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