What Martial Art should I choose?

[qwerty]

What kind of karate have you seen? I train in karate and most of the punching we do is on makiwara pads. Anyway you've got to find out for yourself which style works best for you and to do that you might want to try a bunch of styles. You say you don't want anything slow and boring. Boring is really a state of mind, some of the drill work I do some people might say its as boring as heck, especially since I keep doing the same thing over and over again, but I really love it. If you don't want something slow than I would recommend a "hard" style like JKD or Hapkido or a style of Karate although you said its not your thing. I would not recommend Tai Chi. While Tai Chi can be just as effective as any other martial art it is practiced slow and it usually takes longer before you can effectively use it.

Real tai chi is very effective.
The thing is most tai chi instructors nowadays don't teach the defense aspect of the art...
But find a good instructor and yeah
If you want a fast hard style go with jeet kun do

 

[PhotonGuy]

Real tai chi is very effective.

Sure it is. But generally speaking it takes much longer to become effective with tai chi than it does with many of the "hard," styles. With Judo or Karate, you can use it effectively after only two or three years of training in it, sometimes less than that. While Tai Chi can be just as effective, it usually takes much longer to develop it, close to ten years.

 

[Mephisto]

Sure it is. But generally speaking it takes much longer to become effective with tai chi than it does with many of the "hard," styles. With Judo or Karate, you can use it effectively after only two or three years of training in it, sometimes less than that. While Tai Chi can be just as effective, it usually takes much longer to develop it, close to ten years.

Where did you hear this? You speak as though you're an authority in the subject.

 

[kuniggety]

With tai chi, how much "application" and combat effectiveness you learn is going to depend a lot on the school you're attending and you. Personally, I love tai chi. There is a sense of balance, body alignment, and strength that I found within it that I haven't experienced with anything else. A lot of tai chi schools include "push hands" where they take a lot of the concepts they're learning in the forms and learn to use it in a type of controlled sparring. It might take 10 years to "master" it, but so do most martial arts. Anyone with a could of years of good tai chi training, IMO, will fair as well in a fight as most other "hard" styles.

 

[zzj]

As someone with prior experience in southern shaolin kung fu, tae kwon do and judo, let me say that Tai chi is awesome, the most enjoyable and potentially profound MA I have been involved in so far. (Purely personal opinion)

 

[Shai Hulud]

You must first consider what arts are offered in your immediate area, grasshopper!

It must be an art you get a groove for, and you should be willing to devote hours a week of practice to it. While it is nice that you have an idea of what you don't want in an MA, I highly recommend that you seek out the schools in your area and pay them a visit. Get a feel of what they teach, and how it is taught. You will know when you find the right one.

That being said, I will now shamelessly advertise. Sambo or Judo for me.

 

[Chris Parker]

Not sure how this slipped through…

I would swear on Judo even though I've never trained in it YET.

Er… why? What do you actually know about judo?

Judo combat philosophy is basically this... Capitalize on your enemy's lack of balance to smash his face against the surface of a planet.

No, that's really not judo's "combat philosophy"… that would be a combination of "seiryoku zenyo" (maximum efficiency with minimum effort) and "jita kyobei" (for mutual benefit). Frankly, what you're describing is part of the methodology of application… but that's it. There's not so much "capitalising" as there is creation of lack of balance (kuzushi), and so on… so, well… no.

Defending yourself using Judo is much more justifiable through the eyes of a court judge than pugilizing someone to submission. A martial artist once said that grappling (such as Judo) is terrible for true self-defense, but it's perfect for controlling people. Think of how law enforcers deal with aggressive people. If they don't use their batons, they grapple, not strike.

And, again, no. Physical violence is just a justifiable or not as any other form of physical violence. The court judge typically is rather clueless about martial arts, self defence (application), violence, and so on… there really isn't a "more justifiable" form of applying violence… it comes down to "reasonable force" and the like. LEO's have a different idea of "success" that they're aiming for… so isn't really the same thing at all.

 

[Mephisto]

And, again, no. Physical violence is just a justifiable or not as any other form of physical violence. The court judge typically is rather clueless about martial arts, self defence (application), violence, and so on… there really isn't a "more justifiable" form of applying violence… it comes down to "reasonable force" and the like. LEO's have a different idea of "success" that they're aiming for… so isn't really the same thing at all.

I think he summed up judo well enough. It's about controlling and disrupting balance, he just described it in laymans terms.

I'd also argue that he may have a point about judo and the law. Any physical violence may be the same in the eyes of the court but at the scene of an incident and in the eyes of an Leo you'd do well not to bruise and split open the face of an opponent. If you can safely out him on the ground without hurting him you might be better off. Same thing goes in the case of dealing with out of control friends and family members. If all you know is crush, kill, destroy, it's not always work well for you.

 

[jks9199]

And, again, no. Physical violence is just a justifiable or not as any other form of physical violence. The court judge typically is rather clueless about martial arts, self defence (application), violence, and so on… there really isn't a "more justifiable" form of applying violence… it comes down to "reasonable force" and the like. LEO's have a different idea of "success" that they're aiming for… so isn't really the same thing at a

I'd also argue that he may have a point about judo and the law. Any physical violence may be the same in the eyes of the court but at the scene of an incident and in the eyes of an Leo you'd do well not to bruise and split open the face of an opponent. If you can safely out him on the ground without hurting him you might be better off. Same thing goes in the case of dealing with out of control friends and family members. If all you know is crush, kill, destroy, it's not always work well for you.

Chris is closer to the mark. The reality is, in the US, cops and the legal system as a whole are likely to look at the injuries, and not really care how they happened to assess use of force. Then they'll look at the circumstances -- but again, they won't likely care about whether the skull got split when the guy fell down after being hit or was thrown and did a power face plant. The reality is that in a serious violent encounter, your attacker probably won't do a good breakfall, and won't let you take him down gently. That said -- I do agree, that if you only know and practice overkill, you're probably setting yourself up for a lengthy stay in the Graybar Hotel.

 

[Chris Parker]

I think he summed up judo well enough. It's about controlling and disrupting balance, he just described it in laymans terms.

No, I'd disagree with that, as, well, what he described isn't really judo… I can see how it could be the way you think Judo's tactical and mechanical methods are, but even then, it's not really correct either. Importantly, it really, really isn't Judo's "combat philosophy".

I'd also argue that he may have a point about judo and the law. Any physical violence may be the same in the eyes of the court but at the scene of an incident and in the eyes of an Leo you'd do well not to bruise and split open the face of an opponent. If you can safely out him on the ground without hurting him you might be better off. Same thing goes in the case of dealing with out of control friends and family members. If all you know is crush, kill, destroy, it's not always work well for you.

You're looking at a completely different context. All Bee said was that "Defending yourself using Judo is more justifiable (to a court) than striking"… which is not correct at all. And no-one said anything about only knowing "crush, kill, destroy".

Here's the thing…. Bee is young… he's, realistically, highly inexperienced and naive about much of this, and is commenting from his own (not entirely informed) beliefs. What I'm doing is pointing out where his knowledge is lacking presently… hopefully he'll be able to take that on board, and improve his understanding. He's obviously interested and enthusiastic… which is great… but that needs to be tempered with information… and correct information at that.

 

[Mephisto]

No, I'd disagree with that, as, well, what he described isn't really judo… I can see how it could be the way you think Judo's tactical and mechanical methods are, but even then, it's not really correct either. Importantly, it really, really isn't Judo's "combat philosophy".



You're looking at a completely different context. All Bee said was that "Defending yourself using Judo is more justifiable (to a court) than striking"… which is not correct at all. And no-one said anything about only knowing "crush, kill, destroy".

Here's the thing…. Bee is young… he's, realistically, highly inexperienced and naive about much of this, and is commenting from his own (not entirely informed) beliefs. What I'm doing is pointing out where his knowledge is lacking presently… hopefully he'll be able to take that on board, and improve his understanding. He's obviously interested and enthusiastic… which is great… but that needs to be tempered with information… and correct information at that.

It's fair enough to help him. As a newb to martial arts and forums he should consider all possibilities. I'm just pointing out that in the right contexts he's not entirely off base. At a basic level judo is about balance disruption but it certainly goes deeper than that. If you can put a guy on the ground without hurting him you're better off from a legal standing. But slamming a guy or splitting his face open may be one in the same in the eyes of the law. Those are points, in limited circumstances he may be right. But he should consider other options in which he's wrong, and expand his understanding.

 

[Zero]

No, I'd disagree with that, as, well, what he described isn't really judo… I can see how it could be the way you think Judo's tactical and mechanical methods are, but even then, it's not really correct either. Importantly, it really, really isn't Judo's "combat philosophy".



You're looking at a completely different context. All Bee said was that "Defending yourself using Judo is more justifiable (to a court) than striking"… which is not correct at all. And no-one said anything about only knowing "crush, kill, destroy".

Here's the thing…. Bee is young… he's, realistically, highly inexperienced and naive about much of this, and is commenting from his own (not entirely informed) beliefs. What I'm doing is pointing out where his knowledge is lacking presently… hopefully he'll be able to take that on board, and improve his understanding. He's obviously interested and enthusiastic… which is great… but that needs to be tempered with information… and correct information at that.

All I would say is that judo is a great base art and it was very handy for myself going through high school. I ended most sports field or "play ground" altercations and rough housing with a sweep, sometimes, sometimes not followed by a neck or arm lock. I never found myself in the principle's office over this. Whereas those that used any form of fist, particularly to the face at school found themselves heavily reprimanded or suspended/expelled.

It is a stretch but there may be just some of that that also comes out when you find yourself before LEOs on the scene or in the court house before the judge, even in the States, where you have ended a confrontation with a throw or takedown (provided you have not pile-drived them head first into the asphalt or thrown them through a plate glass window) rather than a punch across said muggers jaw. The form of response, as in the technique used, can well go to the determination of whether reasonable force was used. But as JKS says, that is provided that the end result of the throw is not some guy's head getting split open, which may be the only option (or result) if faced with a violent encounter.