M
MartialArtist
Guest
This forum has been recommended to me and doing some browsing, I can tell you this is a great group of people. Some people may be bias in the sense that "my art is better than your's" or "tae kwon do is incomplete" nonesense but I've seen a lot of great and knowledgeable people here.
Well, I've been training in the arts all my life. Having an Asian background, my training started early and HARD from family and then later, a few instructors. My root arts being in military TKD and hapkido. Military TKD as in brutal, none of the super fancy kick tap-point. Military TKD as in knees, locks, grappling, a lot more punches, elbows, weapons training. To describe it to McDojo practitioners, look at muay thai, with sport TKD, hapkido, and some freestyle wrestling.
In my early years, I've been to Korea to train for quite a bit. A lot of mental training, more of seeking my potential. Then I came back to the States where I was born. In high school, I wrestled and became 2nd in the State in my junior year. Before college, I went to HK to learn some wing chun. Came back, went to college, and boxed at a club for fun and kinda got hooked. Well, then I settled down and wanted to try muay thai for a short while and it was pretty good. But nobody has the time to pursue all the things at once.
Right now, I volunteer at a club where I teach self-defense to kids and adults and yes, I do get challenged quite a few times and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's your life or your kid's life, you wouldn't want to put them in danger. Do not teach styles, I teach period.
My advice is if you want to be a MMA, at least get some background information on one art before making all the branches. It would be pretty confusing to learn wrestling, boxing, etc. at the same time, it'll be a matter of "should I grapple or should I strike" and it should never be like that. Of course, some arts are easy to learn at the same time, but I still suggest getting a strong foothold. Or, you can continue to try to master the one art.
Which is the best art? There is none. Well, there is one exception.
Some of the old styles of kung fu which were not actually created for combat but rather the movement of animals, thus is not the science of combat, but the science of movement that can be used as combat. That's why the five elders, one of them being Ng, a Buddhist nun, created a simplified version and I'm sure all of you know what the art is. Legend has it that Ng got it from watching a crane and a fox, but if it was true, all she probably got was it was the principles of attacking and defending at the same time. Now, you can be a great fighter using movements based on animals, but you could be much more effecient. Sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but what exactly is your path, and what are you looking for is the biggest question.
Take BJJ for example. BJJ in the UFC would be entirely different from BJJ in street conditions. I bet I wouldn't see any of the Gracies doing what they do in the ring where they sometimes land on their heads... In relatively controlled UFC conditions, yes, he's fine. On concrete, no.
Judging fighting styles on the UFC is pointless. The UFC is far from fighting. A step above a lot of martial arts tournaments today, but nonetheless, is nothing more than wrestling with some strikes. I'm pretty sure all of you can point out flaws in its theory. One being the person and not the art, controlled conditions, restrictions, judges' decision. The people in the UFC are great fighters, but they wouldn't last very long if they use the very same techniques on the mat. How many people would start a fight shooting in from far away? You just risk yourself getting kneed.
A lot of arts in theory are complete. You can fight just using one principle. If you're a good striker, you don't need to grapple. If you're a great kicker, you don't need to punch. That's in theory. However, humans are fallible and thus, need some rounded skills. You should still perfect what you're good at. If you're a great kicker and a horrible puncher, you should practice your hand techniques extensively. But in a fight, use your strengths. If you're slow and awkward, don't try to act graceful - you'll only put yourself in a bad position. You should practice being graceful, but not when your life depends on it.
Just because an art doesn't emphasize one thing does not mean it's incomplete. If you were to perfect it, you wouldn't need anything else.
But why other martial arts? Why take a variety? So you may get used to other techniques that aren't restricted and are provincial or some extra principles. Or something to adapt to, as fighting is like water like Bruce Lee said, always changing as moving water never grows stale, and water always attacks the weakest points.
People saying TKD is incomplete, etc., are probably used to what I like to call, the full-of-nonesense TKD... Notice I didn't use McDojo because even great instructors will teach you to kick all the time and such. And is it you, a person who has studied 1/1000000000000000000 of the art, ready to judge? Or someone who is not physically or mentally ready to tackle it, ready to judge? If you're very uncoordinated and couldn't box, of course you're going to say it's the worst art ever.
You can spend your entire life comparing arts and saying which one is better, but you'll learn after years of studying, at least 20 years, that all arts are relatively the same. The same basic techniques are there. Basic attributes to be successful, and many other things like that. A punch is a punch. There are DIFFERENCES but one isn't better. A wing chun punch may get extra power from the added wrist movement than a normal straight from boxing, but you increase chances of hurting your wrist. A SPORT style roundhouse (military has two roundhouses, and two side kicks) may be faster, but it doesn't have as much power as a muay thai roundhouse. You may use one or the other depending on where you are, who you're going up against, the timing.
A lot of people always question why the fancy high and jumping kicks. Why do boxers jump rope? Jumping kicks develop a lot of the motion and power. Especially the spinning ones, they also develop agility. The high kicks are there because if you can kick high fast, you can kick fast lower. And there is a time for every technique, even high kicks. Chances of using a high kick is much rarer than the chance to use a low kick, but they're there. Why the horse stance? Traditionally, it had its uses which are now obsolete for many people, but it still has its uses. It develops stability in your legs and your body.
Arts shouldn't even be there, rather, techniques for the individual.
Well, I've been training in the arts all my life. Having an Asian background, my training started early and HARD from family and then later, a few instructors. My root arts being in military TKD and hapkido. Military TKD as in brutal, none of the super fancy kick tap-point. Military TKD as in knees, locks, grappling, a lot more punches, elbows, weapons training. To describe it to McDojo practitioners, look at muay thai, with sport TKD, hapkido, and some freestyle wrestling.
In my early years, I've been to Korea to train for quite a bit. A lot of mental training, more of seeking my potential. Then I came back to the States where I was born. In high school, I wrestled and became 2nd in the State in my junior year. Before college, I went to HK to learn some wing chun. Came back, went to college, and boxed at a club for fun and kinda got hooked. Well, then I settled down and wanted to try muay thai for a short while and it was pretty good. But nobody has the time to pursue all the things at once.
Right now, I volunteer at a club where I teach self-defense to kids and adults and yes, I do get challenged quite a few times and I don't see anything wrong with it. It's your life or your kid's life, you wouldn't want to put them in danger. Do not teach styles, I teach period.
My advice is if you want to be a MMA, at least get some background information on one art before making all the branches. It would be pretty confusing to learn wrestling, boxing, etc. at the same time, it'll be a matter of "should I grapple or should I strike" and it should never be like that. Of course, some arts are easy to learn at the same time, but I still suggest getting a strong foothold. Or, you can continue to try to master the one art.
Which is the best art? There is none. Well, there is one exception.
Some of the old styles of kung fu which were not actually created for combat but rather the movement of animals, thus is not the science of combat, but the science of movement that can be used as combat. That's why the five elders, one of them being Ng, a Buddhist nun, created a simplified version and I'm sure all of you know what the art is. Legend has it that Ng got it from watching a crane and a fox, but if it was true, all she probably got was it was the principles of attacking and defending at the same time. Now, you can be a great fighter using movements based on animals, but you could be much more effecient. Sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but what exactly is your path, and what are you looking for is the biggest question.
Take BJJ for example. BJJ in the UFC would be entirely different from BJJ in street conditions. I bet I wouldn't see any of the Gracies doing what they do in the ring where they sometimes land on their heads... In relatively controlled UFC conditions, yes, he's fine. On concrete, no.
Judging fighting styles on the UFC is pointless. The UFC is far from fighting. A step above a lot of martial arts tournaments today, but nonetheless, is nothing more than wrestling with some strikes. I'm pretty sure all of you can point out flaws in its theory. One being the person and not the art, controlled conditions, restrictions, judges' decision. The people in the UFC are great fighters, but they wouldn't last very long if they use the very same techniques on the mat. How many people would start a fight shooting in from far away? You just risk yourself getting kneed.
A lot of arts in theory are complete. You can fight just using one principle. If you're a good striker, you don't need to grapple. If you're a great kicker, you don't need to punch. That's in theory. However, humans are fallible and thus, need some rounded skills. You should still perfect what you're good at. If you're a great kicker and a horrible puncher, you should practice your hand techniques extensively. But in a fight, use your strengths. If you're slow and awkward, don't try to act graceful - you'll only put yourself in a bad position. You should practice being graceful, but not when your life depends on it.
Just because an art doesn't emphasize one thing does not mean it's incomplete. If you were to perfect it, you wouldn't need anything else.
But why other martial arts? Why take a variety? So you may get used to other techniques that aren't restricted and are provincial or some extra principles. Or something to adapt to, as fighting is like water like Bruce Lee said, always changing as moving water never grows stale, and water always attacks the weakest points.
People saying TKD is incomplete, etc., are probably used to what I like to call, the full-of-nonesense TKD... Notice I didn't use McDojo because even great instructors will teach you to kick all the time and such. And is it you, a person who has studied 1/1000000000000000000 of the art, ready to judge? Or someone who is not physically or mentally ready to tackle it, ready to judge? If you're very uncoordinated and couldn't box, of course you're going to say it's the worst art ever.
You can spend your entire life comparing arts and saying which one is better, but you'll learn after years of studying, at least 20 years, that all arts are relatively the same. The same basic techniques are there. Basic attributes to be successful, and many other things like that. A punch is a punch. There are DIFFERENCES but one isn't better. A wing chun punch may get extra power from the added wrist movement than a normal straight from boxing, but you increase chances of hurting your wrist. A SPORT style roundhouse (military has two roundhouses, and two side kicks) may be faster, but it doesn't have as much power as a muay thai roundhouse. You may use one or the other depending on where you are, who you're going up against, the timing.
A lot of people always question why the fancy high and jumping kicks. Why do boxers jump rope? Jumping kicks develop a lot of the motion and power. Especially the spinning ones, they also develop agility. The high kicks are there because if you can kick high fast, you can kick fast lower. And there is a time for every technique, even high kicks. Chances of using a high kick is much rarer than the chance to use a low kick, but they're there. Why the horse stance? Traditionally, it had its uses which are now obsolete for many people, but it still has its uses. It develops stability in your legs and your body.
Arts shouldn't even be there, rather, techniques for the individual.
