nothing out of it as the rent still is more than I get in training fees.

You are fortunate to have had the instruction in Silat available for that price. The last Silat event I wanted to attend was $800 for two days. I charge my Krav guys $900 for the year!
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Again, you guys seem to be missing my point. The title of this thread is which style do you think is more effective for the average man. I said that its the style that makes you the better fighter, because a better fighter has a better chance of surviving a situation than a non-fighter. For example, boxing is better than a lot of MAs because it actually teaches you have to take a punch, and how to give a punch. It makes you a better fighter overall, and that's why its so effective.

Frankly, that's usually on the sport side of things.

I think most of us have got your point. If we are not competing in MMA our style is not effective.

As to taking a punch. I was one of the attackers in scenario training at the weekend. I had a full face head guard chest protector and cup. After 30+ guys came through I can tell you I took a lot of punches. Under a stress situation a lot of the guys didn't pull their punches.

You have no idea of anything outside your sport based training yet take every opportunity to put every one else down!

And let's stop the nonsense. The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict. The reason you have arts retreating to a non fighting focus these days is to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill.


Which is fine, but now those styles are more spiritual pursuits,or historical/cultural pursuits, than actual martial arts. Sort of like Yoga, painting, or learning a new language. Nothing wrong with that..... unless you're trying to defend yourself of course.

So now we have arts that developed on the battlefield, which according to you is all of them, that are no longer martial and are as useful for defending yourself as yoga, painting or learning a new language.

If that is not putting down all other styles what do you call it. I'll settle for arrogant nonsense.

 

[Hanzou]

I think most of us have got your point. If we are not competing in MMA our style is not effective.

Nope. My point is that some styles develop and toughen the body. Some styles are nothing more than dance routines that people do on the weekend. One set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts.

You have no idea of anything outside your sport based training yet take every opportunity to put every one else down!

My training isn't sport based.

So now we have arts that developed on the battlefield, which according to you is all of them, that are no longer martial and are as useful for defending yourself as yoga, painting or learning a new language.

If that is not putting down all other styles what do you call it. I'll settle for arrogant nonsense.

That isn't putting down all styles, just certain styles.

 

[K-man]

Nope. My point is that some styles develop and toughen the body. Some styles are nothing more than dance routines that people do on the weekend. One set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts.

My training isn't sport based.

That isn't putting down all styles, just certain styles.

Ok, name names. You are dancing round sniping at everything I have trained and what most others have trained as well. You have listed BJJ as your style but have avoided stating your other experience apart from 'karate background'.

Then you say that one set of styles develops fighters. Perhaps you'd care to list those? What styles give little kids black belts? You have dissed my training yet basically I don't take students under 18. No junior BBs in any of my training.

You training might not be sport based but from what you have been posting it is not RB either.

But at least you now admit that you are putting down certain styles.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Then give me a list of techniques that you think are most effective.

When I was a kid, I liked to play sword fight among other kids. We used our arm as the sword. When my arm can touch on any part of my opponent's body besides his arm, I won. Most kids would swing their arms in front of their body like mad men. One kid had a very unique attacking style. He would straight his arm in front of his body and ran full force toward his opponent. He would only give his opponent 2 options. Either try to use arm to deflect his straight arm, or move out of his attacking path. His strategy was just like the rhino that combined both offense and defense into one.

If we can have strong shield that can protect our head. At the same time we also have a sharp spear like the rhino's horn, I'll say that's an "effective" technique.

 

[Dylan9d]

Then surely that depends on the school. I charge much the same for Krav as Karate. I prefer my guys to be graded by others so that costs them extra but takes place within a seminar which gives extra value anyway. I think it costs me $200 a year for my affiliation and I buy tee shirts, belts and certificates from the organisation. What I teach is not watered down. I am not permitted to teach guys under 18 or girls under 16. I make nothing out of it as the rent still is more than I get in training fees.

You are fortunate to have had the instruction in Silat available for that price. The last Silat event I wanted to attend was $800 for two days. I charge my Krav guys $900 for the year!
:asian:

Wich organisation are you affiliated to?

And what Silat teacher was that, asking 800 for 2 days, most likely a charlatan? Real Silat or Pukulan teachers don't charge much other than expenses.

My old KMG instructor bought a house in Thailand from his profits, since he is also the director for KMG in Thailand. He told me he is making more money with Krav Maga than with the contractingbusiness he has.

 

[K-man]

Wich organisation are you affiliated to?

And what Silat teacher was that, asking 800 for 2 days, most likely a charlatan? Real Silat or Pukulan teachers don't charge much other than expenses.

My old KMG instructor bought a house in Thailand from his profits, since he is also the director for KMG in Thailand. He told me he is making more money with Krav Maga than with the contractingbusiness he has.

I won't post that in the public domain but he is a top guy. I'm not complaining about the price as you have high costs with flights, accommodation, etc unless you have large numbers attending. It was just that I was away at the time. My only reason for posting was to show that cost is relative.
:asian:

 

[Towel Snapper]

When I was a kid, I liked to play sword fight among other kids. We used our arm as the sword. When my arm can touch on any part of my opponent's body besides his arm, I won. Most kids would swing their arms in front of their body like mad men. One kid had a very unique attacking style. He would straight his arm in front of his body and ran full force toward his opponent. He would only give his opponent 2 options. Either try to use arm to deflect his straight arm, or move out of his attacking path. His strategy was just like the rhino that combined both offense and defense into one.

If we can have strong shield that can protect our head. At the same time we also have a sharp spear like the rhino's horn, I'll say that's an "effective" technique.

Are saying use the headbutt?

 

[Hanzou]

Ok, name names.

We all know what styles I'm talking about. There's no need to name names.

You are dancing round sniping at everything I have trained and what most others have trained as well. You have listed BJJ as your style but have avoided stating your other experience apart from 'karate background'.

My karate, Judo (2 months) and Bjj background is personally the only experience that is important to me.

Then you say that one set of styles develops fighters. Perhaps you'd care to list those? What styles give little kids black belts? You have dissed my training yet basically I don't take students under 18. No junior BBs in any of my training.

Again, we know what styles those are. There's no need for me to list any of them.

You training might not be sport based but from what you have been posting it is not RB either.

Nor would I desire it to be, for a variety of reasons.

But at least you now admit that you are putting down certain styles.

I never denied that I was.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, let's get back to this…

Hanzou, you wanted to know exactly what was wrong in the following? Alrighty, then…

Since when is shooting someone fighting someone?

Since when is it not?!? Do you think they're trying to pin ribbons on each other? Playing an enthusiastic game of "tag"?

Do you think that a firefight is limited to battlefields only?

So all of those Samurai arts didn't really come from the Samurai?

Er… what "samurai arts" are you talking about there, Horatio?

Right....

Yes, you genuinely, absolutely, have no clue what you're talking about.

I was using the Samurai arts as an example of arts that come from fighting or battle.

No, you weren't. Your original comment was:

And let's stop the nonsense. The reason these "arts" exist in the first place is because a bunch of trained killers butchered numerous people on the battlefield and people were in awe of their prowess. They then either chose or were forced to teach their abilities to other people. The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict. The reason you have arts retreating to a non fighting focus these days is to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill.

Nothing in there about "samurai"… hmm… but, just in case that's what you thought you were saying, then you really don't know how the vast, vast majority of "samurai arts" came to be founded.

I'll put it this way. I am very familiar with the founding stories of some couple of dozen of still extant Ryu-ha, and passingly familiar with probably three times that many… and none of them actually match your description. Then we get to the bizarre idea of "forced to teach their abilities"… what the hell? Where do you get this garbage from?

"The martial arts revolve around war and conflict, and the majority of them were created for war and conflict"… uh, no, the majority weren't… and those that were, do you know exactly how they were designed to be applied? Here's a hint… it wasn't necessarily combatively on the battlefield, son… And, as far as your last line there ("to make up for their deficiency in fighting skill"), you really don't have a clue what you're dealing with… 58th time now… fighting ain't fighting… and "fighting skill" isn't a single concept…

So, when you say "let's stop the nonsense", it'd help if you didn't follow it up with such absolute nonsense yourself, kay?

I know this.

Actually, I'm not sure you realise just how little you do know here.

In that particular example I was only talking about the Samurai arts from Japan. I'm well aware that other arts did not originate from the samurai, but every martial art came from a warrior culture, military group, or an exceptional fighter.

Really? You were "only talking about the samurai arts from Japan"… by getting pretty much everything about them wrong? Lovely.

Clearly based on the title of the thread, we're talking about martial arts and the average man, not the soldier on the battlefield. My point was that someone who is the superior fighter tends to be the superior martial artist. Martial Arts is based around fighting, and have always been based around fighting.

And, again, you're fairly off base in pretty much all counts there… the average man can't be a soldier? And, even harder for you to hear, martial arts are based around fighting? And have always been? Gotta tell you… that's really not the case. And, even more importantly, for those arts that are more combatively (and practically) based, it really, really, really depends on the context of the system, and what type of combat they were geared towards.

59th time… fighting ain't fighting…

I was talking about the history of the arts, and their origins.

Then you might want to learn about them first.

Tell you what, as you're discussing "samurai arts", I'm going to throw a number of systems names at you… can you tell me which of these match your description of "history"?

Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu.
Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu.
Owari Kan-ryu.
Hozoin Ryu.
Yagyu Shinkage Ryu.
Yagyu Shingan Ryu.
Araki Ryu.
Morishige Ryu.
Unkou Ryu.
Kashima Shinryu.
Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu.
Takenouchi Ryu.
Takagi Yoshin Ryu.
Kukishin Ryu.
Ono-ha Itto Ryu.
Chikubujima Ryu.
Chokugen Ryu.
Tendo Ryu.
Toda-ha Buko Ryu.
Kiraku Ryu.
Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu.
Fusen Ryu.
Negishi Ryu.
Tamiya Ryu.
Asayama Ichiden Ryu.

Let me know what you come up with, will you?

Again, you guys seem to be missing my point. The title of this thread is which style do you think is more effective for the average man. I said that its the style that makes you the better fighter, because a better fighter has a better chance of surviving a situation than a non-fighter. For example, boxing is better than a lot of MAs because it actually teaches you have to take a punch, and how to give a punch. It makes you a better fighter overall, and that's why its so effective.

You're making some rather big assumptions here… sure, boxing gets you used to hitting and being hit… do you really, genuinely think that that's unique to boxing? Or even to sporting systems? And, for the record, what you're talking about it training methodologies, which is a part of the style, but not the whole story by any stretch of the imagination… so your idea of "its the style" is a bit out as well… it's certain aspects of the style, dependant on the context and application.

That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about fighting a Samurai with modern Karate, or dodging bullets like Remo Williams. I'm simply saying that the most effective martial art style for the average person is the style that turns them from a couch potato into a fighter.

Frankly, that's usually on the sport side of things.

Frankly, that could be almost anything. Sporting or non-sporting.

Nope. My point is that some styles develop and toughen the body. Some styles are nothing more than dance routines that people do on the weekend. One set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts.

And our point is that you don't have anywhere near enough of a clue about what is involved in anything outside of the tiny area that you're familiar with to make any such claims… and the association of unrelated ideas ("one set of styles develops fighters, the other set of styles gives little kids black belts") is just showing either a deep prejudice or a desperate lack of understanding… honestly, I'd say a bit of both.

My training isn't sport based.

Really? So you do BJJ, but not sports based, and in another post, not reality based either? So it's what, callisthenics?

That isn't putting down all styles, just certain styles.

Okay, before you go too far down this path, I'm just going to highlight something here...

1.10 Forum and Art Bashing

1.10.2 No Art bashing.

No one art is "the best", no one "style" is the best. All have their strengths and weaknesses. Do your research and find what best fits your ability and need.

Simply put, even just putting down "certain styles" is against the TOS here… even being as vague and evasive about it as you are… so I'm going to suggest you reign in that side of your thought process, and either recognise that not everyone shares your worldview, or, if you can't help yourself, avoid threads where you would bring a ban on yourself. Or just find a different place to post.

We all know what styles I'm talking about. There's no need to name names.

Considering that such actions have consequences, sure…

My karate, Judo (2 months) and Bjj background is personally the only experience that is important to me.

Okay. I'll detail mine, then. Karate, TKD, BJJ, some boxing, RBSD, Koryu Kenjutsu, Iaido, Kyudo, some Aikido, touches of Wing Chun, my Ninjutsu studies, and probably another half-dozen I'm forgetting.

My point is that your experience, bluntly, is so narrow that you might as well be telling me you know all about European cuisine because you once had a bowl of pasta, so you can tell me what's wrong with all the other dishes.

Again, we know what styles those are. There's no need for me to list any of them.

Right.

Nor would I desire it to be, for a variety of reasons.

Then what is it? And, if you're championing "actual fighting skill", why on earth would you not want your training to be reality based? You prefer fantasy based?

I never denied that I was.

You probably should… ban hammers have a rather permanent effect here…

 

[Dylan9d]

You are fortunate to have had the instruction in Silat available for that price. The last Silat event I wanted to attend was $800 for two days. I charge my Krav guys $900 for the year!
:asian:

Btw i think $900 is also to much for a year of training, means you ask $75 a month (if you train 12 months a year), means €59, because i live in Holland, if you asked that here you would be the most expensive Krav Maga school in Holland, so yes you are VERY overpriced. And in my opinion for some very basic training, not worth the money.

Most Krav schools here ask €40 - €45 a month (= about $50)

 

[Tez3]

Btw i think $900 is also to much for a year of training, means you ask $75 a month (if you train 12 months a year), means €59, because i live in Holland, if you asked that here you would be the most expensive Krav Maga school in Holland, so yes you are VERY overpriced. And in my opinion for some very basic training, not worth the money.

Most Krav schools here ask €40 - €45 a month (= about $50)

You can't really compare though unless you know how many hours training you are paying for, a year could be one evening a month or every evening. it also depends on the economy of the country concerned.