Combat proven martial arts. What are the top real world effective arts?

[jks9199]

It's already been said about as well as I could. I don't completely agree with him -- but Marc MacYoung has covered it pretty well HERE. You'll also find something of relevance at Budo Blog and this post as well. These are just fresh in my mind. There are plenty of others.

Note, please, that I that I thought I made it pretty clear that some arts will give you functional skills more rapidly than others. By logical extension, some arts are more immediately functional or applicable than others. Some arts are a whole lot closer to their combative roots than others... and some live deep in fantasy land. (Rod Sacharnoski's Combat Ki stuff leaps to my mind... along with Dillman's no touch stuff... and lots of others.) But that doesn't mean that someone who trains in those arts with an attitude and emphasis on actual application for real violence can't use them effectively.

 

[clfsean]

I get that you know they are all 'not equal'. The point that I guess I am failing to make is that not only are they all 'not equal' but that some are just actually useless as a fighting or s.d. method. In regards to my loaded question, what exactly are the pros for going to a Taiji 24 form school ( for s.d./fighting techniques)?

You disagree? If so, please explain why.

I think you need to define useless with examples since you carry that belief.

Anything is better than nothing. Some have a longer track record so have a longer history of helping the practitioner survive. Some don't.

As far as taiji 24 goes, it is based on martial principles. If you get a teacher that uses it as an introductory form to get your body aligned & moving, yet also understands the principles of taiji, it's as everybit useful & effective as anything else you practice & put time into.

 

[fangjian]

All I am saying is, some martial arts styles are based quite a bit on pseudoscience and non evidence based 'techniques', rendering them inferior to the styles that have evolved and discarded techniques that are ineffective or less effective.

This is true.

 

[fangjian]

It's already been said about as well as I could. I don't completely agree with him -- but Marc MacYoung has covered it pretty well HERE. You'll also find something of relevance at Budo Blog and this post as well. These are just fresh in my mind. There are plenty of others.

Note, please, that I that I thought I made it pretty clear that some arts will give you functional skills more rapidly than others. By logical extension, some arts are more immediately functional or applicable than others. Some arts are a whole lot closer to their combative roots than others... and some live deep in fantasy land. (Rod Sacharnoski's Combat Ki stuff leaps to my mind... along with Dillman's no touch stuff... and lots of others.) But that doesn't mean that someone who trains in those arts with an attitude and emphasis on actual application for real violence can't use them effectively.

Exactly! Regarding your last sentence, it is the same as someone studying astrology, alchemy, homeopathy........ Yes, they will get SOME knowledge of a few things, but these studies are inferior to astronomy, chemistry, and proper medicine.

 

[Supra Vijai]

All I am saying is, some martial arts styles are based quite a bit on pseudoscience and non evidence based 'techniques', rendering them inferior to the styles that have evolved and discarded techniques that are ineffective or less effective.

This is true.

I think the issue comes back to the history of the art as much as the mentality of the practitioner as the others are saying. Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you read for comps. It's not designed for a street fight or a battlefield. Something like Traditional Jujutsu is designed for the battlefield and has been combat proven. The OP says he's leaving the Bujinkan as the school doesn't teach anything practical. Of course not if you look at the techniques as the sum of the their parts. No one today fights in armor and carries swords around. However the tactics and strategies are timeless and can be translated to suit modern environments if he applies himself. Saying the art is useless for self defense to me shows an ignorance of the art itself and a desire to rush ahead and become a badass physically without any of the mental or spiritual growth that comes with training in a MA. If the art was so useless it wouldn't have stuck around through the centuries and kept many a warrior alive through countless wars and fueds. So yes the history of the art is important.

But that being said a well trained TKD practitioner can be deadly in a "real" fight using their speed and agility if nothing else. Someone who has a week of training in the most combative art on the planet however could quickly find themselves in a lot of trouble on the other hand. No matter what you train, train as if it's real, train as if you life depends on it and maybe, hopefully, you can use it when it counts the most. Tai Chi to me is quite easily to translate into combatives from the little I've seen of it. The current practice is a toned down version not involving combat but the basic movements and principles show through even to a beginners' eye.

 

[fangjian]

Saying the art is useless for self defense to me shows an ignorance of the art itself and a desire to rush ahead and become a badass physically without any of the mental or spiritual growth that comes with training in a MA. If the art was so useless it wouldn't have stuck around through the centuries and kept many a warrior alive through countless wars and fueds. So yes the history of the art is important.

Many things have stuck around for a long time that are pseudoscientific. Just 'cause there old doesn't mean they're true. Since astrology has been in the mix here. Look at that one. It's still around and about 30% of Americans think it's valid

 

[fangjian]

1 last thing!

I see where I am going wrong with this I think. I am not saying that Taijiquan (all forms of it) or Karate(all forms of it) or whatever are useless. I think when I say the word 'style' you are assuming I mean ALL of a particular name. Like Kung Fu. Arnis etc.

But what I mean is small substyles of those, of course. Or, like a hypothetical system let's say Jon Kwon Do. It's basically a little TKD ( 'I' studied it for a year ) mixed with Anting-anting of some Filipino martial arts. So while 'Jon Kwon Do' is a martial arts style. It's a pretty crappy one.

 

[Balrog]

Every one of them. It's not the martial art, it's the martial artist.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Many things have stuck around for a long time that are pseudoscientific. Just 'cause there old doesn't mean they're true. Since astrology has been in the mix here. Look at that one. It's still around and about 30% of Americans think it's valid

30% of Americans may be wrong but it's a belief system held in some form or another by more like 70 - 80% of people from Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Sri Lankan or whatever). Surely you can't state that over a billion people globally are wrong to believe in something because it's THEIR belief. Belief gives something it's power. As pointed out before, it's like religion. Saying that one religion is true or false based on the number of it's followers is a fallacy. This topic though is about a physical art, not esoteric beliefs and in that context you pointed out Tai Chi/Taiji was useless. That has since been rebutted stating the art's origins and base philosophies are martial no matter how they may be expressed today. I am of the opinion no art is useless. As JKS said even things like "no touch knockout" can be effective if used by a practitioner with the right mindset to their training and their application.

With regards to Ninjutsu in particular (Buj or otherwise) as a practitioner of 3 and a half years (I still think I'm a beginner in the grand scheme of MA though) I can say that if you stick with it and apply some lateral thinking, it is completely useful in a range of situations and not limited to just phsyical violence. It's one of the most non competitive arts out there, it's designed to get soldiers and spies home alive out of battlefield situations with no refs or rules. To learn the deeper meanings of the techs though you do need to spend some time getting the basics right before you can appreciate the hidden lessons - which I assume is the same across most traditional arts

 

[fangjian]

Every one of them. It's not the martial art, it's the martial artist.

So my hypothetical style above your comment, 'Jon Kwon Do' is equal to let's say all the other 'actual' kickboxing methods? Like San Shou, Muay Lao, Muay Thai.............?

 

[fangjian]

30% of Americans may be wrong but it's a belief system held in some form or another by more like 70 - 80% of people from Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Sri Lankan or whatever). Surely you can't state that over a billion people globally are wrong to believe in something because it's THEIR belief. Belief gives something it's power. As pointed out before, it's like religion. Saying that one religion is true or false based on the number of it's followers is a fallacy.

Sorry, but I do not understand your point. What I was saying is that just because something is old doesn't make it true. I then mentioned astrology. Which is a decent example of something that is not based on evidence yet has survived many years because of the superstitious. I don't think they are wrong because it's THEIR belief. They are wrong because of overwhelming evidence.

This topic though is about a physical art, not esoteric beliefs and in that context you pointed out Tai Chi/Taiji was useless. That has since been rebutted stating the art's origins and base philosophies are martial no matter how they may be expressed today. I am of the opinion no art is useless. As JKS said even things like "no touch knockout" can be effective if used by a practitioner with the right mindset to their training and their application.

Hehehe. I am very sorry to everyone if I didn't state my view clearly. It is not ALL OF TAIJIQUAN I am saying is 'useless'. But some styles of it (and so many others too, some styles of karate, kung fu.......) are inferior to other fighting methods.
Also, 'esoteric' beliefs are unfortunately imbedded in soooo many martial arts. Regarding 'no touch knockouts' and the like, what do you mean 'the right mindset'? Supernatural claims always fail when approached with reason and logic.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Sorry, but I do not understand your point. What I was saying is that just because something is old doesn't make it true. I then mentioned astrology. Which is a decent example of something that is not based on evidence yet has survived many years because of the superstitious.

Ahh my mistake! I read it as you meaning that certain MA can be just passed off as superstition similar to astrology.

Hehehe. I am very sorry to everyone if I didn't state my view clearly. It is not ALL OF TAIJIQUAN I am saying is 'useless'. But some styles of it (and so many others too) are inferior to other fighting methods. Alse 'esoteric' beliefs are unfortunately imbedded in soooo many martial arts. Regarding 'no touch knockouts' and the like, what do you mean 'the right mindset'? Supernatural claims always fail when approached with reason and logic.

Again, sorry you posted that "1 more thing" message as I was typing my reply so didn't see it till afterwards. Agreed some substyles can focus on the wrong things and there are bad instructors out there who teach crap in the name of MA using a preset business module but it comes down to the instructors and/or founders themselves in that case, not the art. If you train your Jon Kwon Do but really apply yourself to perfecting all aspects covered in it then as the practitioner you are learning some form of combat which you can then apply. The art itself has no basis, your instructor may have no qualifications apart from a weekend course or online certificate but as the student if you approach it with the attitude of combat and adapt the techs to suit you then you will still learn something useful IMO. Technical perfection is non existant as is any understanding of why it does what it does, but you will know it does it. Similar to what the OP seems to want. Low investment, high return to use in bar brawls or street fights.

 

[oaktree]

Hi FangJian,

What styles of Taijiquan are you talking about?
Can you give examples. Maybe you can give examples of Kungfu or other styles.

When you speak that they are useless can you provide a reason why they are useless?

To me a style that is useless against defending yourself is the one where you punch yourself in the face why your opponent watches.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Forgot this in my last post, with regards to logic and reason approaching Supernatural claims, I'm not seeing it so much as a Supernatural claim as much as a psychological attitude. I'm not advocating something like the Fire Palm technique advertised in one of Ashida Kim's books or anything of the sort but a psychological 'knock out' is possible. We train it often during our modern self defence section under Verbal De-Escalation. We don't knock out the physical opponent of course, just their mental attitude (aggression). That's what I meant it can be used, if you had the common sense to understand it's a psychological tool and not a physical combative method then you could apply it theoretically,

 

[jks9199]

Exactly! Regarding your last sentence, it is the same as someone studying astrology, alchemy, homeopathy........ Yes, they will get SOME knowledge of a few things, but these studies are inferior to astronomy, chemistry, and proper medicine.

Hehehe. I am very sorry to everyone if I didn't state my view clearly. It is not ALL OF TAIJIQUAN I am saying is 'useless'. But some styles of it (and so many others too, some styles of karate, kung fu.......) are inferior to other fighting methods.
Also, 'esoteric' beliefs are unfortunately imbedded in soooo many martial arts. Regarding 'no touch knockouts' and the like, what do you mean 'the right mindset'? Supernatural claims always fail when approached with reason and logic.

Seems like you've just worked your way around to agreeing that it comes down to how you train, not what you train.

However, I won't rule out as absolutely impossible the no-touch stuff or other claims... I've seen stuff I don't pretend to understand, and I've seen it work. But the wilder and more extreme the claim -- the more you're going to have to prove it. One note, though... Sometimes, the "esoteric" beliefs or explanations are just a tool to help someone understand or communicate the ideas. Stuff that we might understand as "psychologic manipulation" or even simply techniques from the world of stage magic might easily appear as magic to someone without the scientific underpinning, no?

 

[fangjian]

Seems like you've just worked your way around to agreeing that it comes down to how you train, not what you train.

hehehe. Funny, but NO. It is not just how you train. But WHAT you are training. Like the astrology/alchemy etc. analogy. Yeah you can bust your *** for a couple decades studying these disciplines but ONE semester of a REAL science will get you further than what is possible with the others.

However, I won't rule out as absolutely impossible the no-touch stuff or other claims... I've seen stuff I don't pretend to understand, and I've seen it work. But the wilder and more extreme the claim -- the more you're going to have to prove it. One note, though... Sometimes, the "esoteric" beliefs or explanations are just a tool to help someone understand or communicate the ideas. Stuff that we might understand as "psychologic manipulation" or even simply techniques from the world of stage magic might easily appear as magic to someone without the scientific underpinning, no?

It will APPEAR as magical. But the placebo effect is so strong. You say you won't 'rule out' it's possibility'. You also can't rule out the 'possible' existence of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, leprechauns, ................, but there's absolutely no reason to believe in such things.

Regarding Oaktree's question. ( I am very sorry to answer a question with a question but) Are there martial arts styles that exist that do not have an type of sparring. I'm talking no tuishou, chisao, sanshou...............? I think the answer is 'yes'. So I would regard these styles' fighting technique about as relevant as learning 'american football'.
Sure, well it's not 'useless'. I mean you got in pretty good shape, learned how to condition your body a little bit, I guess. But as far as 'fighting ability' ?

 

[Xue Sheng]

San Shou,

Not all flavors of Sanshou are equal. They all can fight.... but there not all equal

Again, what styles are you talking about?

I get the Contemporary Wushu bits by the way but just so you know, a lot of those goys on mainland are also taught Sanshou.

 

[fangjian]

Not all flavors of Sanshou are equal. They all can fight.... but there not all equal

Again, what styles are you talking about?

I get the Contemporary Wushu bits by the way but just so you know, a lot of those goys on mainland are also taught Sanshou.

Yes some of those guys have done a little sanshou. And they learned 'sport sanshou' for a reason. Because they know that xiandai wushu - tao lu is inferior as a s.d. / fighting method of instruction. Some guys ONLY do tao lu performances. Are they 'martial artists'? I think so. Is their style inferior for fighting technique instruction? Yup.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Regarding Oaktree's question. ( I am very sorry to answer a question with a question but) Are there martial arts styles that exist that do not have an type of sparring. I'm talking no tuishou, chisao, sanshou...............? I think the answer is 'yes'. So I would regard these styles' fighting technique about as relevant as learning 'american football'.
Sure, well it's not 'useless'. I mean you got in pretty good shape, learned how to condition your body a little bit, I guess. But as far as 'fighting ability' ?

We don't spar at all. We do free form responses. Students start with preset attacks and defences and then move to unnominated defences against the nominated attacks (to keep the attacker on their toes and targetting properly without preempting what you will do) before moving to complete free form as you get more comfortable with the basics. That comfort can be in the same class or it can be something you get exposed to over time with experience in the art overall. However there is no sparring element as we don't train in a fashion which encourages that approach. When your primary response to someone throwing a punch is to break their arm (ideal, not always black and white but that's the mentality behind certain techs) you don't want to be doing that in a free spar situation under chaos and full blown adrenaline where especially with the beginners control can be an issue. I can't comment on a forum and describe exactly how effective the style is without sounding overly biased though so the offer is here for you to come visit and maybe try a class. I'm sure my instructor wouldn't mind

 

[ralphmcpherson]

I think the issue comes back to the history of the art as much as the mentality of the practitioner as the others are saying. Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you read for comps. It's not designed for a street fight or a battlefield. Something like Traditional Jujutsu is designed for the battlefield and has been combat proven. The OP says he's leaving the Bujinkan as the school doesn't teach anything practical. Of course not if you look at the techniques as the sum of the their parts. No one today fights in armor and carries swords around. However the tactics and strategies are timeless and can be translated to suit modern environments if he applies himself. Saying the art is useless for self defense to me shows an ignorance of the art itself and a desire to rush ahead and become a badass physically without any of the mental or spiritual growth that comes with training in a MA. If the art was so useless it wouldn't have stuck around through the centuries and kept many a warrior alive through countless wars and fueds. So yes the history of the art is important.

But that being said a well trained TKD practitioner can be deadly in a "real" fight using their speed and agility if nothing else. Someone who has a week of training in the most combative art on the planet however could quickly find themselves in a lot of trouble on the other hand. No matter what you train, train as if it's real, train as if you life depends on it and maybe, hopefully, you can use it when it counts the most. Tai Chi to me is quite easily to translate into combatives from the little I've seen of it. The current practice is a toned down version not involving combat but the basic movements and principles show through even to a beginners' eye.

Here in lies the problem with threads such as these. You said "Something like TKD which is a modern competitive art is going to focus more on getting you ready for comps". A statement like this insinuates that ALL tkd clubs focus on sport bcause it is an art designed for competition, which couldnt be further from the truth. SPORT tkd clubs focus on the sport, martial arts tkd clubs focus on the martial side. The problem with so many martial arts discussions is that there are too many generalisations. A martial arts effectiveness comes down to the way its taught and the practitioner learning it. Ive seen too many martial artists from so many different arts kick *** on the 'street' to ever dismiss one of them as useless. Train in any art, make sure you get a good instructor and if "real street effectiveness" is what you want find an instructor who specialises in that form of the art. Enjoying what you do is a big part of getting good at it so find one you have fun doing.