Different "families" of martial arts

[Rabbitthekitten]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

It is too simplistic, but almost necessarily so. Most arts cross those boundaries. I'll use my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido) as an example. I classify us as a standing grappling art (what you'd call a "throwing" art - there are standing and ground grappling arts). We do more than standing grappling. Strikes figure prominently. We do some basic ground work. There are some weapons we work with. But the core of what we do, where we spend the most time training, is standing grappling.

So, I would refer to Shotokan Karate-do as a "striking art", knowing that there are Shotokan schools that do more than only striking.

 

[Steve]

If you're asking how I categorize things, I tend to do so by personality and by training philosophy, rather than range of combat. I think whatever works for you is fine. For me, range of combat is much less useful.

For example, I think that Wrestling and Boxing are very similar and very compatible. They share similar cultures and personality, and the training philosophy is very practical.

Wrestling and ninjutsu are not. The personalities of the two styles are very different, and the training philosophy of each are also very different.

 

[Headhunter]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

It doesn't really matter what you classify it as. As long as you know what it teaches put it in whatever category you want

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Throwing is just a subset of grappling. Joint-locking is also a subset of grappling. Judo, BJJ, Wrestling, and Sambo are all members of the same family. They all contain throws, they all contain ground grappling, they all contain joint locks (although the more common styles of modern Western wrestling have banned joint locks).

There are different ways you can classify "families" of martial arts. One way would be to look at actual lineal descent. This can be an interesting exercise, because of the effects of evolution, "interbreeding", and confused or distorted family histories.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you're asking how I categorize things, I tend to do so by personality and by training philosophy, rather than range of combat. I think whatever works for you is fine. For me, range of combat is much less useful.

For example, I think that Wrestling and Boxing are very similar and very compatible. They share similar cultures and personality, and the training philosophy is very practical.

Wrestling and ninjutsu are not. The personalities of the two styles are very different, and the training philosophy of each are also very different.

That's a pretty useful method, Steve. I suppose it would require some significant knowledge of an art. Do you consider it subjective (in how well things fit together, what their "personality" is), or do you think most people would come to similar conclusions? For instance, I'd tend to agree about the combination of wrestling and boxing, vs. the combination of wrestling and ninjutsu.

 

[Steve]

I think it's fairly objective, if you remember that personality and training styles are related, but separate... scales (for lack of a better word), but the two pretty neatly encapsulate pretty much every art. To be clear, I'm just sharing how I sort the styles. YMMV. I think that if you think through various styles, you can easily see where they would fall, even if you have only a shallow, intellectual knowledge of the art.

So, for example, Judo is a Japanese art. The culture of the art has a lot in common with other Japanese arts. Rituals and formalities are important. But it's also a competitive art, which makes it more compatible styles like BJJ or wrestling.

I also think that it's largely a matter of inclination. People gravitate to the styles that suit their personality, which (I think) is another indication that this is not subjective.

Typing fast... pretty busy today, so hopefully this makes sense.

 

[hoshin1600]

i like to break arts into the place of origin
Japanese
Okinawan
Chinese
American
korean

with a few subdivisions

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I see nothing wrong with a basic grouping of different styles based on either country of origin (although one must distinguish between recent origin and ancient, for many arts have migrated more than once and origins may be lost to antiquity) or basic format as described by the OP.

One might also include weapons and empty-handed, as well.

Also as noted, many if not most martial arts have parts in them from other sorts of things. Karate people may be also taught throws, joint locks, hand releases, etc. I think of Wado Ryu as a good example of a discipline that crosses such boundaries. In fact, I'd be curious to see how the OP would place Wado Ryu.

The only thing I object to is the 'what is your ryuha' 'who is your sensei', 'what is your lineage' and 'are you koryo' stuff, usually hurled about as a way of putting another style down. I find that most of the people who spend time obsessing over such things are a bit on the paranoid tip about their own style, and generally lack much in the way of actual training; they view the prestige of belonging to an ancient style or a noble lineage as being much more important than actual training. Just my 2 cents.

So yeah, categorize away, but no need to create divisions where none should exist. Live and let live.

 

[jks9199]

Any martial art can be described as a com ination of three elements, 1. Strikes or blows, 2. Holds, locks, or chokes, 3. Throws or trips. The proportion and particular mix will vary.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[marques]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

If I know nothing about a martial art, my first question would be: striking, grappling, or mix? Not far for your classification.

Then, to be 'accurate', we need to continue the queries even beyond the style name and go up to the instructor, address and class level.

 

[jobo]

How would other people classify martial arts?

Personally I do it as;

Striking arts (Karate, Boxing, Taekwondo).

Grappling arts (BJJ, Wrestling)

Throwing arts / locks (Judo, Jiu Jitsu)

Is this too simplistic? Or inaccurate?

I'm just interested in opinions.

id simplify it more than that, right to the principals under pinning the art. So, internal/ external, hard/ soft Ying yang

what's actually done is less important than how its done

 

[Steve]

It's interesting how different people approach this topic. Personally, I think the range of combat is fairly superficial. @jobo makes the point as well, and I agree with him that, "what's actually done is less important than how it's done."

 

[jobo]

It's interesting how different people approach this topic. Personally, I think the range of combat is fairly superficial. @jobo makes the point as well, and I agree with him that, "what's actually done is less important than how it's done."

its taken all day for someone to agree with me, thanks
everything about me is Okinawan, that my natural physical and mental state. But I'm trying very hard to change to change to a much softer internal view of the world in general and martial arts specifically, but its a difficult transition. I want to go back to pushing the world, as I have always done,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think it's fairly objective, if you remember that personality and training styles are related, but separate... scales (for lack of a better word), but the two pretty neatly encapsulate pretty much every art. To be clear, I'm just sharing how I sort the styles. YMMV. I think that if you think through various styles, you can easily see where they would fall, even if you have only a shallow, intellectual knowledge of the art.

So, for example, Judo is a Japanese art. The culture of the art has a lot in common with other Japanese arts. Rituals and formalities are important. But it's also a competitive art, which makes it more compatible styles like BJJ or wrestling.

I also think that it's largely a matter of inclination. People gravitate to the styles that suit their personality, which (I think) is another indication that this is not subjective.

Typing fast... pretty busy today, so hopefully this makes sense.

It does make sense. And I think, for the most part, most folks would come to similar groupings. There are some grey areas, as I think about it. Judo would be one of those, for me. It could go in the group with BJJ, or in the group with other Japanese arts that teach similarly-principled techniques with a similar teaching approach. Most of those other arts wouldn't have as much of a competition component. I think maybe this is where personal interests color the perception of the art. You have more interest in competition, so that's probably a more-weighted factor in your consideration.

Interesting approach, Steve. Thanks.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Any martial art can be described as a com ination of three elements, 1. Strikes or blows, 2. Holds, locks, or chokes, 3. Throws or trips. The proportion and particular mix will vary.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

How about footwork, defensive techniques, escapes, etc?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's interesting how different people approach this topic. Personally, I think the range of combat is fairly superficial. @jobo makes the point as well, and I agree with him that, "what's actually done is less important than how it's done."

I think it's just always how I've heard arts categorized, Steve. Or, rather, one of the ways. I've also heard folks use divisions of "competition art" vs. "classical art" (or other terms for the latter, simply referring to arts that don't compete on a regular basis). Since I can't know how an art is trained without more information than is easily found, the superficial classification by primary technical approach is usually what comes first.

For instance, I know a bit about the technical range of Sambo, but nothing of how it is trained. I can classify it the former way, but have no bucket to put it in the latter way. If I were considering the art, going to a seminar, etc., I'd do some more research, but I've just never run into it, so never had a need for a more in-depth classification.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I personally consider most forms of close body grappling* - Judo, Sambo, BJJ, Catch Wrestling, Freestyle Wrestling, Glima, Mongolian Wrestling, etc, etc to be not only members of the same family, bur really just different aspects of one greater art, with superficial differences based on culture and competition rules. I've talked to other grapplers who hold the same opinion.

*(As opposed to arts like Aikido which have a greater emphasis on arms length grappling.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I personally consider most forms of close body grappling* - Judo, Sambo, BJJ, Catch Wrestling, Freestyle Wrestling, Glima, Mongolian Wrestling, etc, etc to be not only members of the same family, bur really just different aspects of one greater art, with superficial differences based on culture and competition rules. I've talked to other grapplers who hold the same opinion.

*(As opposed to arts like Aikido which have a greater emphasis on arms length grappling.)

I like that terminology, Tony. It's a much better grouping, in my mind, than the difference between "ground grappling" and "standing grappling".

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Two hundred years ago, this may have been an easier task. Martial arts looked dramatically different back then and it would've been easy to classify them by country of origin, or by category (i.e. striking, kicking, grappling, etc.). But nowadays, everything is different. Two hundred years from now, all styles will probably look the same, in my opinion. It's been said before that human beings only have two arms and two legs. So until we grow more, there is only one true martial art, and all our different styles are just variations and expressions of it. As of right now, we live in a hybrid world and there are a lot of different mixtures in it. So you're going to need more than just a regular catalog. I would start with country of origin, then make sub-categories in each country for striking arts, kicking arts, grappling arts, weapon arts, and hybrid arts. I would also go by the age of the art, such as prehistoric, or ancient or modern. You will have to consider these factors as well. That's what I'd do.