New take: What Martial Art is the most damaging?

[chinto]

every one of the older non sport developed arts can and will kill if placed in a position that it is needed to survive. karateka can strike, lock/brake and throw as can Jujitsu practitioners. My understanding is that Kodokan Judoka at shodan level and beyond learn the techniques that were removed for sport application, and so I am sure could kill you as well. akidoka can maim and even kill if required, as can most any other art you wish to name, from the Fillipine islands or from africa or where ever.

Unarmed and armed systems were usually developed out of necesity to survive, and not for sport in most places in the world. Some of them were codified and or modified to conform to some sport use only in the last 2 or 3 centurys in general. before that it was about being alive and the attacker being either crippled or dead or other wise made NO LONGER A THREAT.

 

[jarrod]

as i often say on this forum, i think the sport styles get a bad rap in terms of serious self-defense applications. just take what you do for sport, then cheat. for instance if you want to kill someone with judo, throw them on their head instead of their back. or bend the head when applying a strong choke & you have a neck break. instead of trying to get a tap as in sport jujitsu, just start ripping arms & legs.

jf

 

[Cirdan]

Since all arts can kill you I don`t think there is an awnser to this one.

 

[Guardian]

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

I've haven't read all the responses (it's almost time for work), but to me it's the one that connects the most and no this is not a smart **** answer, it's a simple and honest response.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

To whomever dinged me on rep, be an adult about it and post on the topic as to why you don't feel that this is productive territory. Or at least pm me.

Chances are, you yourself have nothing of value to contribute on any thread, otherwise, you'd have articulated your views intelligently.

Daniel

 

[just2kicku]

To whomever dinged me on rep, be an adult about it and post on the topic as to why you don't feel that this is productive territory. Or at least pm me.

Chances are, you yourself have nothing of value to contribute on any thread, otherwise, you'd have articulated your views intelligently.

Daniel

Well that's chicken***t! Why would you get dinged?

Now on the topic at hand, I think all MA's are damaging. It's like taking a .22 and a .45 caliber gun and saying which is more deadly. Don't really want to get shot with either one.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Now on the topic at hand, I think all MA's are damaging. It's like taking a .22 and a .45 caliber gun and saying which is more deadly. Don't really want to get shot with either one.

Not to mention that the accuracy of the gunman would play a big part in which one is more damaging. Technically, the .45 is more damaging. But only in the hands of someone with A. the skill to use it and B. with the intent to use it.

This is kind of where I see various martial arts. Some technique sets do have greater ability to damage an opponent. But the skill of the user is a greater factor than the specific technique set. Knee blows, in my opinion, are more 'damaging' than a kick, but the kick is more versatile. Kicks have the potential to cause more damage than a punch, but the hands are more versatile than the feet.

Certain arts have superior means of power generation to other arts, which can result in the techiques being more damaging than others. This doesn't necessarily make the more effective than another art, as there is more to any art than the amount of damage it can cause.

Then there are different types of damage. You had pointed out firearms. Some guns/amunition combinations are designed for more piercing power, others for more stopping power. Some are less powerful but more accurate. Some hold more ammuntition than others and even fire more at a time than other.

Daniel

 

[The Last Legionary]

To whomever dinged me on rep, be an adult about it and post on the topic as to why you don't feel that this is productive territory. Or at least pm me.

Chances are, you yourself have nothing of value to contribute on any thread, otherwise, you'd have articulated your views intelligently.

Daniel

Well that's chicken***t! Why would you get dinged?

You know, there is a rule here concerning this stuff. Might want to read it rather than disrupt things over kiddie drama. It's section 4.2 and 5.3.2, in case your hands were full with spit balls.



On topic, it's not the art, it's the implimentation.
TKD can be great to surgically destroy an opponent with precise pinpoint kicks. It can also be little more than fancy fluff and spins that are useless in a street fight. Karate can be devistating on an attacker, or little more than Cosby's "Break a Stick, Break a Brick, Give him your dough, show". Kenpo's great, unless you do the wrong dance steps, or worry too much about ensuring your feet are exactly 18" apart at the correct 45' angle and have to make whoosh sounds as you move. And so on. Kung Fu is either a great in close system, or fancy fantasy Matrix moves that only get you killed. It all depends on how you trained and what you trained for, more so than what you trained in. Starting with a system geared towards defense rather than competition, that's a good thing too.

 

[Brian King]

Daniel Sullivan wrote:

“So which art is the most damaging?”

Hmmm, looking at this question from a slightly different aspect from what everyone else seems to be, I would guess on my first superficial thoughts (meaning I have not yet given this any serious thought) to your question of “which art is the most damaging” I when I first saw the title of your thread Daniel I thought which art is most damaging …to me. Most train for several hours a week a week. Looking at martial artists from various disciplines I see very few “older” practitioners that seem to get better as the decades of training fly by. For example, I am sure that there are a few out there but I see very few older Muay Thai or Boxing practitioners that are better at their art at 60 than they were at 30 or even better at 40 than they were at 17. I also look a what few older practitioners I have seen of other arts, who even with or perhaps even because of their life long practice can barely walk with their damaged knees and ankles, who can barely lift their arms or button a shirt button, for example Judo seems like a very tough art to grow old in, and some forms of Karate training seem to very damaging to do over a lifetime. It seems that the practice and training methodology of some arts can be damaging (to the practitioner) in the long run?

Disclaimer, I do not seriously study or practice any of the arts I mentioned above, I am sure that there are some older practitioners that still train in their 70’s and 80’s in those arts but I do see fewer as compared to other arts (with out looking for any statistical evidence) just using my perceptions and experiences with other arts and practitioners.

Regards
Brian King

 

[JadeDragon3]

So which art is the most damaging?

Daniel

So basically your re-phrasing the age old question that has been asked 100 times before......which style is the best? Thats easy, Kung Fu.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

So basically your re-phrasing the age old question that has been asked 100 times before......which style is the best?

I guess that it depends on whether or not you measure best by quantitative or qualitative damage (I do not).

I think that 'best' is a rather relative term. Some arts are 'best' for certain things; BJJ is best for grappling (though not necesarilly the best for grappling) and taekwondo is 'best' for striking (though again, not necesarilly the best for striking).

Thats easy, Kung Fu.

Ah, yes. Hard work, skill and mastery! I'm with you

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

You know, there is a rule here concerning this stuff. Might want to read it rather than disrupt things over kiddie drama. It's section 4.2 and 5.3.2, in case your hands were full with spit balls.

Duly noted.

On topic, it's not the art, it's the implimentation.

TKD can be great to surgically destroy an opponent with precise pinpoint kicks. It can also be little more than fancy fluff and spins that are useless in a street fight. Karate can be devistating on an attacker, or little more than Cosby's "Break a Stick, Break a Brick, Give him your dough, show". Kenpo's great, unless you do the wrong dance steps, or worry too much about ensuring your feet are exactly 18" apart at the correct 45' angle and have to make whoosh sounds as you move. And so on. Kung Fu is either a great in close system, or fancy fantasy Matrix moves that only get you killed. It all depends on how you trained and what you trained for, more so than what you trained in. Starting with a system geared towards defense rather than competition, that's a good thing too.

I bolded the last sentence; very true. The finest system is useless with lousy training.

Daniel