Muay Thai vs Taekwondo #2

[Kenpo_man]

I wanted to make this a separate thread because I want to hear specific answers. Taekwondo being regarded as a less than effective art is obviously an area of contention. I personally believe that every art has something to teach but I also believe that some arts are superior in their overall approach to fighting, their techniques, and most of all their method of training. The following question is designed only to see which art people percieve as better. I hope nobody is offended by the answers given.


If you wanted to become a good fighter and were going to step into the ring to prove yourself, which art would you train in, Muay Thai or Taekwondo?

Please stick to simply naming the art you would choose. If you absolutely must add something, keep it short and sweet.

[arnisador]

I personally believe that every art has something to teach but I also believe that some arts are superior in their overall approach to fighting, their techniques, and most of all their method of training.

I agree. The person and how he or she trains makes the biggest difference, but some arts are better for certain people or for certain circumstances. If I had to prepare for a samurai sword battle, I'd pick kenjutsu and iaijutsu over boxing and wrestling. In addition, there's a paper-scissors-rock quality to the startegies employed by different arts, where Art A might beat Art B more often than not, and Art B might beat Art C more often than not, but then Art C might beat Art A more often than not. Even if I thought a striking art was best, if I knew I had to fight another striker, I might look to grappling for a strategic advantage.


If you wanted to become a good fighter and were going to step into the ring to prove yourself, which art would you train in, Muay Thai or Taekwondo?

Muay Thai. But in saying "the ring" you've already biased the question. Muay Thai fighters train for that. You might get very different answers if the question were instead, If you had to face a knifer empty-handed, which art would you train in: Muay Thai or TKD? If you were going to try for an Olympic point-sparraing slow, in which art would you train?

[FearlessFreep]

Well for me obviously Taekwondo because I'm already pretty familiar with it : )

That being said, what little I know of Muy Thai is that it doesn't have anything that is not present in Taekwondo, or at least I'm thinking moslty in terms of elbows and knees. It's not shown much in sparring, but it is born out in forms, and if you pracice the moves present in the forms as if you are going to fight with those individual techniques, then there is a *lot* in there within the art that doesn't get noticed much. Good eample is in my form for my last belt, it had an elbow strike to the face and then later grabbing the back of the head and slamming it into the elbow. The form for my next belt includes grabbing the back of the head and slamming the face into a knee. Those are part of the art. Now find someone who takes the whole art seriously as a way of combat who is going to take those moves and drill them to be effective, there's is a *lot* in there

The perception problems seems to be that in this country at least that what most people see of TKD is *only* the olympic sparring, or worse yet the point sparring, and forms done as abstract artistry with little connection to the combat moves they represent.

In what little I have seen there is a big difference in TKD schools in how they approaching teaching the art or a subset of he art. My last instructor was big on using body mechanics to generate power and using power to make life difficult on your sparring opponent, not just a tap to score the point but an authoritative whack to make our opponent not want to engage you.

No disrespect to Muy Thai, but if you took too people who trained in there respective arts for a ring fight, I would choose Taekwondo myself, but I'm biased in having a lot of respect for what it can do

[barriecusvein]

Muay Thai

[IcemanSK]

If it has not been brought up yet....Who's rules are we fighting in this TKD vs. Muay Thai bout? If it TKD, the Thai fighter has little advantage. The reverse would also be true.

The "average" fighter from X vs. the "average fighter from Y. Its a silly arguement.

[FearlessFreep]

I guess that's why it was phrased as 'which would *you* choose to train in if you were going into the ring', by which I took to mean you would have chance to know the rules ahead of time and train for them in advance, given some ruleset that would be at least sensible to both arts

[Kenpo_man]

. . .there's a paper-scissors-rock quality to the startegies employed by different arts, where Art A might beat Art B more often than not, and Art B might beat Art C more often than not, but then Art C might beat Art A more often than not.

This is an interesting concept. It makes me wonder what different arts would look like up against eachother.

To clear up any confusion, lets leave the ring out of it. What art would you use to prepare yourself for any violent confrontation; street or otherwise?

[Kenpo_man]

The "average" fighter from X vs. the "average fighter from Y. Its a silly arguement.

I don't think so. If an art is superior or inferior, wouldn't you want to know?

[Marginal]

To clear up any confusion, lets leave the ring out of it. What art would you use to prepare yourself for any violent confrontation; street or otherwise?

Avoiding-bars-and-bad-areas-Do.

[Marginal]

I don't think so. If an art is superior or inferior, wouldn't you want to know?

The problem is that the training can differ from one school to the next in any broadly dispersed art. Comparing one to the next is also highly subjective since the art you happen to be involved with tends to have the greatest luster.

As far as the continum goes, it's pretty straightforward. Live training and active conditioning etc, the stuff that goes into MT, Boxing etc is largely what contrubutes to the sport's effectiveness. The further you diverge from heavy conditioning, heavy contact, minimal target restrictions etc, the less effective the art can become if the students don't take the time to actively train in the areas that the sport or if you prefer, art begins to neglect.

In TKD's case, the art does contain plenty of hand techniques, elbows, knees etc. (I haven't met anyone who would willingly offer their ribs vs a Korean style side kick.) The techniques offered in any art only count if they're actively trained however. Someone that knows how to throw a punch vs someone who throws a few thousand a week, is going to have comparatively weak hands. Someone who has incentive to use their hands in sparring's more likely to bring them to bear effectively than someone who's been given little to no reason to use them.

You get out what you put in. So if you really want to tier things into neat little groupings, full contact sports/arts will always come out on top. TMA's tend to be roughly equal. I'm not going to fret over another TKD guy any more than I would someone who does some ninja art, kenpo, tai chi, etc. At the core, most arts have the same principles of power generation etc, so why bounce around or waste a ton of time trying to prove or disprove an art's effectiveness. All one can really do is work on their own shortfalls etc.

[Maltair]

To clear up any confusion, lets leave the ring out of it. What art would you use to prepare yourself for any violent confrontation; street or otherwise?

Muay Thai

[Maltair]

No wait, Taekwondo

[SAVAGE]

Muay Thai

[Zepp]

As someone who's trained mostly in Tae Kwon Do, but had some exposure to Muay Thai, here's my take:

A Tae Kwon Do instructor will generally teach you a wider variety of techniques than a Muay Thai instructor. A Muay Thai instructor will have you focus on fewer techniques, but will also help you improve your physical conditioning. Neither art really works on making the things you learn directly applicable in self-defense, unless the instructor makes a special point of it.

[Kenpo_man]

A lot more TKD answers than I expected! The conditioning factor seems to be the main difference.

[arnisador]

A lot more TKD answers than I expected! The conditioning factor seems to be the main difference.

Yup. I'd have to go with Muay Thai between the two, because of how it's trained. But for those who train their TKD similarly, they have more options vs. weapons and multiple opponents, for example, which is a definite advantage.

But you can practice TKD for 20 years at many places and never take (or give) a real hit. That leads to a big surprise when something happens on the street, where an aggressive person is trying to hit you hard.

[CMS]

If you wanted to become a good ball player and were going to step onto the field to prove yourself, which sport would you train in, baseball or football?

[SAVAGE]

But you can practice TKD for 20 years at many places and never take (or give) a real hit. That leads to a big surprise when something happens on the street, where an aggressive person is trying to hit you hard.

I think this is true of most modern training in MA!

[FearlessFreep]

If you wanted to become a good ball player and were going to step onto the field to prove yourself, which sport would you train in, baseball or football?

I think a better analogy would be "If you wanted to be a good pitcher would you train to be a fastball pitcher or a breaking ball pitcher" Not a great analogy either, but a bit closer to the mark

[tradrockrat]

Why can't I use both? I mean I trained in both, so why not?

[DeLamar.J]

Muay Thai:boxing:

[Kenpo_man]

If you wanted to become a good ball player and were going to step onto the field to prove yourself, which sport would you train in, baseball or football?

No offence, but I think your a little off the mark. Lets all remember that Muay Thai did not start out as a sport. It was a battlefield tested art just like the majority of eastern martial arts out there. From research I've conducted myself, I've learned that Thai soldiers have trained in Muay Thai for many years including present time. It was effective then against real threats just as it could be now. http://www.wmtc.nu/html/wmc03_mthist.html

I don't think the question is so out of place as your analogy makes it seem. I'm asking about people's opinions of the techniques used in either art. I have never studied TKD and thus claim no true knowledge of it, but I have been told by people who have studied it that they never saw a leg kick being thrown. On the other hand, having trained in muay thai myself I can attest that there are no throat strikes and no groin shots. TKD seems to have more of the nasty stuff(I know a knee to the dome is nasty but I'm alluding to groin strikes, eye pokes, throat poking . . . that kind of nasty). Muay Thai has real contact and it advocates keeping the hands up whereas TKDists generally (and I know there are exceptions but based on what I've seen at tournaments . . .) keep their hands quite low. My question is asking which art is better for preparing for violent confrontation based on these differences.

[FearlessFreep]

keep their hands quite low.

I've only seen a few practitioners do that. My previous instructor advocated keeping your head up with your front hand about eye level and your rear hand abt chin level, but I trained once or twice with *his* first instructor who advocated hunching the shoulders with the hand higher almost looking between the arms. My current instructor told me I was to high up and said to crouch or hunch my shoulder ('like boxing' he saays, and throws a few quick jabs and crosses and blocks his face), I'm guessing where you see the low hands might be more sport-oriented schools or practioners because I've heard that some will do it confident that they can get their hands up in time for a high kick but it's to bait an attack Just speculating

[Jagermeister]

My biased answer is muay thai.

[Adept]

As a black belt in TKD, I'd have to say Muay Thai.

As a rule of thumb, a greater proportion of muay thai fighters are better conditioned, with more relevant (ie, full power) sparring and ring time. They know how to win fights, as opposed to scoring points.

[Odin]

As a black belt in TKD, I'd have to say Muay Thai.

As a rule of thumb, a greater proportion of muay thai fighters are better conditioned, with more relevant (ie, full power) sparring and ring time. They know how to win fights, as opposed to scoring points.

I agree.

[terryl965]

It is sad when people generalize that TKD is all about points, I relize the Art of TKD is all in all about lost for the most part, but there are still some old timers out there.

Is not Mauy Tai not a sport as well with rules for fighting in the ring, we will see where they sport takes them in about 20 years.

Lastly as I have said before it is about the fighter not the Art really, I know guys that have never trained but would kill most people in the street, no matter what art they train in.

Your Friend in the Arts
Terry

[CMS]

Having studied both TKD and Muay Thai, I'd have to say JuJitsu, or FMAs. Seriously, both arts may have started as combat systems, but as practiced today, both are sport systems with differant rule sets. (Just as football and baseball are both ball games with differant rule sets.) I guess you could argue that a football player will do better in a "street fight" than a baseball player, but not neccesarily.

The question originally posed refered to an arena, which implied a sporting situation. In this context, the likelyhood of the winner would depend on which art the rules favored.

Asking which is better is like trying to gauge whether a hammer is better than a screw driver. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Why not study both? Throw in a grappling art such as BJJ and a weapons based art such as Kali or Escrima while you're at it. They're all great stuff, and each improves the other.

[Marginal]

No offence, but I think your a little off the mark. Lets all remember that Muay Thai did not start out as a sport. It was a battlefield tested art just like the majority of eastern martial arts out there.

On the same level of relevance to how the art's trained today,so was TKD.

[Kenpo_man]

On the same level of relevance to how the art's trained today,so was TKD.

I hope my mentioning that Muay Thai started as a battlefield art didn't make anyone think I was implying the TKD wasn't. In fact, I'm sure I heard somwhere that the Korean military trains in it.

http://www.barrel.net/history.html

A little history on TKD for anyone who's interested. Lots of info!

[Touch Of Death]

The original question had to do with which style was most effective in the ring. On that I will give it to Muay Thai; however, self defense does not require a ring. TKD if understood and used by the right person would be just as effective at controlling the distance if not more so.
Sean

[arnisador]

On the same level of relevance to how the art's trained today,so was TKD.

A battlefield-tested art? When?

Tae Kwon Do is modified Shotokan Karate. Yes, the Korean military trains in it, but has there been significant battlefield use of it? I know of one death by TKD in the DMZ after the Korean War, but that was a surprise attack, not a battle per se.

The fact that there are military units that train in TKD doesn't make it battle-tested.

[Marginal]

A battlefield-tested art? When?
Not to dodge the question, but my point was that battlefield origions are not relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. The claim that commonly pops up, is that was refined from Shotokan by Korean troops during the Korean war. If that is the case, then TKD became a style in its own right through the environment the troops found themselves in. Therefore, it is a battlefield art.

[Kenpo_man]

Not to dodge the question, but my point was that battlefield origions are not relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. The claim that commonly pops up, is that was refined from Shotokan by Korean troops during the Korean war. If that is the case, then TKD became a style in its own right through the environment the troops found themselves in. Therefore, it is a battlefield art.

The battlefield origins of the arts are more than relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. If an art started as a sport, would that not make it a little less viable as a choice for learning to defend one's self in the street. The point of this thread is too compare two arts in their effectiveness for street defence. I brought up the battlefield origins in response to CMS using the baseball/football analogy. I figured he was trying to say that Muay Thai was more of a sport than was TKD. This is why I brought up the battlefield origins; to explain that Muay Thai originated as a means to do battle against opponents who meant to do real harm. Unless I misinterpreted CMS's point (which is more than likely, lol), I think that the original aims of the arts are very relevant to this thread.

[Marginal]

The battlefield origins of the arts are more than relevant to the arts as they are practiced now. If an art started as a sport, would that not make it a little less viable as a choice for learning to defend one's self in the street.

Most MA's have civillian roots. Especially HTH varieties as soldiers were far more likey to poke other people with spears, swords, shoot them with arrows etc. Weapons tend to be more effective in a confrontation after all.

On the other hand, Judo was culled from multiple battlefield arts. Kano unified them under a central theory, and systematized the teaching methods. His goal was to create a sport.

BJJ was then taken from Judo. It is no more a battlefield art in intent or practice than Judo was regardless of its roots. Both were intended to be sports from their inception. Calling an art a battlefield art lends it a certain cache, (as in "Ooh! danger! It's a KILLING ART!!!!!!!!!) but it really doesn't mean anything except to the MA historians out there.


The point of this thread is too compare two arts in their effectiveness for street defence.

And an ancient Thailander learning how to hit people with a sword (or did they use sticks? I can't remember) doesn't say much about current MT training methods. Whatever it was in the past, it's a ring sport now.


I think that the original aims of the arts are very relevant to this thread.

The current aims of an art are far more relevant to this thread.

[arnisador]

On the other hand, Judo was culled from multiple battlefield arts. Kano unified them under a central theory, and systematized the teaching methods. His goal was to create a sport.


Well...his goal was to preserve the ancient arts, and the sport aspect seemed to be a way to do that.

[Kenpo_man]

Most MA's have civillian roots. Especially HTH varieties as soldiers were far more likey to poke other people with spears, swords, shoot them with arrows etc. Weapons tend to be more effective in a confrontation after all.

And an ancient Thailander learning how to hit people with a sword (or did they use sticks? I can't remember) doesn't say much about current MT training methods. Whatever it was in the past, it's a ring sport now.

The thai method of fighting with weapons was more commonly known as krabi krabong, a completely separate art from muay thai. Muay thai developed as an art to use when a soldier lost his weapon. It incorporated deadly techniques to use against an armed or unarmed foe until another weapon could be found. It makes sense then to look back to the origins of the arts and the aims of the techniques back then seeing as those are the very techniques being used today in the ring or at tournaments. I have to agree that the arts as they are practiced today are more relevant to this thread, but if you read back, I never argued against that.

[Kenpo_man]

No offence, but I think your a little off the mark. Lets all remember that Muay Thai did not start out as a sport. It was a battlefield tested art just like the majority of eastern martial arts out there. From research I've conducted myself, I've learned that Thai soldiers have trained in Muay Thai for many years including present time. It was effective then against real threats just as it could be now. http://www.wmtc.nu/html/wmc03_mthist.html

I don't think the question is so out of place as your analogy makes it seem. I'm asking about people's opinions of the techniques used in either art. I have never studied TKD and thus claim no true knowledge of it, but I have been told by people who have studied it that they never saw a leg kick being thrown. On the other hand, having trained in muay thai myself I can attest that there are no throat strikes and no groin shots. TKD seems to have more of the nasty stuff(I know a knee to the dome is nasty but I'm alluding to groin strikes, eye pokes, throat poking . . . that kind of nasty). Muay Thai has real contact and it advocates keeping the hands up whereas TKDists generally (and I know there are exceptions but based on what I've seen at tournaments . . .) keep their hands quite low. My question is asking which art is better for preparing for violent confrontation based on these differences.

This is the post where I mentioned the origins of muay thai. I don't think I tried to make it sound overly deadly nor did I stay on the subject long. I moved on very quickly to what the arts would be teaching today as that was my original interest. It was in response to CMS's analogy that I mentioned it and that is the only reason it came up at all. I thought he was trying to say Muay Thai techniques were all sport oriented and I kindly disagreed. Lets get back to the point of the thread because I personally have found the answers given and the reasons for them to be intriguing. I find it sort of silly to argue over something that had so little importance placed on it in the first place.

[Kenpo_man]

Having studied both TKD and Muay Thai, I'd have to say JuJitsu, or FMAs. Seriously, both arts may have started as combat systems, but as practiced today, both are sport systems with differant rule sets. (Just as football and baseball are both ball games with differant rule sets.) I guess you could argue that a football player will do better in a "street fight" than a baseball player, but not neccesarily.

The question originally posed refered to an arena, which implied a sporting situation. In this context, the likelyhood of the winner would depend on which art the rules favored.

Asking which is better is like trying to gauge whether a hammer is better than a screw driver. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Why not study both? Throw in a grappling art such as BJJ and a weapons based art such as Kali or Escrima while you're at it. They're all great stuff, and each improves the other.

Now this just drives me crazy. I ask which art people would rather study for street defence. Some people answer one way or the other and a few write posts like this. I personally think Kenpo (trained properly, i.e. beyond the memorization of moves and a real study of their principles) is one of the most effective martial arts out there for street defence (with an obvious lack of ground fighting skills). Does mentioning that give anybody here any idea whether I would study TKD or MT for street defence and why? That was the question posed after all.

[terryl965]

Now this just drives me crazy. I ask which art people would rather study for street defence. Some people answer one way or the other and a few write posts like this. I personally think Kenpo (trained properly, i.e. beyond the memorization of moves and a real study of their principles) is one of the most effective martial arts out there for street defence (with an obvious lack of ground fighting skills). Does mentioning that give anybody here any idea whether I would study TKD or MT for street defence and why? That was the question posed after all.

Kenpo_Man I know just enough about MT to get me in trouble and TKD I have been in for twenty five years, I would choose TKD by comfort I know my Art and yes I have used it in street stituation and it worked for me.

The one thing I have notice about this type of question is nobody ever ask the right question about which ART, you see when you say TKD people only think about Sport TKD because that is what the mases are teaching out there, but when you ask MT I think about ring fighting because that is what I know about it the sport not fair I know, but like I said enough to get me in trouble.

Could you please give some examples of MT for street and I'll give some TKD for street as well and maybe through some comparisions we can have a honest and wider decussion on the subject for all to enjoy.

Thanks
Terry

[Kenpo_man]

Could you please give some examples of MT for street and I'll give some TKD for street as well and maybe through some comparisions we can have a honest and wider decussion on the subject for all to enjoy.

Thanks
Terry

Sure thing!

Obviously, MT has great tools for controlling distance. The point is to hit your opponent without getting hit, solid means to defending ones self. The viciousness of the techniques ensure a quick end to any fight. The practical training methods used give real confidence that is necessary in a violent conflict. The conditioning of the body to taking blows has an obvious advantage. Also, and in my opinion very important, is the extensive array of clinch techniques often passed over by many martial arts. Many fight make it to this range and a well trained MT fighter has a great advantage over the average street fighter. Thanks for a real reply!

[CMS]

Now this just drives me crazy. I ask which art people would rather study for street defence. Some people answer one way or the other and a few write posts like this. I personally think Kenpo (trained properly, i.e. beyond the memorization of moves and a real study of their principles) is one of the most effective martial arts out there for street defence (with an obvious lack of ground fighting skills). Does mentioning that give anybody here any idea whether I would study TKD or MT for street defence and why? That was the question posed after all.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I shudder at the thought of adding to anyone's burden of staving off mental illness. Your original post stated: If you wanted to become a good fighter and were going to step into the ring to prove yourself, which art would you train in, Muay Thai or Taekwondo?

Does this not say "Ring?" I don't see any mention of "Street" here. If your question was "Which works better for self defense, Tae Kwon Do or Muay Tai?" why didn't you ask that?

I think this question is fairly meaningless. The only answer is "It depends."

Apparently you've already decided that Kenpo ("trained properly"), works for you. Were you just trying to start an arguement between TKD folks and MT folks?

[Odin]

Could you please give some examples of MT for street and I'll give some TKD for street as well and maybe through some comparisions we can have a honest and wider decussion on the subject for all to enjoy.

Thanks
Terry

Almost every move in Muay thai is a potential knockout blow,in a street fight this would be essential since you don't really want to be playing about.

[Odin]

Sure thing!

Obviously, MT has great tools for controlling distance. The point is to hit your opponent without getting hit, solid means to defending ones self. The viciousness of the techniques ensure a quick end to any fight. The practical training methods used give real confidence that is necessary in a violent conflict. The conditioning of the body to taking blows has an obvious advantage. Also, and in my opinion very important, is the extensive array of clinch techniques often passed over by many martial arts. Many fight make it to this range and a well trained MT fighter has a great advantage over the average street fighter. Thanks for a real reply!

clap clap took word out of my mouth there.

[FearlessFreep]

Almost every move in Muay thai is a potential knockout blow,in a street fight this would be essential since you don't really want to be playing about.

Like t hat roundhouse to the knee :)

Seriously, though, a knockout is going to be caused by a shot to the head, both MT and TKD contain a lot of shots to the head, including fists, elbows, knees, and feet. The difference is going to be whether or not you practice all those techniques with intent to seriously injure or knock someone out. Both also involve a wide variety of body shots and low shots.

The biggest *real* difference I've seen is that MT emplys the shin as a weapon, and TKD employs more kicks to the head, but after that, they both seem to be very hard striking arts. I know I'm generalizing in that but I'm talking about what they are, or seem to be, from a fighting point of view.

[Zepp]

I highly recommend that everyone here who is genuinely interested in reading about how Muay Thai and Tae Kwon Do compliment each other should search for threads on MartialTalk started by Damian Mavis. Especially his stories about training and living in Thailand.

[Marginal]

Or just look at Ken Lo.

[Kenpo_man]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I shudder at the thought of adding to anyone's burden of staving off mental illness. Your original post stated: If you wanted to become a good fighter and were going to step into the ring to prove yourself, which art would you train in, Muay Thai or Taekwondo?



Apparently you've already decided that Kenpo ("trained properly"), works for you. Were you just trying to start an arguement between TKD folks and MT folks?

Read every post and you'll see where I re-worded my question to make it easier to answer. I train in Muay Thai so no, I wasn't trying to start an argument. If you don't like the thread, don't read and don't post; it's that simple.

[Jagermeister]

More fuel to the fire. Muay Thai vs. Taekwondo under special rules. Enjoy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585460401345378983&q=muay+thai

[Blindside]

You would think the TKD guy would figure out that getting his foot caught was a bad thing....

[Laborn]

WOW that tkd guy sucked lol 2 or 3 back kicks and they all misse,d the guy never even freaking moved lol. These guys really arn't very good at showing what our style can really do.

[SAVAGE]

Read every post and you'll see where I re-worded my question to make it easier to answer. I train in Muay Thai so no, I wasn't trying to start an argument. If you don't like the thread, don't read and don't post; it's that simple.

When you make a post you cant pick and choose what people post and what the content of the post will be....personally I feel this is a versus thread taht you see by newbies to MA....If I wanted to prove myself in the ring I would train HARD....the art makes no difference, but my skill and determination is what will be the deciding factor!

[Odin]

More fuel to the fire. Muay Thai vs. Taekwondo under special rules. Enjoy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585460401345378983&q=muay+thai

Ouch.....

[Dan G]

WOW that tkd guy sucked lol 2 or 3 back kicks and they all misse,d the guy never even freaking moved lol. These guys really arn't very good at showing what our style can really do.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4096698654952355459&q=Taekwondo

This guy does a better job. :asian:

[Jagermeister]

That one's been posted on here quite a few times.

[beauty_in_the_sai]

If there is a superior art, which I don't believe there is, but if there was one, it'd be JKD in my book. It's formless and does pretty much everything that all the other styles do. It's hard to learn because it's limitless.

As for this stupid arguement, I've already posted my views one the last Muay Thai vs TKD. No matter which one you say, you are going to offend someone. I don't think it's a matter of which is better, but which works better for you. If you are a strong kicker, like me, TKD is the obvious choice. If you are better with your hands, go with something else. Believe it or not, no matter what people say, not all TKD is created equal. I've won many a street fight with my TKD, as well as many ring fights. Yes, some TKD schools are McDojos, but that doesn't mean people should catagorize ALL TKD into the mcdojo and useless classes. That's art stereotyping, and as a TKDist who knows that her art works, I'm getting rather sick of hearing such lies.

Becky