My Mucky-Muck Vs. Your Mucky-Muck

[shesulsa]

I hear and read a lot about this style is better than that style or "RexKwonDo is the best striking art you can study" and "The only ground system that's worth a damn is "Blended Margarita." I have personal opinions about certain styles and there seems to be a generally accepted viewpoint on several families of styles. I even have my own leanings.

But to be fair, we all really do know (don't we?) that not all instructors of all styles are cookie-cutter BigMacs, right?

That said ... Pick a style you think bears merit and convince me why it's better than anything else, say for a striking style or a grappling style, or a weapons style, all-around, etcetera.

Please remember we want to keep this polite, respectful, so keep to logical arguments only and let's all refrain from personal attacks.

[Flying Crane]

I don't think I can take up your challenge. I know what I believe works, but I also know there are a lot of others out there who study different things, who could flatten me.

That being said, I will suggest that Tibetan White Crane is a hard-hitting style. I won't suggest that it is the best, or better than X or Y or Z style, but it is a hard hitter, like a sledgehammer.

We use a full-body pivot to generate power that I think is more extreme than many other sysytems. I understand that many/most/all systems use torque and pivot to generate power. I just think in Crane, we take it to the extreme. When we hit, we really are hitting with the full body behind it. The movement is often exaggerated to maximize this power. For actual use, we would not exaggerate like this, but for training the "ideal" technique and developing the power, we do exaggerate.

The problem is that it does leave you open for attack, so it is important to be really really fast, and that is very difficult and demanding. My sifu told me when I asked him to teach it to me that it is for young people, and if I hadn't been young enough and in good enough shape already, he would not have taught it to me. I was probably about 27 or 28 at the time. Mostly, he just tells me "it's OK, needs more work, needs to be faster."

[terryl965]

shesulsa, I to cannot take your challenge on this one. The reason being it is not a fair question, I whole heartily believe it is the individual and not necessary the style. Style has to do with your personal preference over somebody else, for example I have stated this before, I started with Okinawa Karate, moved to Cali. in the eary eighties was looking for something hard as far as training went and found a TKD schoolthat suited me and been doing it since, with that being said over the years I have found some of the techs. he tought to be other styles, no biggie but in my mind since he tought it to me as TKD I teach it today as part of my school TKD, right or wrong it is just as it is.

I do see where you are coming from and it is a great question with alot of potential to get out of wrack quickly.

Good luck with the post
Terry

[shesulsa]

I do see where you are coming from and it is a great question with alot of potential to get out of wrack quickly.
I hope we don't get out of whack at all - I really am hoping to see if any intelligent, well-thought-out, respectful arguments can come of this. I think this is a good challenge for all of us here on MT but I know we can rise to the occasion and refrain from petty bickering.

Terry and Crane, thanks much for your posts already and I agree, of course.

[TheBattousai]

I concur with terryl965, that its up to the individual training. Whatever works best for one person, may not be good for another.
I've train in Kempo for some time now (don't know exactly.....stupid memory), and it works best for me.

[Flying Crane]

Maybe we can change the question a bit to: Why do you believe X or Y system is a good striking, or grappling, or weapons, or all-around system? The whole comparison thing maybe makes it a bit hostile from the get-go. If we remove that, maybe we can get some good discussion going?

[Grenadier]

No established style is really going to be able to claim superiority to another style. If anything, the style will be judged based on its constituents, and such students will have a much greater impact on the perceived effectiveness.

Some styles will be more effective in dealing with a particular circumstance. You select the correct tool for the job.

Furthermore, it's really up to the individual to select the style that is best for himself. For example, a short, heavy fellow with leg problems might not find something like Savate or Tae Kwon Do to be optimal. Those styles and their methods simply don't suit his body type. At the same time, you're probably not going to see many 6' 6" people with high centers of gravity partaking in Jiu-Jitsu. Again, select the correct tool for the job.

[jdinca]

I'm sorry but "Blended Margarita" is a ridiculous choice. Everybody knows that "Mojito" is far superior. :boing2:

I agree with the other responses, so far. It really depends on the instructor and what the student is looking for and what their abilities are. A good, fast grappler can probably kick butt on many a kenpo practitioner, but what happens if there's multiple attackers? Grappling at that point is at a disadvantage. The opposite is also true, someone who is quite good at a kung fu style could take out the grappler before the grappler ever gets his hands on him.

Got long, fast legs? TKD could be your best alternative. Good at throwing hands? Maybe Muay Thai.

For all around, general purpose, keeping yourself from getting killed on the street training, I'd have to go with kenpo. It's base purpose has always been geared towards that scenario and it's been around long enough that there's been a lot of fine tuning. I'm sure the MMA'ers will disagree but that's what I know and that's what I like.

[The MMA kid!]

Im gonna be the first to be buiest and say that Brazilian Jiu jitsu is the best ground fighting art. why? the emphasis on the closed guard. emphasis on submissions, and effectiveness in the ring, one on one street fights etc.

in Gracie jiu jitsu in action the DVD, the Gracie family challenges many styles of martial arts to beat the Gracie Jiu Jitsu practitioner. these clips can be found on google video. Royce vs. kung fu etc.

the question is, does your school/art practice ground fighting? I have yet to see any TKD, karate, kung fu school practice any ground fighting.
and i am not saying last-minute resorts like eye-gouging, biting, and groin grabbing.
the reason why I believe BJJ is so effective is because so many martial arts have lost focus on well rounded fighting, and do pure stand-up fighting.
why not wrestling than? because wrestlers hardly do any kind of submissions, I have grappled with wrestlers who were far superior to me in grappling, but the just didn't know what to do after they had me on my back.
why not Judo? because Judo was created with sport in mind. not for fighting. and focuses on points and throws.
ofcourse, there are leaks in Brazilian jiu jitsu, but i have yet to see a brazilian jiu jitsu practicioner lose to karate, TKD, or kung fu. (without crosstraining)
This thread had to go somewhere. let the debate begin

[Martial Tucker]

I hear and read a lot about this style is better than that style or "RexKwonDo is the best striking art you can study" and "The only ground system that's worth a damn is "Blended Margarita."
I love the "Blended Margarita" system, because about 90% of all drinking sessions end up on the ground! :drinkbeer Sorry....couldn't resist....




Furthermore, it's really up to the individual to select the style that is best for himself. For example, a short, heavy fellow with leg problems might not find something like Savate or Tae Kwon Do to be optimal. Those styles and their methods simply don't suit his body type. At the same time, you're probably not going to see many 6' 6" people with high centers of gravity partaking in Jiu-Jitsu. Again, select the correct tool for the job.
I agree with this, so all I can do is state why I think Tae Kwon Do is best for me.

First consideration was my body type. I'm about 6'1", 215 lbs. Despite being a bit taller than average, my arms and legs are a bit shorter than average, so my reach (for hand-fighting purposes) is also a bit less than average. TKD, being heavy on kicking, appealed to me because I have always had good flexibility, and my shorter than average legs are still longer and stronger than anyone's arms, so I wanted to learn how to kick against the typical brawler who just swings away.
I was aware of the statistic that most fights end up on the ground after a short period, and with my relatively low center of gravity, I did consider judo, but I was a good enough wrestler in high school to get a few scholarship offers from colleges (I chose football instead), so I felt like that experience would carry me through a ground fight with a typical
troublemaker.
Second consideration was my personality. I was a bouncer for several years before I began MA training, and my fighting style has always been to "attack my attacker" head on and just attempt to overwhelm him. I like hitting people (who deserve it) and don't mind being hit, so a more linear, attacking style also fit my personality more than a softer style.
I was fortunate enough to find a TKD school with a very traditional, self defense oriented curriculum offered by a TKD 6th dan who also had a background in professional boxing, and shotokan, so in addition to learning to be an effective kicker, I have learned much about hand-fighting also.

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into an autobiography, but I just wanted to show how your body type and personality are important considerations for choosing a style, and that, as others have said, the best style is the one that works for you as an individual.

[Flying Crane]

I

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into an autobiography, but I just wanted to show how your body type and personality are important considerations for choosing a style, and that, as others have said, the best style is the one that works for you as an individual.

I think the autobiographical bit is important because it puts the picture into perspective and explains why people feel the way they do.

[arnisador]

Paper, scissors, rock.

There are some styles that are better for some situations, and some people, than others. What style would you want to study if you had to fight a duel against an armed samurai? You might want to pick kenjutsu or naginata-do over Sumo. What style would you want to study if you lived in Nome, Alaska? You might find grappling works better on ice, against a parka-wearing opponent, than punching or kicking. What if you were in the military? Some recent posts and links (in the Ninjutsu forum?) point out that mobility is limited in that body armor...and if your opponent has it too, punching to the chest might be a bad idea;clinching seems to have value there. What if you're a pacifist and can't bear the thought of hitting/hurting another person? Aikido might be a better choice for you than Kenpo. What if you're expecting multiple opponents? Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu might not be as good a choice as somethng that keeps you on your feet and moving. What if the concern is sexual assault? Nothing says "No!" as loudly as a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu or Sambo arm or leg/ankle lock, while iaido might be less applicable. What if you think you might be involved in a knife fight? Eskrima might give you more options than Judo. What if you're confined to a wheelchair? I'd recommend jujutsu or Hapkido over Western wrestling or Tae Kwon Do. What if you knew your oppoenent would be visible for some time before they closed with you? Firearms training or kyudo might be better than Sumo. What if you're a police officer, or work in a mental institution? Striking still has value, but you want some serious grappling for control applications.

So, to "[p]ick a style you think bears merit and convince [you] why it's better than anything else" isn't very meaningful. Look at the different choices made by the Army and Marines, or by various police agencies in various countries. Similar problem to be solved, different solutions. It's one thing to compare two arts, as one might compare two paintings--it's quite another to pick the best of all, as it would be to pick the best painting in the world. Any such choice would reflect a bias for a certain style, as picking the best martial art would reveal a bias toward a certain type of situation or type of person.

I do believe that some arts are better than others...for some people, and some situations. What sai-jutsu does, it does well...but it solves a different problem than the one an eskrimador is trying to solve.

[Bigshadow]

I'm sorry but "Blended Margarita" is a ridiculous choice. Everybody knows that "Mojito" is far superior. :boing2:


Yes, I prefer the "Mojito" system too! :boing2:

[Martial Tucker]

Yes, I prefer the "Mojito" system too! :boing2:


Oh, yeah!! As much as I like margaritas, I'll always take a mojito, given a choice....Good call!

[Danny T]

I hear and read a lot about this style is better than that style or "RexKwonDo is the best striking art you can study" and "The only ground system that's worth a damn is "Blended Margarita." I have personal opinions about certain styles and there seems to be a generally accepted viewpoint on several families of styles. I even have my own leanings.

But to be fair, we all really do know (don't we?) that not all instructors of all styles are cookie-cutter BigMacs, right?

That said ... Pick a style you think bears merit and convince me why it's better than anything else, say for a striking style or a grappling style, or a weapons style, all-around, etcetera.

Please remember we want to keep this polite, respectful, so keep to logical arguments only and let's all refrain from personal attacks.


by Arnisador
There are some styles that are better for some situations, and some people, than others. What style would you want to study if you had to fight a duel against an armed samurai? You might want to pick kenjutsu or naginata-do over Sumo. What style would you want to study if you lived in Nome, Alaska? You might find grappling works better on ice, against a parka-wearing opponent, than punching or kicking. What if you were in the military? Some recent posts and links (in the Ninjutsu forum?) point out that mobility is limited in that body armor...and if your opponent has it too, punching to the chest might be a bad idea;clinching seems to have value there. What if you're a pacifist and can't bear the thought of hitting/hurting another person? Aikido might be a better choice for you than Kenpo. What if you're expecting multiple opponents? Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu might not be as good a choice as somethng that keeps you on your feet and moving. What if the concern is sexual assault? Nothing says "No!" as loudly as a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu or Sambo arm or leg/ankle lock, while iaido might be less applicable. What if you think you might be involved in a knife fight? Eskrima might give you more options than Judo. What if you're confined to a wheelchair? I'd recommend jujutsu or Hapkido over Western wrestling or Tae Kwon Do. What if you knew your oppoenent would be visible for some time before they closed with you? Firearms training or kyudo might be better than Sumo. What if you're a police officer, or work in a mental institution? Striking still has value, but you want some serious grappling for control applications.

So, to "[p]ick a style you think bears merit and convince [you] why it's better than anything else" isn't very meaningful. Look at the different choices made by the Army and Marines, or by various police agencies in various countries. Similar problem to be solved, different solutions. It's one thing to compare two arts, as one might compare two paintings--it's quite another to pick the best of all, as it would be to pick the best painting in the world. Any such choice would reflect a bias for a certain style, as picking the best martial art would reveal a bias toward a certain type of situation or type of person.

I do believe that some arts are better than others...for some people, and some situations. What sai-jutsu does, it does well...but it solves a different problem than the one an eskrimador is trying to solve.

Excellent points Arnisador


Shesula, I believe all of the different "styles" and systems have merit and there is no need to say or show one is better than the other. As many discussions on this forum have already stated it is the individual not the "style" or system. One is not better only different. When wanting to truly understand an particular art or training method one needs to study the why of that particular method or system or style. Why was it developed or as Arnisador stated what was the situation it was to work against. I think what makes one better or worse is the actually training. A person can training in a style or system in a manner that one only learns the forms and only punches in the air or against only pads. They compete in forms competitions and do very well. Another can train in the same style under the same instructor but this training consists of basic forms, ever resistance increasing drills, and lots of real time sparring. Who will be the better martial artist, Who will be the better fighter, Who will be the better forms competitor? Which training method is better? Depends on what the individual wants to learn and train for. Forms competition training, point competition training, and combat training is different. Not better only different and each is good for what is taught within.

Danny T

[FearlessFreep]

My Lightening-Duck-Do beats all!!!

[MJS]

This certainly is a tough question. I feel that something can be gained from all arts. Just because I personally might not like a certain art, that does not mean that I can't take an idea ofr concept from it, and apply it to my training.

For me, the arts that I've picked to study are IMO what suits me and my needs of what I was looking for.

Mike

[Bigshadow]

Nintendojutsu - "the way of the thumbs" is the best! It has street fighting, grappling, weapons, even defensive driving. :rofl:

[Adept]

shesulsa, I to cannot take your challenge on this one. The reason being it is not a fair question, I whole heartily believe it is the individual and not necessary the style.

Thats only true to a certain extent. The way in which someone trains can severely limit or hamper their ability to 'handle themselves' when it counts. If two otherwise equal fighters meet in an MMA environment, but one of them has trained in BJJ and the other in the lethal art of fan waving, one of them has a distinct advantage. A good boxer will beat a poor karateka, and a good karateka will beat a poor judo player. But that doesn't prove that any particular style is irrelevant. It doesn't prove much of anything, really.

Just from looking around, we can see for ourselves that some styles have a higher percentage of practitioners who train very hard. Boxers, for example, are widely regarded as very dangerous fighters. They might only ever use their hands, have no ground game, and absolutely no defence against kicks or takedowns, but the level at which they train, their conditioning and constant full contact sparring is an advantage which will carry them a long way. Obviously a good TKD fighter will beat a poor boxer. But that doesn't mean there aren't inherent advantages in training one way over the other.

If I was asked to pick winners from several matches, not being given any information other than the style each fighter would use, I would have my own opinions. I may not be right, but the difference in styles is tangible enough that it does give a certain advantage.

[tshadowchaser]

I also must decline from giveing a answere.
Maybe thats why i have studied multiple arts over the years to help me do my art in a better manner and to add to the knowledge base I try to pass on

[FearlessFreep]

But that doesn't mean there aren't inherent advantages in training one way over the other.

That brings up two interesting thoughts and I think you hit something very important about training approach

a) since boxing has a limited number of techniques with no forms and only one basic fighting style if you will, they can focus all there training into that one approach, which means that they are very good at it. A Taekwondo Black Belt is going to have a broad range of skills so that, huor for hour in training, a comparitvely experienced boxer is going to be much better at just that one thing. What that really means I don't know. If you are being measured by only that litmus test than it's probably pretty good. In a different context where you are being measured differently, then the strength and stamina and toughness aquired in training just that one aspect will serve you well...but well enough?

b) There's probably more money inboxing than any other fighting competition, and I'm guessing it can be done professionally at many levels of skill. As far as I know, here is no equivalent moeny to be made in Taekwondo for example. This gives boxers both and incentive and an opportunity to train very hard for simply that fighting style, which are not really available to other arts, at least in this country. If you could make a decent career, even at lower levels, as a professional Taekwondo fighter? do you think you would see more Taekwondoist training in the same manner as boxers? and what would the result be?

[Josh]

I'll take the Challenge right here right now.



I think REAL Ninjitsu covers every aspect of combat.

[terryl965]

shesulsa I myself commend you on this post, it has done more than I would have expected and the answer are some great ones.
A job well done:-partyon:

Terry

[Adept]

If you could make a decent career, even at lower levels, as a professional Taekwondo fighter? do you think you would see more Taekwondoist training in the same manner as boxers? and what would the result be?

I imagine you would see more TKD fighters training that much harder.

However, (and we're getting a little off-topic here) TKD would need a little bit of an overhaul in terms of it's competitions before it picked up some of the more beneficial traits from boxing, or other full contact sports.

I'm not really referring to the volume of techniques a fighter focuses on either. More the method and intensity of training, nor am I saying it's unique to any particular style. But one is more likely to encounter that high level and volume of full contact sparring, conditioning and motivation in a boxing gym, than a karate dojo.

I summarise it by saying boxers win fights, while TKD fighters win points, but it is more complex than that. A TKD fighter who trains for self defense and makes sure he has a well rounded tool box is a very dangerous person. One who trains specifically for olympic style tournaments is no where near as well rounded, or as dangerous, for lack of a better word.

I know we've had this debate before, but I feel the scoring system is largely to blame. The ten point must system, I feel, encourages more aggressive and more "realistic" fighting. Point sparring adds an un-needed extra level of artificial abstraction, and people train to score points, not dominate the round and dominate their opponent.

[Zorba]

i dont beleive you can say that any martial art is particularly better than the other.

each art has evolved to what it is now for a specific reason. Karate concentrates on inclose hand techniques because of the lack of space over there. TKD has the airial moves because they were invaded by horse mounted soldiers. Capoera looks like a dance because the slaves were not allowed to practice fighting.

Currently i do shotokan and TKD to give myself a well rounded striking art, but i would also like to take up some grappling/throws (maybe something like hapkido) ground grappling like BJJ and some weapons, ie Kali.

do what is best for you.

having said that tho, you can definitely say some schools are better than another.

[CuongNhuka]

I hate having to do this. 4th time man. All righty then

“Judging the difference and power of one style over another is completely useless.” Miyamoto Musashi

“In any form of freestyle/fight, it is the person in the fight who determines the winner. Styles of martial arts are meant to teach you how you can, and should move and react in a fight.”Myself

These are the principles of the fighter who wishes to be at all successful in a fight. They come in the form of 6 philosophies. 5 are taught in Coung Nhu, 1 is my own.
3 “O”’s principle i. Open heart
ii. Open mind
iii. Open arms

5 “R”’s for self defense i. Right time
ii. Right place
iii. Right techniques
iv. Right perspective
v. Run

5 “W”’s for self defense i. Wrong time
ii. Wrong place
iii. Wrong people
iv. Wrong attitude
v. Wrong technique

5 “A”’s for self defense i. Awareness
ii. Alertness
iii. Avoidance
iv. Anticipation
v. Action

5 first’s for friendship i. Communicate
ii. Smile
iii. Care
iv. Share
v. Forgive

The 10 things to devolop for self defense (mine) i. Skill in striking with the hands and legs
ii. Skill in grappling
iii. A strong stance and guard
iv. Skill in moving evasively
v. Skill in defending yourself from weapons commonly used in violent crime
vi. Skill in wielding the above weapons, and yawara
vii. Skill in running quickly, and talking your way out of a bad place
viii. Skill in defending yourself from multiple opponents
ix. Knowing when to do what in a self defense situation
x. Free style that hones your above skills
The O’s and first’s are meant to prevent the need to defend yourself. Simply if you have many friends, fewer people will want to fight you. The five A’s help to prevent being put in a self defense, by being alert who is likely to start trouble, and where you can go to avoid it. Notice I used the 2nd and 3rd A. the R’s are about how to survive, the W’s are about how to not survive.
Lastly my own. If you are in a self-defense situation, and cann’t strike with your hands and legs, well you’re screwed. Same with grappling, it’s an introduction to weapon defense. If you don’t have a good stance and guard that complements you personal style, once again your screwed. If you can’t move evasively, well do I really need to say it? If you can’t defend from weapons you likely to see, well lets all say it together. o.k. So you have the knife out of there hands, now what? Stand there and look pretty? No, you cut his guts out if he makes a move you don’t like.
Most of the time if you are in a self-defense situation the best plan is to either run or talk your way out of it. If you have never trained talking yourself to safety, how safe are you? And what if you can’t run quickly, then what? A lot of the time in self-defense you might have to deal with more then one bad guy/girl. So if you can’t defend yourself from more then one opponent, well you probably get the picture. You practice different forms of freestyle to train and further ingrain what you have learned. That is why sparring and like forms were created.
And if you don’t know when it is appropriate to do what, you could be legally screwed. You should know when to run, when to talk, when to hold, when to strike, when to hurt, when to maim, when to use a weapon, and (most grimly) when to kill.
Of course this is not always true. A pro boxer could kick the living crapp out of anyone who trains these points. Why? Because boxers train almost constantly, so they can really blast guys. My 10 points are meant for the person that wants to be able to defend them self, but not have to train all day. Part of fighting in the ring and in a self-defense situation is about how well, and how frequently you train what you know.

Sweet Brighit Bless Your Blade,

John (who hopes there will never have to be 5th time to put this)

[shesulsa]

I'm not sure how that really answers the question, but ... okay.

[bluemtn]

I'm not going to say what art, because I think they all have something to offer. Also I believe it's mostly the artist, not the art that'll make it or break it.

[FearlessFreep]

One overlooked part of the original question I believe was to break down arts into categories and talk about which was the best at a specifc category.

Like Judo vs BJJ for grappling. Is either inherently better at grappling because of the techniques? Or do the techniques flow from different philosphies to accomplish the same goal? Is that philosphy flawed in some way? Or is the philosophy of one better than the other?

If I may offer an analogy from a different field: computer science. Any computer language can be used to program just about any programming task (I'm generalizing, you geeks, so don't bug me) However, some languages have a given philosophy that better suites some types of tasks, and thus are *better* suited at certain taks then others. Moreover, not all language designers are created equal. Hate to say it but some have been smarter or more clever or more intuitivive than others, so as a result, not all languages are really created equal. A skilled programmer who is an expert in a given language can write just about anything, but in some domains, if he chooses that language, it will be simply his experience and training allowing him to accomplish the task because the language was an inferior tool for accomplishing *that* given task. And even if the given language was sufficient for solving the problem, here might have been one that was easier to use. So just about any programming task can be accomplished with any given programming language, given enough skill, hard work, and practice, but that doesn't make all programming languages equally suited for all tasks, or just plain equal at all.

if that analogy is appropriate than I wonder what it means to MA

Or rather, I wonder in the statment of "it's not the art, it's the artist", I wonder how many times it's the artist *in spite of* the art.

Or in a mixed/combined art situation, where you choose a given art because it handles a given situation, I wonder if there would be another art that might better handle that situation.

And the flip side to that last point is that maybe it's more sensible not to train 47 arts for 47 situations, but to delve into the art to find out how it can be used well for the 47 situations. Right now I'm taking BJJ to compliment my TKD, but that is because my current TD instructor does not teach using TKD against certain kinds of threats (that I have seen yet from him anyway). However my previous instructor used TKD based techniques to form defenses against many different kinds of non-TKD attacks, so I didn't consider training two seperate arts. Two different approaches to the same problem.

[rutherford]

A good, fast grappler can probably kick butt on many a kenpo practitioner, but what happens if there's multiple attackers? Grappling at that point is at a disadvantage.
I'm agreeing with you, and selecting only the text I want to comment on as my quote.

But, I see this from a completely different angle. If the grappler really knows how to bridge and layer his opponents, adding more people actually makes many concepts easier to pull off.

It's always going to come down to the individual. Personal strength comes from within.

I'd throw down some smack talk, but just can't get in the mood.

[Adept]

If I may offer an analogy from a different field: computer science. Any computer language can be used to program just about any programming task (I'm generalizing, you geeks, so don't bug me) However, some languages have a given philosophy that better suites some types of tasks, and thus are *better* suited at certain taks then others. Moreover, not all language designers are created equal. Hate to say it but some have been smarter or more clever or more intuitivive than others, so as a result, not all languages are really created equal. A skilled programmer who is an expert in a given language can write just about anything, but in some domains, if he chooses that language, it will be simply his experience and training allowing him to accomplish the task because the language was an inferior tool for accomplishing *that* given task. And even if the given language was sufficient for solving the problem, here might have been one that was easier to use. So just about any programming task can be accomplished with any given programming language, given enough skill, hard work, and practice, but that doesn't make all programming languages equally suited for all tasks, or just plain equal at all.

if that analogy is appropriate than I wonder what it means to MA

Or rather, I wonder in the statment of "it's not the art, it's the artist", I wonder how many times it's the artist *in spite of* the art.

Excellent analogy! Thats the point, or issue I was trying to address earlier.

[jdinca]

I'm agreeing with you, and selecting only the text I want to comment on as my quote.

But, I see this from a completely different angle. If the grappler really knows how to bridge and layer his opponents, adding more people actually makes many concepts easier to pull off.

It's always going to come down to the individual. Personal strength comes from within.

I'd throw down some smack talk, but just can't get in the mood.

I kept my comment simple, just because my grappling knowledge is so minimal. Thanks for the enlightenment!

[CuongNhuka]

Like Judo vs BJJ for grappling. Is either inherently better at grappling because of the techniques? Or do the techniques flow from different philosphies to accomplish the same goal? Is that philosphy flawed in some way? Or is the philosophy of one better than the other?

And the flip side to that last point is that maybe it's more sensible not to train 47 arts for 47 situations, but to delve into the art to find out how it can be used well for the 47 situations. Right now I'm taking BJJ to compliment my TKD, but that is because my current TD instructor does not teach using TKD against certain kinds of threats (that I have seen yet from him anyway). However my previous instructor used TKD based techniques to form defenses against many different kinds of non-TKD attacks, so I didn't consider training two seperate arts. Two different approaches to the same problem.

That's kinda the point of my good long, over done statement.
A. Going through and saying "ohh, my Judo makes me a better grappler then you with your Brazialian Jui Jitsu". Doing stuff like that is pointless. It serves absolutly no purpose, other then stroking your ego.

2. All martial arts train every thing. In some way, so going to a school of Judo so you can learn to grapple to add to your striking skills from Taekwondo is not nessicary. So you're learning it anyways. But if it's to give you a place to start in finding out how Taekwondo teaches grappling. Every style teaches how to fight from every place, it's just a matter of how and whether or not it is direct.

If you think about it and really look, in some way every style teaches all the differnit ways of defending yourself. And every style has it's own strengths and weaknesses in every position.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

[Zorba]

That's kinda the point of my good long, over done statement.
A. Going through and saying "ohh, my Judo makes me a better grappler then you with your Brazialian Jui Jitsu". Doing stuff like that is pointless. It serves absolutly no purpose, other then stroking your ego.

2. All martial arts train every thing. In some way, so going to a school of Judo so you can learn to grapple to add to your striking skills from Taekwondo is not nessicary. So you're learning it anyways. But if it's to give you a place to start in finding out how Taekwondo teaches grappling. Every style teaches how to fight from every place, it's just a matter of how and whether or not it is direct.

If you think about it and really look, in some way every style teaches all the differnit ways of defending yourself. And every style has it's own strengths and weaknesses in every position.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John
i cant say that in all my years of TKD training i havent done any ground work, hardly any takedowns (there have been a few) and only a couple of locks. also i have never done any weaponry trainging. and this is 15 years over 3 schools.

so i can honestly say if i want to be a well rounded fighter, i would need to take multiple arts.

[FearlessFreep]

That in itself is probably a function of training. By contraast in a little less then a year and a half I learned to execute several takedowns, learned some takedown defense, had not done any ground fighting yet but it was on the curriculum for further training, a few joint locks and usage of pressure points and joints and a couple of armbars and some basic weaponry defenese (my kids ahead of me were learning throws). However, that was the focus of the school; not tournaments or competition but TKD as a full self-defense art (although to this day I don't know where Taekwondo ends and Hapkido or Judo begin)

[Sarah]

You wouldnt generally be learning ground work in TKD unless your instructor is going more for a mixed martial arts type of thing...so I really dont understand what is ment by saying that all MA teach all forms of fighting??

[MJS]

2. All martial arts train every thing. In some way, so going to a school of Judo so you can learn to grapple to add to your striking skills from Taekwondo is not nessicary. So you're learning it anyways. But if it's to give you a place to start in finding out how Taekwondo teaches grappling. Every style teaches how to fight from every place, it's just a matter of how and whether or not it is direct.

If you think about it and really look, in some way every style teaches all the differnit ways of defending yourself. And every style has it's own strengths and weaknesses in every position.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

I have to disagree with this. There are arts, as its been already mentioned, that do not include certain aspects, such as grappling. There are some that, yes, to a certain extent, teach certain defenses. For example, many arts teach defense against a takedown or tackle. However, if one really wants to have a good understanding of the defense, it would be a good idea to understand the nature of the attack as well.

Mike

[FearlessFreep]

Correct, a straight traditional TKD school will not teach you how to grapple. A good, self-defense oriented TKD school will teach you how to use TKD to defend against clinches, takedowns, and how to use TKD techniques when on the ground (I wish MichiganTKD still posted here, he used to relate pretty well how ihs instructor would do that; use TKD techs from a ground position against ground fighters, and pretty effectively)

Similalry, my current BJJ instructor teaches how to use BJJ against strikes, even though BJJ itself is not a striking art.

As I mentioned, each art's technique flows from a philosophy and an attempt to maximize the use of the philosophy. For TKD, it's the hard linear motion (the kicking is really a result of that philosophy in the though that you can generate more powerful strikes from the larger muscle groups in the legs, etc..). For BJJ it seems (in my very, limited training so far) it's the desire to get in very close, to eliminate the opponents range of motion by controlling their body movement with your positioning, and to position to use your strong muscle groups in opposition to the opponents weak muscle groups.

What this means is that TKD does not have ground grappling, and BJJ does not have striking. It doesn't fit in with their core strength; their goals and motivations and philosophies and techniques in how to defeat an enemy

As a result, a TKD response to an attempt to shoot, or to clinch, or to takedown, is going to be different than a BJJ response because the philosophy is different. In reverese, a BJJ response to a punch or a kick is different than a TKD response.

(And I apologize for keeping using TKD and BJJ as my examples but they are the only things I've looked at formally enough to form even thie beginnings of ideas about...and they happen to be almost diametrically opposite in approach)

The question is...is it enough?

[MJS]

FF, you bring up some good points! I agree, and I've found the same thing with Kenpo. While I would not say that it is a 'grappling art' in the sense of BJJ, Judo or Sambo, but as we both said, each art has its defenses against a grappling type attack. I've found that by having some BJJ knowledge, I've been able, with some modifications, been able to pull off some Kenpo techniques while rolling. Does this mean that we need to go out and x-train? No, but it will be easier to understand the defense and make it work better by x-referencing.

Mike

[Zepp]

My mucky-muck can beat all of your mucky-mucks! I call it Zepp's Ryu-Do-Juitsu.

Phase 1: If you try to start something with me, I move to distract you, while my friend behind you whacks you upside the head with a blunt heavy object. If an opponent somehow avoids this attack, the two of us continue to distract them while our other friend comes up from behind them, and whacks them upside the head with a blunt heavy object.

Phase 2: Regardless of the success of phase 1, the opponent is then sued for their entire annual income (or more) with the help of however many of my lawyer cousins are required.

Phase 3: Regardless of the success of phases 1 or 2, years later, when the offender least suspects it, and is out walking alone somewhere, out of nowhere they will suddenly be whacked upside the head with a blunt heavy object.

This awesomely invincible martial style is not for everyone however. Phase 1 requires that you have the social skills to keep loyal friends around you. Phase 2 generally requires that are born into a large Jewish family so that you have a sizeable supply of attorneys to turn to. (So most of you are SOL there.) And I only teach phase 3 to those that send me $500 in cash (covers the cost of your black belt and diploma).

Oh, and a good tequila sunrise is better than any mojito. :D

[CuongNhuka]

O.K. I’m going to put this down, then stop posting to this thread unless people see what I mean.
All styles teach every form of attack.
Meaning. In an indirect or direct form all styles teach some form of striking, and grappling. I’ll explain it this way. You guys when punch you pull the opposite hand back right? Did you ever think of why? There are two major reasons. First of all (off topic) by holding your hand at a certain point over time it builds the strength of your arm through isometrics.
On topic (one of an infinite number of possible application) is you strike with your left hand, and grab your opponent’s lapel. Remember you are in a stance that is wide deep and diagonal to your opponent. As you punch you shift forward rotating on the ball of your foot to maximize speed (alla boxing). As you pull back you pull them into the strike of your right hand. Then you grab with your right hand and turn to the left and flick your opponent over your lead leg.
Indirect grappling. Remember I said “Indirectly”. Meaning not “o.k. This is why you are doing X”, but more of “do this”. Guys that do traditional Tai Chi are known for basically flicking people across the room. You have to look. And I would appreciate it if people would completely read my postings. Since some people seem to read up to a point then reply. But I hope this can stay friendly.

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

[SAVAGE]

I dont know how poular tis is going to be but I think MMA is the best for fighting....teach yourself to fight well in all ranges...that is best!

Maybe I am a bit biased:wink2:

[Flying Crane]

I dont know how poular tis is going to be but I think MMA is the best for fighting....teach yourself to fight well in all ranges...that is best!

Maybe I am a bit biased:wink2:

We are all biased towards our own style.

Question for you, MMA being Mixed Martial Arts, what exactly is in the mixture? Is there a standardized system called Mixed Martial Arts, or is everyone's mixture different? If different, then I guess its effectiveness at each range would depend on the quality of what parent art and the quality of the training itself that was mixed into the whole. Could be all good, or all bad, or better at some ranges but not so good at others.

[SAVAGE]

We are all biased towards our own style.

Question for you, MMA being Mixed Martial Arts, what exactly is in the mixture? Is there a standardized system called Mixed Martial Arts, or is everyone's mixture different? If different, then I guess its effectiveness at each range would depend on the quality of what parent art and the quality of the training itself that was mixed into the whole. Could be all good, or all bad, or better at some ranges but not so good at others.

I dont go to a MMA school...but I learn Judo (Grappling, ground fighting), Hapkido (Self defence, Joint locking), Boxing (hand striking), I got to green belt in TKD (Kicking), but I am not built for TKD, so I took up Goju Ryu Karate that brings it all nicely together, except for the ground fighting!

So I mix my martial arts, but I mix them as wholes, not as bits of here and bits of there..I learn whole systems!

I hope this makes sense, and answers your questions.....my parent art id HKD....because it is what works best for me personally!

[Flatlander]

To begin with, the Mojito and the Tequila Sunrise both are rather delicious under the appropriate circumstances. However, the Mojito is by far the more refreshing of the two. Never, however, in the evening.

I have difficulty in drawing this to that art comparisons. The first difficulty is, I have not known enough of a sufficient number of arts by which to draw a valid comparison.

Along the same lines, I also believe, as I've seen it stated elsewhere on Martial Talk, that the essence of an art doesn't really begin to present itself until after many years of dutiful practice. With this in mind, for me to attempt to divine the value of any art is, quite frankly, outside of my realm of knowledge. And in this circumstace, mere observational knowledge is insufficient to answer the question.

Beyond that, there are only 2 arts that I've spent time learning, and I find them to be quite complimentary. Thus, it would be comparing apples and oranges. Or ham and mustard.

[FearlessFreep]

So I mix my martial arts, but I mix them as wholes, not as bits of here and bits of there..I learn whole systems!

I like that approach. When I first heard he term "Mixed Martial Arts" I took it to mean kinda that idea. Training in several arts as the whole arts, maybe looking at different arts for what they specialized in. Note just two or three different techniques from many different arts, but learning the art itself.

For example, although my self-defense training in my Taekwondo class involved some Hapkido sjm an d takedowns and some Judo throws and some other stuff, I never considered myself a mixed martial artist, or a Hapkido or Judo practioner for hat matter. I didn't really know or understand the other arts, I was just expediently using a few applicable techniques in a larger context that was really about Taekwondo.

If you called Martial Arts an Art, then you can call yourself a Musician if you only know a few licks from several styles of music, but you are not much of an artist because you only reach the point of repeating the cliches of several different genres, which is not really Art. An Artist can take influences from several styles of music and merge them together, but you have to at least have a feel for and understanding of and respect for the styles that goes broader, or deeper, then just echoing cliches.

OK, sorry..I don't know *where* this line of thinking is going : )

[Flying Crane]

So I mix my martial arts, but I mix them as wholes, not as bits of here and bits of there..I learn whole systems!

I like that approach. When I first heard he term "Mixed Martial Arts" I took it to mean kinda that idea. Training in several arts as the whole arts, maybe looking at different arts for what they specialized in. Note just two or three different techniques from many different arts, but learning the art itself.

For example, although my self-defense training in my Taekwondo class involved some Hapkido sjm an d takedowns and some Judo throws and some other stuff, I never considered myself a mixed martial artist, or a Hapkido or Judo practioner for hat matter. I didn't really know or understand the other arts, I was just expediently using a few applicable techniques in a larger context that was really about Taekwondo.

If you called Martial Arts an Art, then you can call yourself a Musician if you only know a few licks from several styles of music, but you are not much of an artist because you only reach the point of repeating the cliches of several different genres, which is not really Art. An Artist can take influences from several styles of music and merge them together, but you have to at least have a feel for and understanding of and respect for the styles that goes broader, or deeper, then just echoing cliches.

OK, sorry..I don't know *where* this line of thinking is going : )




I also have taken this approach, in studying several systems as completely as I can. I guess this makes me a Mixed Martial Artist.

Anyone else out there want to weigh in on what it means to be a Mixed Martial Artist? Especially with regards to the competition level as a mixed martial artist? What is the structure of the training, and where do the techniques come from? Do most MMAs train several complete systems, or train in a single system that has been created from a mixture of other arts?

[CuongNhuka]

I also have taken this approach, in studying several systems as completely as I can. I guess this makes me a Mixed Martial Artist.

Anyone else out there want to weigh in on what it means to be a Mixed Martial Artist? Especially with regards to the competition level as a mixed martial artist? What is the structure of the training, and where do the techniques come from? Do most MMAs train several complete systems, or train in a single system that has been created from a mixture of other arts?

some one should start a thread about what they think a mixed martial artist is.