New take: What Martial Art is the most damaging?

[Daniel Sullivan]

In the interest of taking the 'ruthless' thread conversation into productive territory, I figured I'd start a fresh thread.

We all agree that ruthlessness or lack thereof lies within the individual, not the art. But what about techniques that cause damage? Generally, when people (generally uninformed) want to know which art is more deadly, it is actually damaging that they really mean (whether or not they realilze it).

So which art is the most damaging?

Please don't confuse or comingle damaging with effectiveness. The two are not the same, as different arts are intended to be effective in different ways, and not always in term of maximum damage.

Support your statements reasonably. By reasonably, I mean simply explain them. Sources are not necesary, though if you feel that posting quotes and sources are helpful, then by all means do so.

Lastly, this isn't a which art is better discussion and is limited to unarmed martial arts. This means no kenjutsu, kendo, kyudo, firearms, etc.

And go.

Daniel

 

[Big Don]

Unquestionably, the two most damaging martial arts are the one you don't know and the one your attacker does.

 

[clfsean]

The most damaging one is the one you know the best how to apply properly & correctly.

 

[exile]

This is a hard one, Daniel, because if you look at the techs available to the MAs, they can broadly be classified under two main headings, both of which can be terminally damaging. The striking arts include strikes suitable to soft tissue targets on the head, throat and neck which can easily be lethal. Arts such as Hapkido, Aikido, Jiujitsu, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu and pretty much all the FMAs contain controlling moves which can become horrific neck breaks if carried out unrestrainedly. In other words, it's hard to rate one tech orientation as more damaging than the other because both can lead to mortal consequences.

You could try making the case—and I'm not trying to here—that a strike is inherently more damaging than a controlling move, given that any kind of impact is going to rearrange the parts of the object struck, to some extent at least, whereas a controlling tech need not do more than immobilize the target of the tech. Is this the kind of thing you have in mind? I'm not sure that this would count as a complete answer to the question you posed, though....

 

[searcher]

Remmington 870-do. I could not resist the urge.


Exile makes a good point about controlling arts. Follow through with a joint lock can be pretty damaging.

I am not sure if one really stands out for me. I look at things like Muay Thai leg kicks, EPAK's overwhelming hand techniques, joint lock from several styles, etc. and they all make me cringe. If I have to choose one, I would go with any "bone breaking" art.

 

[Sukerkin]

Some good answers given already, covering both broad and the specific examinations of the meaning of the question.

Given that all it takes to kill someone is one blow to the head, tho', I'm not too sure if there is such a thing as the most 'damaging' martial art. In the end, any fighting art is about applying damage to the enemy whilst avoiding taking any yourself.

Once you get up to the Dan grade/Black sash level in anything, a martial artist should have lethal techniques instinctively available to him or her and you don't get much more damaging than that.

Aisde: I say 'should' because I know that there has been a considerable 'watering down' in some arts due to commercial pressures. When I was training empty hand in the '80's I would have said 'will'.

 

[redantstyle]

any technique that either combines momentums, or uses multiple leverage points.

anything that drastically interrupts or transforms momentum can also be very damaging.

same-same, really.

 

[tellner]

If you want a meaningful answer you'll need to be a little more specific...

Permanent or temporary damage?
Immediate effect or eventual accumulation of harm?
Real martial arts or (for whatever reason) artificially limits itself to no tools?

 

[jarrod]

out of the grappling arts, i've got to mention catch wrestling. lots & lots of nasty, awful submissions which aren't legal or trained in many other styles.

jf

 

[still learning]

Hello, Kempo/Kenpo arts all lhave neck breaks, throat strikes, eye gouging,bone breaken techniques, as well as joint breaks, knee strikes,elbow strikes, and stomping of the ankles (42 tiny bones?),etc...

as well as majority of martial arts....Also!

Even Judo the combat side...can be deadly too....

Most of the Martial teaches you several levels of defense.....escape methods, control methods, and ending methods.

If you are looking for a martial that teaches only the deadly stuffs? UM?

Most likely the knife martial arts?

Our Professor...sometimes teaches us the "short rope" techniques that will hang you or tie you up...."pretty neat" stuffs to learn. ( 4'-6') lengths.

For men? the groin technique of grabbing and ripping...will be consider "MOST DAMAGING".....

Aloha, aaaahhhhhh!!!

 

[Cryozombie]

Short of killing someone, I'd say

Sword arts. Anyhthing that removes limbs and destroys organs.

Bones and joints heal, or can be fixed with surgery. You aint regrowing an arm or a leg, and its a ***** to get a new kidney, liver, intestine, whatever...

 

[Omar B]

There's no answer to this, again it comes back to the fighter and how willing he is to damage his opponent. There's no magic bullet in the martial arts man, it's inanimate, it's the fighter/player who gives it life. Just like a knife can prepare food or kill depending on the person who's using it. You cannot personify and give qualities to something that's not alive.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

To put more specifics on, permanent or temporary damage (or both), but immediate effect specifically. While cummulative injuries make a nice academic discussion, my focus for this thread is in immediate damage to an attacker.

My main focus in starting this thread was to generate some healthy discussion. I don't personally consider one art to really be the most damaging. I just wanted to have the discussion without the issue of "ruthlessness" involved.

I do consider some arts to be more damaging than others, but not necesarilly more effective. Effectiveness, and to a great degree the amount of damage an individual can do, is more a function of training and intent than anything else. Hapkido certainly offers a greater quantity of means to deliver damage than taekwondo, but I don't consider it more damaging.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Short of killing someone, I'd say

Sword arts. Anyhthing that removes limbs and destroys organs.

Bones and joints heal, or can be fixed with surgery. You aint regrowing an arm or a leg, and its a ***** to get a new kidney, liver, intestine, whatever...

Yes, but this thread is limited in scope to unarmed arts.

Daniel

 

[Sukerkin]

That's what I thought ... otherwise I'd been at the front of the queue, katana and rank certificate in hand :lol:

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

That's what I thought ... otherwise I'd been at the front of the queue, katana and rank certificate in hand :lol:

And I'd be right there with you!

Daniel

 

[Aiki Lee]

I think they are all equally damaging when applied correctly. A TKD practitioner can kill a person by kicking them in the face. Jujutsu can break and kill, as can karate and even aikido (though I wouldn't know why someone would study aikido if this was their goal).

 

[terryl965]

I believe this would be up to the individual as well, simply for the fact that some will hit harder because there nature would be delived as much pain as possible and then some will jsut deliver enought o get away.

 

[tellner]

In that case any of the throwing arts that lock the skeleton out before the takedown, any ground-grappling art which spends a lot of time on spine and neck locks and any striking art which emphasizes the knee, elbow and shin effectively and repeatedly delivered. If you destroy the central nervous system or major joints and vital organs it really doesn't get any worse than that.

It comes down to emphasis and intent. More people compete in full-contact TKD than Muay Thai. There are dozens of deaths in the Thai boxing ring every year, mostly from the knee and elbow. MMA fighters beath the bright green hell out of each other. They rarely cause serious damage because the rules have been changed and submissions encouraged to minimize that sort of thing.

 

[Raynac]

in my very biased opionon ninjutsu is pretty damaging. i dunno how many injurys I've seen in my fellow students and my teachers even when they were taking every precation to be safe.

... my day is comming i haven't been hurt yet but... I have seen the art practiced and I have seen the people at the top. having somthing broken or injured seems to be the price for the knowledge you gain in the art. with the moves we learn the odds are against you never getting hurt badly.