What Style is Best For Real Self Defense?

[macher]

Sort of. A sport BJJ school will train as hard as anyone. But will drill concepts that are not as applicable.

True that concepts should be applicable. My take with my experience is the most important concept when faced with an opponent in real life situation is to learn how to parry punches from all different non orthodox angles and how to ‘parry’ when someone is pushing you as an example. If you can get skilled on parrying then what you do after is easy to learn.

Let’s say you’re in a bar and you accidentally bump into someone and he gets offended. He starts confronting you and starts pushing you. You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one. You don’t necessarily have to try and knock him out but want to know how to parry the push or the punch that he’ll throw first or after the first push. Of course you should try to defuse the situation without any action but sometimes that’s not the case. Maybe a parry and when you step in a leg sweep that will send him on his butt but won’t hurt him.

I visited a Krav Maga school yesterday and man they mean business.

 

[Buka]

True that concepts should be applicable. My take with my experience is the most important concept when faced with an opponent in real life situation is to learn how to parry punches from all different non orthodox angles and how to ‘parry’ when someone is pushing you as an example. If you can get skilled on parrying then what you do after is easy to learn.

Let’s say you’re in a bar and you accidentally bump into someone and he gets offended. He starts confronting you and starts pushing you. You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one. You don’t necessarily have to try and knock him out but want to know how to parry the push or the punch that he’ll throw first or after the first push. Of course you should try to defuse the situation without any action but sometimes that’s not the case. Maybe a parry and when you step in a leg sweep that will send him on his butt but won’t hurt him.

I visited a Krav Maga school yesterday and man they mean business.

What do you mean, please, by "You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one". I don't know what that means.

[old man, please be patient]

 

[macher]

What do you mean, please, by "You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one". I don't know what that means.

[old man, please be patient]

Sorry I meant technique.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sort of. A sport BJJ school will train as hard as anyone. But will drill concepts that are not as applicable.

Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.

 

[drop bear]

Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.

Also correct.

 

[Anarax]

Sort of. A sport BJJ school will train as hard as anyone. But will drill concepts that are not as applicable.

GP beat me to it, but I'm thinking along the same lines. Training with full resistance in BJJ is more beneficial than training at a lackluster SD or TMA school. If comparing schools with similar training quality, then BJJ wouldn't be my first choice. That goes back to my point about realistic energy and hard training.

Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What Style is Best For Real Self Defense?

Whatever the MA style that can protect your head to the maximum and not to be punched will be a good MA style. If your opponent can't punch on your head, you will have

- less fear.
- more courage,
- calm mind,
- ...

your survival rate will be higher.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.

Yeah, one of the Aikido schools I've been to trained like this, and it allows dangerous misperceptions to persist because they are never tested. Training in Aikido in this way without any pretense of training for combat is one thing, but training this way while marketing it as an effective method of self defense puts students at risk.

 

[IvanTheBrick]

It's not really much about style. When you look at every martial art, apart from a couple of exceptions and flashy stuff, it's all the same, it's just what it puts emphasis on; BJJ on groundwork, boxing on striking. It's about the quality of the teaching and whether you are being trained to acting in a fight more reactively than proactively, which is done through sparring. You need to learn how to react to the current situation e.g. a punch is being thrown (reactive), rather than attempt to predict what's going to happen and control the situation (proactive). It's not about the style you train, because on the street, if you're angry or mad enough anything is effective, just don't try that no-touch ********. It's about how well you condition your learning is conditioning you for a fight on the street, as compared to a dojo or a cage.

 

[drop bear]

Ok people are getting kind of lost here and it really isn't complicated.

A good style needs to choose moves thar are applicable from a pool of moves that work. And this has to be done via scientific method. The people doing the testing need to understand the dynamic they are creating.

Then if there are moves that you can't properly test. They have to be variations of moves you can.

Then you take that system and design a training method that gives the individual the best chance of being able to apply the system.

So for self defence fignting. The trainer needs to understand fighting. Then needs to accurately represent fighting in his training. Then needs to test honestly and review not only what he can do but what is achieved by his students in experiments. Then needs to refine his system to create better students that again become part of this test.

Almost nobody gets this right. Mostly because people are just too messed up in the head. And prioritise other things over this basic concept.

This mindset. But with a different end game.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, one of the Aikido schools I've been to trained like this, and it allows dangerous misperceptions to persist because they are never tested. Training in Aikido in this way without any pretense of training for combat is one thing, but training this way while marketing it as an effective method of self defense puts students at risk.

I think this comes from the attempt to make everything aiki. Many Aikido schools seem to expect it is possible to always flow. Sometimes things will just turn into a messy fight, which includes things going “hard” and using power and strength to survive.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

I think this comes from the attempt to make everything aiki. Many Aikido schools seem to expect it is possible to always flow. Sometimes things will just turn into a messy fight, which includes things going “hard” and using power and strength to survive.

You mentioning power and strength reminds me of one interaction that left me particularly angry at an Aikido school I was already not especially happy with. I, with six years of Aikido under my belt, was working with a senior student (I may well have had more time in than him, but it was a moot point because the Sensei didn't recognize my prior training). On this particular technique, I requested my opponent attack me faster and more vigorously, but he refused, saying I wasn't extending my arms enough to make the technique effective. I modified my technique and, after several more repetitions, repeated my request. He again refused, saying that if he attacked me harder he would "break" me. I think the very notion that a single, inefficient strike performed by a man who is older than me and in not as good shape could "break" me showed me just how out of touch that particular senior student was with how the projection of force actually works.

 

[O'Malley]

Thanks! I was always interested in Aikido but was always put off by the general ‘wishy washy’ demonstrations of the techniques demonstrated. Then I came across the Rogue Warriors YouTube channel and was like ‘wow’.

Substandard aikido coupled with a lot of grunting and swear words. The real interest of aikido and other internal martial arts is to develop unusual strength by clever use of things such as relaxation, body structure, gravity, momentum and ground reaction force. Trying to make aikido techniques work by adding muscular force to it is like throwing diesel on the sails of a sailing ship.

Softness is actually essential in aikido, even at high intensity:

If you want "martially valid" aikido it's good to stick to older styles such as Yoshinkan or Iwama. Or even Daito-ryu if you can find a good teacher.

Some Aikikai folks have the real stuff because they have followed a decent deshi of the Founder but the problem with Aikikai is that the central dojo is trying to impose its own system across the organization and the model that they use as a reference is not martial. So Aikikai aikido is progressively getting "de-martialized".

There are people that try to counter this phenomenon and try to put the martial side back into aikido. Some of them do like the guys on youtube and look for solutions in modern methods (MMA, BJJ, boxing, etc.) while others try to put the puzzle back together and find out what missing piece made aikido effective in the past. Internal training seems to be a promising idea in order to understand how the sails are supposed to work.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Substandard aikido coupled with a lot of grunting and swear words. The real interest of aikido and other internal martial arts is to develop unusual strength by clever use of things such as relaxation, body structure, gravity, momentum and ground reaction force. Trying to make aikido techniques work by adding muscular force to it is like throwing diesel on the sails of a sailing ship.

I have to disagree with this. Aikido is often used/taught that way, but that is not everyone's intention in Aikido. It is entirely possible to use muscular force within a flow, for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. It's not necessary to always go purely with the aiki approach.

 

[O'Malley]

In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:

So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.

One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.

 

[Martial D]

I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused.

Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!

After rethinking, imma go with Parkour.

 

[macher]

In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:

So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.

One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.

Reminds me years ago our teacher took us to a Tai Chi teacher in Baltimore that he trained with (we were from Philly). This Tai Chi teacher was a 75 -80 years old Chinese man and frail looking and small. This man literally would suck you in and spit you out which seemed like no effort. Can’t explain it he was so soft yet hard at the point of impact.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:

So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.

One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.

Those arts can be trained with the purpose of developing effective fighting ability. That's not best done by focusing purely on the aiki approach. There are times when it's simply much easier and more efficient to take what has been presented (which is sometimes an opportunity to use muscular force to end the interaction quickly).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:

So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.

One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.

I forgot to add this to my prior post. In that video, Mifune's opponents are not using any strength. If they did, his technique (at his age) would likely not be sufficient to overcome their combination of strength and technique.

 

[O'Malley]

Those arts can be trained with the purpose of developing effective fighting ability. That's not best done by focusing purely on the aiki approach. There are times when it's simply much easier and more efficient to take what has been presented (which is sometimes an opportunity to use muscular force to end the interaction quickly).

I think that we have different concepts of "aiki". If by "focusing purely on the aiki approach" you mean "focusing only on using momentum and/or the overcommitment of uke" I might agree with you. But that's not the aiki of daito-ryu, nor the aiki of traditional aikido.

Both those arts produced fearsome fighters while excluding muscular contraction from their training.

I forgot to add this to my prior post. In that video, Mifune's opponents are not using any strength. If they did, his technique (at his age) would likely not be sufficient to overcome their combination of strength and technique.

They actually try to but can't. Muscular strength can be beat by clever use of physics.

Edit: Mifune's diverting of the force applied to him can actually be seen in the video.