Which is better for street

[HighKick]

Karate do or tai kwan do?

Jamie Eddolls

Yes

 

[Instructor]

Here's my standard answer, not that you care.

The best martial art for the street, or for anything, is the one you will train in and practise diligently.

But you will not. So it doesn't matter.

Some people take a martial arts class and it starts them down a new path forever changing their life. Some people take a martial arts class and say that was fun and then go bowling or something. It's fine either way.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

What is the street? It strikes me as a strange term to use. Fights can happen in all kinds of scenarios. Each one requires a custom-fit solution. The Parachute Regiment taught simple techniques and controlled aggression. In the Aikido thread there is mention of US military combat techniques. The Tokyo riot police send a bunch of their guys to the Yoshinkan headquarters for training. Plenty of guys I trained with in boxing clubs hit hard and knew how to deal with conflict. This was more to do with their environmental upbringing than anything else. The boxing club just honed their skills. Martial arts can be adapted and used outside of the training hall and competitions, but this is not their main purpose. For a short while I trained with the old school Taekwondo approach, not the modern Olympic form, and the training was hardcore and those kicks hurt when they hit. Anything can work if you train hard and have the right attitude of mind. Still not sure why anyone wants to take up a martial art specifically to use in the 'street' - seems a weird aim to my way of thinking

 

[Teapot]

I, for one, do not believe in the whole "It's the practitioner; not the style" argument. I used to believe it when I was a kid, but then I changed my mind.

To me, that logic is analogous to saying: "It's the driver; not the vehicle." or "It's the hardware, not the software."

You wouldn't use this kind of logic in other domains because it's a false dichotomy.

If someone asks: "Which is better for racing: A tricycle or a motorcycle?"

It's silly to respond: "The vehicle doesn't matter. Pick any one of them." The tricycle could win the race if whoever rode the motorcycle was so incompetent that they crashed into the side. But that's no excuse to say that these two vehicles are equally good.

For whatever reason... nobody wants to say that both the practitioner and the style matter. Why can't both the hardware and the software be useful? Why can't both the driver and the vehicle be considered?

I can, however... see the spirit of "It's the practitioner; not the style" if we're comparing a Honda sedan to Toyota sedan. Because for everyday purposes, it doesn't matter which one we pick. And in this case... Karate and Taekwondo are somewhat similar because Taekwondo largely came from Shotokan Karate. Tang Soo Do has the same characters as "Karate-Do". Some of the (founders?) of Taekwondo traveled to Tokyo to learn Shotokan Karate from Gichin Funakoshi.

I also remember Ramsey Dewey commenting the following:

 

[Hot Lunch]

I, for one, do not believe in the whole "It's the practitioner; not the style" argument. I used to believe it when I was a kid, but then I changed my mind.

To me, that logic is analogous to saying: "It's the driver; not the vehicle." or "It's the hardware, not the software."

You wouldn't use this kind of logic in other domains because it's a false dichotomy.

If someone asks: "Which is better for racing: A tricycle or a motorcycle?"

It's silly to respond: "The vehicle doesn't matter. Pick any one of them." The tricycle could win the race if whoever rode the motorcycle was so incompetent that they crashed into the side. But that's no excuse to say that these two vehicles are equally good.

For whatever reason... nobody wants to say that both the practitioner and the style matter. Why can't both the hardware and the software be useful? Why can't both the driver and the vehicle be considered?

I can, however... see the spirit of "It's the practitioner; not the style" if we're comparing a Honda sedan to Toyota sedan. Because for everyday purposes, it doesn't matter which one we pick. And in this case... Karate and Taekwondo are somewhat similar because Taekwondo largely came from Shotokan Karate. Tang Soo Do has the same characters as "Karate-Do". Some of the (founders?) of Taekwondo traveled to Tokyo to learn Shotokan Karate from Gichin Funakoshi.

I also remember Ramsey Dewey commenting the following:

View attachment 30742

I remember watching a youtube video where a kung fu guy challenged an MMA guy. The kung fu guy walks into the octagon with his tang suit on, and proceeds to beat the MMA guy. He was a short stocky guy that could take the hits, and I'm not sure that he was using his kung fu the way it was designed to be used. For example, he didn't block or dodge the MMA guy's strikes - he walked right into them to get his in.

Is it really a credit to your chosen art if you go outside of what you were trained to do in order to win? That's the question here.

 

[Instructor]

Is it really a credit to your chosen art if you go outside of what you were trained to do in order to win? That's the question here.

I've intuitively done things that were not formally taught to me. I just sort of followed the flow and did what felt right and it worked. What you are trained is the beginning not the end. That is why it's art, some of it comes from within you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Some people take a martial arts class and it starts them down a new path forever changing their life. Some people take a martial arts class and say that was fun and then go bowling or something. It's fine either way.

It's absolutely fine. I just get tired of wasting my time on people who are not interested in actually training. Which one is better? Who cares? None are better than any others if you're not going to train any of them.

 

[Instructor]

It's absolutely fine. I just get tired of wasting my time on people who are not interested in actually training. Which one is better? Who cares? None are better than any others if you're not going to train any of them.

Well you could always watch TV, Hulu has King of the Hill.

 

[drop bear]

By the way in regards to TKD and self defence. I don't underrate head kicks in self defence so long as you are good at them.

Which theoretically if you are good at TKD should come with the package.

 

[Dirty Dog]

By the way in regards to TKD and self defence. I don't underrate head kicks in self defence so long as you are good at them.

Which theoretically if you are good at TKD should come with the package.

It's a mistake to think that TKD practitioners are just going to blast away at your head. Those same basic kicks work really well when you target squishy bits closer to the ground. Which can also serve to bring the head down where it's even easier to reach.

 

[drop bear]

It's a mistake to think that TKD practitioners are just going to blast away at your head. Those same basic kicks work really well when you target squishy bits closer to the ground. Which can also serve to bring the head down where it's even easier to reach.

I am of the other opinion as it is less likley someone will catch a head kick and take you down.

A lot of untrained kick catches are just eating the kick and scooping the leg. Which if you try with a head kick will probably knock you out.

Even a groin kick if you can take the kick gives you a single leg opportunity.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I am of the other opinion as it is less likley someone will catch a head kick and take you down.

A lot of untrained kick catches are just eating the kick and scooping the leg. Which if you try with a head kick will probably knock you out.

Even a groin kick if you can take the kick gives you a single leg opportunity.

Sure. You attack whatever is open. A lot of people just seem to assume that if you do TKD, you're only going to kick the head. Which is silly.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I, for one, do not believe in the whole "It's the practitioner; not the style" argument. I used to believe it when I was a kid, but then I changed my mind.

To me, that logic is analogous to saying: "It's the driver; not the vehicle." or "It's the hardware, not the software."

You wouldn't use this kind of logic in other domains because it's a false dichotomy.

If someone asks: "Which is better for racing: A tricycle or a motorcycle?"

It's silly to respond: "The vehicle doesn't matter. Pick any one of them." The tricycle could win the race if whoever rode the motorcycle was so incompetent that they crashed into the side. But that's no excuse to say that these two vehicles are equally good.

For whatever reason... nobody wants to say that both the practitioner and the style matter. Why can't both the hardware and the software be useful? Why can't both the driver and the vehicle be considered?

I can, however... see the spirit of "It's the practitioner; not the style" if we're comparing a Honda sedan to Toyota sedan. Because for everyday purposes, it doesn't matter which one we pick. And in this case...

. Tang Soo Do has the same characters as "Karate-Do". Some of the (founders?) of Taekwondo traveled to Tokyo to learn Shotokan Karate from Gichin Funakoshi.

I also remember Ramsey Dewey commenting the following:

View attachment 30742

Yes, TKD is largely adapted from shotokan karate and is similar in many respects, but keep in mind that there are other styles of karate than shotokan which less resemble TKD.

Re: Dewey's attached quote - Toute, toude, toudi is NOT the old Japanese word for karate (Chinese hands). That terminology is Okinawan. And the Japanese word "karate" also meant "Chinese hands" (this step is left out) for about15-18 years until the kanji for "karate" was changed to one that meant "empty hands."

I also take issue with the statement by Dewey that a "huge percentage of American karate schools are actually Korean marital arts schools." While many karate schools advertised kung fu, and even judo and ju-jitsu in the 60's and early 70's as the public didn't know the difference, most all that actually were taking classes had little confusion of what they were learning. During the 70's, I know that Korea was very actively marketing their art here in the US to gain market share and build name recognition. Of course, one can make the case that TKD is simply another karate style (which I will in a new thread, shortly).

And I do think it's more the practitioner than the style that makes one successful in MA. A practitioner that excels in isshinryu will likely also excel in kenpo, goju, or shito, and maybe even TKD, whereas a mediocre practitioner in goju will probably not best a good shito ryu guy. The styles are alike enough that any big advantage derives from the individual practitioner. Athleticism, determination, work ethic, and so on carry over to any style.

 

[Teapot]

Yes, TKD is largely adapted from shotokan karate and is similar in many respects, but keep in mind that there are other styles of karate than shotokan which less resemble TKD.

Re: Dewey's attached quote - Toute, toude, toudi is NOT the old Japanese word for karate (Chinese hands). That terminology is Okinawan. And the Japanese word "karate" also meant "Chinese hands" (this step is left out) for about15-18 years until the kanji for "karate" was changed to one that meant "empty hands."

I also take issue with the statement by Dewey that a "huge percentage of American karate schools are actually Korean marital arts schools." While many karate schools advertised kung fu, and even judo and ju-jitsu in the 60's and early 70's as the public didn't know the difference, most all that actually were taking classes had little confusion of what they were learning. During the 70's, I know that Korea was very actively marketing their art here in the US to gain market share and build name recognition. Of course, one can make the case that TKD is simply another karate style (which I will in a new thread, shortly).

And I do think it's more the practitioner than the style that makes one successful in MA. A practitioner that excels in isshinryu will likely also excel in kenpo, goju, or shito, and maybe even TKD, whereas a mediocre practitioner in goju will probably not best a good shito ryu guy. The styles are alike enough that any big advantage derives from the individual practitioner. Athleticism, determination, work ethic, and so on carry over to any style.

You're right. I assumed the Karate in this case was just Shotokan Karate - or perhaps just mainstream Japanese Karate due to how popular they seem to be. And that failed to take into account of like Okinawan Karate styles.

I also like your point that a practitioner who has the characteristics to excel in one martial art is likely to excel in another similar martial art, but the examples you've used seem to assume martial arts from the same area or shared similar origins.

There are people who learned (let's say) Goju-Ryu and went off to learn Chen Family Taijiquan, and their habits from the previous martial art carried over in ways that hindered them from learning another martial art which is not at all similar.

But more broadly, I think your view addresses a very different aspect - a person's likelihood to be successful in any martial art style.

Whereas, I think people who ask about style vs style make the assumption: If two practitioners are equally athletic, determined, etc... (assume an identical twin study), but each took a different path from choosing a martial art, what differences could we expect?

And that assumption might be reasonable if they think: "I am who I am. I can't really change my personality. But I can choose what to study. That's an easier variable to control."

And by and large, many do not want to entertain that thought experiment. And I suspect a big reason might be that they want to avoid arguments online because they can quickly spiral into a heated debate.

I often suspect that people do have an opinion on style vs style but are just too afraid to express it, knowing that it would not end well in a conversation. "Practitioner, not the style" strikes me as a cop-out response in order to dodge someone's intended question. Someone might have made an assumption that the practitioners are equal (they set a control variable), but the responders then ignore that. They flip it around and set the martial arts styles as the control variable instead.

 

[HighKick]

By the way in regards to TKD and self defence. I don't underrate head kicks in self defence so long as you are good at them.

Which theoretically if you are good at TKD should come with the package.

You really have to weigh the risk/reward of a head kick. I have, but don't ever recommend a head kick until you assess the situation.
I was a Much better kicker back in the day.

 

[Flying Crane]

I often suspect that people do have an opinion on style vs style but are just too afraid to express it, knowing that it would not end well in a conversation. "Practitioner, not the style" strikes me as a cop-out response in order to dodge someone's intended question. Someone might have made an assumption that the practitioners are equal (they set a control variable), but the responders then ignore that. They flip it around and set the martial arts styles as the control variable instead.

I agree, I believe people probably do have opinions on which style is “best” (in however that might be measured) and it usually boils down to what they have experience with, which also means there are a whole hell of a lot of things with which they do NOT have experience. So I often find myself bemused that these claims are made, knowing that their experiences are limited. At any rate, the “best” style usually simply means “the one that I train” and all others are less good. It’s human nature. We should not be surprised by that. We all want to believe that what we do is special and above what others do.

I believe that a better way to look at it is, what is the best style for a particular person. No style is best for everyone. People have different interests and personalities and physical capabilities and natural talents, and these things all contribute to what might be best for a certain person, and what might be a poor choice for that same person. What is the best for me may well be a terrible choice for you. No harm, no foul. Everyone needs to find what is the best for them, and that can change over time. Interests change, new strengths and talents can develop, and the choice of what martial method to study can also change with those things. Sometimes it can simply be a matter of finding a better instructor, getting better quality instruction. In that case, a method that could have been a poor choice for a certain person might become a better choice. So find the best method for you, and if you later find a better method, then change.

This is actually a fairly complicated issue that can change over time. But at the bottom of it, there is no “best” method in an abstract sense of it. Any claims of such are purely subjective, although it is possible to recognize higher quality instruction vs. lower quality instruction, regardless of the method, and also taking into consideration the goals and purpose of the training and what the students hope to get out of it and what the instructor claims the training will give them. Yes, there are lousy schools offering poor quality instruction. That is not necessarily a reflection on the martial method/style itself. It is simply one poor example. Nothing more, nothing less. And YouTube is chock full of poor examples. They are easy to find but most of what happens in life never makes it onto YouTube.

 

[marvin8]

What is the street? It strikes me as a strange term to use. Fights can happen in all kinds of scenarios. Each one requires a custom-fit solution.

A street fight is hand-to-hand combat in public places, between individuals or groups of people.[1] The venue is usually a public place (e.g. a street) and the fight sometimes results in serious injury or occasionally even death.

A fight is a : a hostile encounter : BATTLE, COMBAT b : a boxing match

The Parachute Regiment taught simple techniques and controlled aggression. In the Aikido thread there is mention of US military combat techniques. The Tokyo riot police send a bunch of their guys to the Yoshinkan headquarters for training. Plenty of guys I trained with in boxing clubs hit hard and knew how to deal with conflict... Still not sure why anyone wants to take up a martial art specifically to use in the 'street' - seems a weird aim to my way of thinking

A military line, aikido or MA drill is not a fight. A UFC fight is a fight per the dictionary.

 

[marvin8]

Depends on the school.

Agree.

This is karate.

This is karate.

Not really a good comparison, because one video is only highlights the other is a fight.

The guy in the white helmet is a better fighter. He feints, controls the distance, moves and double weights the opponent, enters then finishes with an irimi nage type throw (no "leg skill" required).

https://imgur.com/7y5QQAB

 

[Hot Lunch]

A street fight is hand-to-hand combat in public places, between individuals or groups of people.[1] The venue is usually a public place (e.g. a street) and the fight sometimes results in serious injury or occasionally even death.

A fight is a : a hostile encounter : BATTLE, COMBAT b : a boxing match

Something I've said many times: unless otherwise stated, a street fight is one on one and unarmed (the only exception being items laying around that can be used as weapons, and long as they're equally accessible to both parties).

That's why people are asking which martial art is the best. Otherwise, they'd be asking which gun they should buy.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I often suspect that people do have an opinion on style vs style but are just too afraid to express it, knowing that it would not end well in a conversation. "Practitioner, not the style" strikes me as a cop-out response in order to dodge someone's intended question. Someone might have made an assumption that the practitioners are equal (they set a control variable), but the responders then ignore that. They flip it around and set the martial arts styles as the control variable instead.

The other cop out is telling the person asking the question to define "street fight" (we all know good and well what a street fight is, or at least what is meant by the person asking the question) or attempting to define it themselves as involving situations (weapons, multiple attackers, etc) so that they're all ultimately equally useful or useless - or (intentionally) derailing the conversation by taking it down that completely different rabbit hole.

I think it's a bad question to be asking in the first place. And I don't mean this to say that it speaks negatively on the person asking the question.

But if you Google the question, your results will be martial arts forums (including this one) where the question has been asked thousands (if not millions) of times over the past 30 years on the internet. Half the answers will be diplomatic, the other answers will be all over the place (everyone claiming their own).

You know what's going to happen? The person wanting to know the answer to this question is going to end up taking a leap of faith and picking something, when they could have started months ago, and saved themselves the frustration that comes with asking this question. The people who asked this question on the internet over the past 30 years have experienced this frustration so that people now don't have to.