Best combo for street self defence

[Rich Parsons]

Somone pulls a blade pull your own blade or run away cause no style will save you there, never tried Karl mag and things like that but they train in a safe environment and in a real life or death situation with all the terror that goes with it, not sure how good they are, however I could be wrong

I disagree.

Many times I was not able to "Run"
And improvised weapons do help
actual training in weapons helps

Not advocating Gun disarms, as stated before, practice with a water pistol until you don't get wet 100 times.
Then move onto airsoft and such.
The reaction time of water pistols is slow , yet hard to argue a wet mark.
The bouncing paint, or plastic BB can be argued

Back to my point.

Adding in some FMA or other styles / systems (with weapons from the start) would help with your self defense.
If this is just a discussion on what you think is the best and everyone else is wrong because it is not your idea, then why post?

This assumes Self Defense is the point and you are open to discussion.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Certain styles I believe complement each other far better than others. For instance Judo and Muay Thai. First by doing clinching, you are learning no gi upper body throwing, against someone who is trying to elbow, knee, punch or push away from you. That's a huge bump up in your ability to do no gi judo.

Also I think the knee strike is the missing link in a judoka's arsenal. Because hipping out is a very common stall tactic to avoid judo throws. However if you began landing knees, they would very likely move their hips in to avoid these deviating strikes. Making it much easier to preform judo.

In short, doing judo while someone is not wearing a GI, but is trying to hit you or get away from you, and you are able to set up throws with knees is a very good combination to learn.

You don't get that with combining it with just any style.

In my opinion, it isn’t ever the art or the technique, it’s the man doing it.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I have feet??

Maybe…I’m betting you do.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Berserker martial arts of Grandmaster Sven Svensson are better than anything. The most ultra-violent response to any situation. If you only knew what Grandmaster Sven can do with a carrot, you would be frightened. Hail Thor!!

Well, almost better than Xue-fu. I am the West Coast (USA) Division Chief of Xue-fu which makes me the second highest ranked master in the art. I am number two!!

But you are also the Grand Poobah of the western region! All hail the vice chief.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In my opinion, it isn’t ever the art or the technique, it’s the man doing it.

Excluding the questionable martial arts, I have found this to be the norm.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

What I think you don’t understand is that there is no objective way to measure and evaluate what style is best in any particular approach. Different people relate to the material and the methodology in different ways, which means that a method that would be an excellent choice for you, could be a terrible choice for me.

Boxing can certainly deliver impressive results in punching; no argument from me. It is a popular sport and so gets a lot of visibility. This leads people in a general sort of way to assume it is the best possible way to develop your punches. But again, it only is the best for you if you relate well to the method and find it interesting and enjoy training it and wish to do so more than any other method.

What it means to develop the best punching is a subjective notion. Is it the most powerful? The quickest? The most “useful” (another very subjective evaluation in itself) combinations? Punching in combination with kicks or sweeps or takedowns? Everyone will have their own notion of what it means to be the “best” puncher. You will find no uniform agreement on that.

It seems to me that when one makes a statement that this or that method is the best, it is usually based on what his own personal experiences are. A person has trained a method, or even several, he found one to be very effective for him and so decide that one is the best, across the board. But how many other systems are out there that he has never trained? Thousands? How can he decide one is the best, when he has never experienced most of them, by far?

@Buka hit a solid notion when he said boxing produces consistently good punchers. No argument from me there. Boxing has figured out a method that produces solid punching in a reasonably short period of time so that an athlete can become an active competitor without needing to train for years on end first. A competitive career in boxing does not last terribly long for most people, so they need to get going while they are young and in their prime. So the methods of boxing work very well in the context of what is needed for that sport. And simply on an objective level, yes it can produce excellent punchers.

Circling back to your question above, what do I think is better? As I outlined above, my answer will depend on my personal experiences. I admit, I’ve never studied boxing. I am disinterested in it and will never do it. I study Tibetan white crane, so of course I feel it is better. Remember what I said in the above: people will make that evaluation based on their own experiences. I am no different. I feel Tibetan crane has an excellent methodology for developing very powerful punches in a surprising variety, and I feel it is second to none. If you have never studied Tibetan crane, then how would you even dispute my claim? But my claim is really just limited to me. Tibetan crane is an unusual method; it does not appeal to everyone, and is not widely practiced. I am ok with that, it does not bother me. I only make claims for myself, not trying to broadly apply my experiences to everyone.

I still plan to engage you for a visit. I’m currently swallowed by work, but I am very interested.

 

[gerardfoy50]

What I think you don’t understand is that there is no objective way to measure and evaluate what style is best in any particular approach. Different people relate to the material and the methodology in different ways, which means that a method that would be an excellent choice for you, could be a terrible choice for me.

Boxing can certainly deliver impressive results in punching; no argument from me. It is a popular sport and so gets a lot of visibility. This leads people in a general sort of way to assume it is the best possible way to develop your punches. But again, it only is the best for you if you relate well to the method and find it interesting and enjoy training it and wish to do so more than any other method.

What it means to develop the best punching is a subjective notion. Is it the most powerful? The quickest? The most “useful” (another very subjective evaluation in itself) combinations? Punching in combination with kicks or sweeps or takedowns? Everyone will have their own notion of what it means to be the “best” puncher. You will find no uniform agreement on that.

It seems to me that when one makes a statement that this or that method is the best, it is usually based on what his own personal experiences are. A person has trained a method, or even several, he found one to be very effective for him and so decide that one is the best, across the board. But how many other systems are out there that he has never trained? Thousands? How can he decide one is the best, when he has never experienced most of them, by far?

@Buka hit a solid notion when he said boxing produces consistently good punchers. No argument from me there. Boxing has figured out a method that produces solid punching in a reasonably short period of time so that an athlete can become an active competitor without needing to train for years on end first. A competitive career in boxing does not last terribly long for most people, so they need to get going while they are young and in their prime. So the methods of boxing work very well in the context of what is needed for that sport. And simply on an objective level, yes it can produce excellent punchers.

Circling back to your question above, what do I think is better? As I outlined above, my answer will depend on my personal experiences. I admit, I’ve never studied boxing. I am disinterested in it and will never do it. I study Tibetan white crane, so of course I feel it is better. Remember what I said in the above: people will make that evaluation based on their own experiences. I am no different. I feel Tibetan crane has an excellent methodology for developing very powerful punches in a surprising variety, and I feel it is second to none. If you have never studied Tibetan crane, then how would you even dispute my claim? But my claim is really just limited to me. Tibetan crane is an unusual method; it does not appeal to everyone, and is not widely practiced. I am ok with that, it does not bother me. I only make claims for myself, not trying to broadly apply my experiences to everyone.

True my beliefs are based on my experience, I don’t know white crane and I did boxing, I went to a wing chun club to experience something different, put sparring against this guy and we had had to stand toe to toe and strike with our hands only, I got destroyed cause his hands were to fast coming straight at me, he was a bit of an *** cause it was my first night and he was hitting real hard, I decided not to stand and be punchbag so started moving and punching, he didn’t hit me once while I hit him at will. Also tried different styles and in my experience the movement and striking power of boxing is the best, however I humbly admit that this is only my opinion and I have not tried everything, including white crane

 

[Flying Crane]

But you are also the Grand Poobah of the western region! All hail the vice chief.

I am Number Two!!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

True my beliefs are based on my experience, I don’t know white crane and I did boxing, I went to a wing chun club to experience something different, put sparring against this guy and we had had to stand toe to toe and strike with our hands only, I got destroyed cause his hands were to fast coming straight at me, he was a bit of an *** cause it was my first night and he was hitting real hard, I decided not to stand and be punchbag so started moving and punching, he didn’t hit me once while I hit him at will. Also tried different styles and in my experience the movement and striking power of boxing is the best, however I humbly admit that this is only my opinion and I have not tried everything, including white crane

My first martial art was boxing, followed by jjj. While I do teach a Chinese martial art, my Sigung was a boxer also and incorporated jabs, hooks, and uppercuts to the system long before I was born. I find that the mix of Southern styles of Chinese Gung fu, combined with western boxing techniques and my earlier experiences with jjj make for a fairly well rounded toolbox. Is it the best? Who knows, it works for me because I work hard at it. I have a belief that doing the hard work of training consistently, even when I’m tired, or sick, or don’t feel like it is the only way forward. We all get old and may not be able to do what we once could. I train as if I may not be capable of it in future. I hope to train until my time is up.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I am Number Two!!

Aye, sir! A lofty position indeed!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Excluding the questionable martial arts, I have found this to be the norm.

Are you also in California?

 

[Flying Crane]

True my beliefs are based on my experience, I don’t know white crane and I did boxing, I went to a wing chun club to experience something different, put sparring against this guy and we had had to stand toe to toe and strike with our hands only, I got destroyed cause his hands were to fast coming straight at me, he was a bit of an *** cause it was my first night and he was hitting real hard, I decided not to stand and be punchbag so started moving and punching, he didn’t hit me once while I hit him at will. Also tried different styles and in my experience the movement and striking power of boxing is the best, however I humbly admit that this is only my opinion and I have not tried everything, including white crane

Sure, so we all have bias based on our experiences. I am not immune from that either. Our experience includes both those things that we have done, and those that we have not done. Sometimes we simply do not even know what it is that we don’t know. We all have those limitations, including myself.

I will further say that the skill and athletic conditioning and natural abilities of the individual also play a huge part in this. I imagine that any pro boxer could destroy me at will, certainly within the context of a boxing ring. Outside of the ring that may not hold true in every case but I’m willing to concede that for all practical purposes it may be 100%. Probably most active amateur boxers could destroy me as well, again certainly within the context of the ring, and again maybe not always outside of the ring. But like anything, boxing has participants at every level, ranging from heavyweight world champions down to featherweight amateurs who don’t train for competition and are lucky to make it to the gym twice a month. If boxing is what they train, then they are all boxers, in their own way. Not all boxers are destined for greatness. I have seen desk-jockeys working with a personal trainer at a health club, doing boxing, working combos and hitting the heavy bag. I am quite certain I could destroy those people either in the ring or outside of it. So “boxing” does not automatically mean “world champion”. For most people, it means they get some exercise a couple times a month, and nothing more than that. They are training in boxing methods, so they are boxers too, just on the very low end of the spectrum. We don’t see those bottom-end people in boxing matches on TV, we only see those who are on the higher end of the spectrum, so it is easy to have the mistaken notion that training in boxing automatically makes a person a world champion. It doesn’t. That is a very limited subset of the population.

It all comes down to the individual.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Sure, so we all have bias based on our experiences. I am not immune from that either. Our experience includes both those things that we have done, and those that we have not done. Sometimes we simply do not even know what it is that we don’t know. We all have those limitations, including myself.

I will further say that the skill and athletic conditioning and natural abilities of the individual also play a huge part in this. I imagine that any pro boxer could destroy me at will, certainly within the context of a boxing ring. Outside of the ring that may not hold true in every case but I’m willing to concede that for all practical purposes it may be 100%. Probably most active amateur boxers could destroy me as well, again certainly within the context of the ring, and again maybe not always outside of the ring. But like anything, boxing has participants at every level, ranging from heavyweight world champions down to featherweight amateurs who don’t train for competition and are lucky to make it to the gym twice a month. If boxing is what they train, then they are all boxers, in their own way. Not all boxers are destined for greatness. I have seen desk-jockeys working with a personal trainer at a health club, doing boxing, working combos and hitting the heavy bag. I am quite certain I could destroy those people either in the ring or outside of it. So “boxing” does not automatically mean “world champion”. For most people, it means they get some exercise a couple times a month, and nothing more than that. They are training in boxing methods, so they are boxers too, just on the very low end of the spectrum. We don’t see those bottom-end people in boxing matches on TV, we only see those who are on the higher end of the spectrum, so it is easy to have the mistaken notion that training in boxing automatically makes a person a world champion. It doesn’t. That is a very limited subset of the population.

It all comes down to the individual.

I wish I was able to articulate this same point as well as you do it here. I can agree with everything you say here. Same same.

 

[Flying Crane]

I wish I was able to articulate this same point as well as you do it here. I can agree with everything you say here. Same same.

Well thank you, sir.

 

[gerardfoy50]

Sure, so we all have bias based on our experiences. I am not immune from that either. Our experience includes both those things that we have done, and those that we have not done. Sometimes we simply do not even know what it is that we don’t know. We all have those limitations, including myself.

I will further say that the skill and athletic conditioning and natural abilities of the individual also play a huge part in this. I imagine that any pro boxer could destroy me at will, certainly within the context of a boxing ring. Outside of the ring that may not hold true in every case but I’m willing to concede that for all practical purposes it may be 100%. Probably most active amateur boxers could destroy me as well, again certainly within the context of the ring, and again maybe not always outside of the ring. But like anything, boxing has participants at every level, ranging from heavyweight world champions down to featherweight amateurs who don’t train for competition and are lucky to make it to the gym twice a month. If boxing is what they train, then they are all boxers, in their own way. Not all boxers are destined for greatness. I have seen desk-jockeys working with a personal trainer at a health club, doing boxing, working combos and hitting the heavy bag. I am quite certain I could destroy those people either in the ring or outside of it. So “boxing” does not automatically mean “world champion”. For most people, it means they get some exercise a couple times a month, and nothing more than that. They are training in boxing methods, so they are boxers too, just on the very low end of the spectrum. We don’t see those bottom-end people in boxing matches on TV, we only see those who are on the higher end of the spectrum, so it is easy to have the mistaken notion that training in boxing automatically makes a person a world champion. It doesn’t. That is a very limited subset of the population.

It all comes down to the individual.

Cant really argue with that truth

 

[gerardfoy50]

I disagree.

Many times I was not able to "Run"
And improvised weapons do help
actual training in weapons helps

Not advocating Gun disarms, as stated before, practice with a water pistol until you don't get wet 100 times.
Then move onto airsoft and such.
The reaction time of water pistols is slow , yet hard to argue a wet mark.
The bouncing paint, or plastic BB can be argued

Back to my point.

Adding in some FMA or other styles / systems (with weapons from the start) would help with your self defense.
If this is just a discussion on what you think is the best and everyone else is wrong because it is not your idea, then why post?

This assumes Self Defense is the point and you are open to discussion.

Learning your wrong is the best thing because then you learn something new and valuable, I’m always happy to be shown that my beliefs are wrong, fam are useful especially in the Philippines, I lived there for a few years and they don’t take prisoners there so weapons training there is definitely useful, luckily now back in my home country where we don’t have guns and it’s a sign of weakness to use a weapon so I’ve never had to face that situation, if I ever moved to a country where this wasn’t the case then yeah I’d probably look at everything from guns to baseball bats. But in a street fight training in anything like boxing mauy Thai wrestling I believe is better because you really get accustomed to hitting moving and being hit, as far as I know self defence technique is not taught with this level of cause the damage caused would be too traumatic

 

[drop bear]

Apologies I meant kabib, kabobs his little brother

And where did he say this?

 

[drop bear]

What I think you don’t understand is that there is no objective way to measure and evaluate what style is best in any particular approach. Different people relate to the material and the methodology in different ways, which means that a method that would be an excellent choice for you, could be a terrible choice for me.

Boxing can certainly deliver impressive results in punching; no argument from me. It is a popular sport and so gets a lot of visibility. This leads people in a general sort of way to assume it is the best possible way to develop your punches. But again, it only is the best for you if you relate well to the method and find it interesting and enjoy training it and wish to do so more than any other method.

What it means to develop the best punching is a subjective notion. Is it the most powerful? The quickest? The most “useful” (another very subjective evaluation in itself) combinations? Punching in combination with kicks or sweeps or takedowns? Everyone will have their own notion of what it means to be the “best” puncher. You will find no uniform agreement on that.

It seems to me that when one makes a statement that this or that method is the best, it is usually based on what his own personal experiences are. A person has trained a method, or even several, he found one to be very effective for him and so decide that one is the best, across the board. But how many other systems are out there that he has never trained? Thousands? How can he decide one is the best, when he has never experienced most of them, by far?

@Buka hit a solid notion when he said boxing produces consistently good punchers. No argument from me there. Boxing has figured out a method that produces solid punching in a reasonably short period of time so that an athlete can become an active competitor without needing to train for years on end first. A competitive career in boxing does not last terribly long for most people, so they need to get going while they are young and in their prime. So the methods of boxing work very well in the context of what is needed for that sport. And simply on an objective level, yes it can produce excellent punchers.

Circling back to your question above, what do I think is better? As I outlined above, my answer will depend on my personal experiences. I admit, I’ve never studied boxing. I am disinterested in it and will never do it. I study Tibetan white crane, so of course I feel it is better. Remember what I said in the above: people will make that evaluation based on their own experiences. I am no different. I feel Tibetan crane has an excellent methodology for developing very powerful punches in a surprising variety, and I feel it is second to none. If you have never studied Tibetan crane, then how would you even dispute my claim? But my claim is really just limited to me. Tibetan crane is an unusual method; it does not appeal to everyone, and is not widely practiced. I am ok with that, it does not bother me. I only make claims for myself, not trying to broadly apply my experiences to everyone.

Boxing has an objective observable and provable argument that it works. Which is why people say it is the best.

Other martial arts may not have that proof.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Are you also in California?

Nope. I'm in Georgia.

 

[gerardfoy50]

And where did he say this?

Interview in ufc, judo is under rated, joe rogan agrees that his worst nightmare would be meeting a judoka in a cold climate outside on a hard surface