My self-defense opinion, for whatever that is worth?

[Freestyler777]

For the past ten years, my mind has been fixated on finding 'the best' self-defense. So now is my final dissertation on which 'style' is best.

I would say that boxing, or kickboxing, or any sport where the striking with the hands is the best self-defense. Boxing however, has no martial art characteristics to it. It is just a brawl with gloves on.

So if boxing, and all it's variants is number one, I would say that throwing is number two.

Judo is self-defense, discipline, philosophy, ettiquite, sportsmanship, sport, and social activity. It is also a viable alternative to boxing in some SD situations.

Groundfighting, while it may have been proven in fair fights, is not really geared to the reality of the bar or the battlefield. One should stay standing, in theory, for self defense purposes.

So there it is. Boxing and Judo, or punching and takedowns. Feel free to rip me to pieces.

 

[Kacey]

As I've said before - the best martial art is the one a person is interested in, learns and practices... because it doesn't matter how good the art is, if you don't learn from it and practice the techniques contained within it. Repeating the question in different formats isn't going to change that answer.

As far as which art is best for self-defense - that's going to depend on what you're defending yourself from. The best SD art for women may well, in most circumstances, be different from the best SD art for men, which in turn may well be different from the best SD art for kids. If you live in an area where lots of people carry weapons, then an art that teaches defense against weapons will be the "best".

This discussion comes up over and over because everyone wants to know which style is the "best" - and most want it to be the style they're currently taking. There is no "best" - there's only the best one for the person taking it.

Here are links to some recent discussions, many of which have great points:

What is the 'MOST' well rounded system?
Wake-up Call: Takedowns=Fighting Ability
TKD & the effective strike
The art for me
Generalize Before We Specialize?
The art or the sensei!?
best styles for self defense
The Best Art....Is There Such A Thing?

There are plenty more... but in general, they all say one of the same 2 things:

The "best" art is the one that's right for you
OR
The "best" art is the one I practice.

 

[exile]

For the past ten years, my mind has been fixated on finding 'the best' self-defense. So now is my final dissertation on which 'style' is best.

I would say that boxing, or kickboxing, or any sport where the striking with the hands is the best self-defense. Boxing however, has no martial art characteristics to it. It is just a brawl with gloves on.

So if boxing, and all it's variants is number one, I would say that throwing is number two.

Judo is self-defense, discipline, philosophy, ettiquite, sportsmanship, sport, and social activity. It is also a viable alternative to boxing in some SD situations.

Groundfighting, while it may have been proven in fair fights, is not really geared to the reality of the bar or the battlefield. One should stay standing, in theory, for self defense purposes.

So there it is. Boxing and Judo, or punching and takedowns. Feel free to rip me to pieces.

Freestyler, I don't think anyone wants to rip anyone to pieces here; but is the issue really one of `striking with the hands?' Or is it rather the idea of training for fighting at the range within which streetfights normally take place: very close quarters. Boxers train hard for fighting at that range. But I don't see why various O/J karate styles, or KMAs such as TKD or TSD, or other TMAs which have the same kind of multiple close range attacking tools (punches, open-handed strikes, elbows, knee and low kicks), and also a full complement of throwing/locking/trapping/pinning techniques (traceable back to their common Okinawan tuite ancestor) which are intended to bring vulnerable points on the attacker's body into range while forcing the attacker's compliance, are not just as good, if they're trained for this range. This is the sticking point we always come back to, eh? It's not the art per se, but the range you train for and the nature of the training: do you train to damage a noncompliant assailant to the point where he's incapacitated? Boxers box each other at that close range on a constant basis, but there's no reason why TMAs that have such close-range weapons can't do the same thing.

I really think the focus on the art, as vs. the training approach, is going to lead to some seriously premature conclusions. There's no magic wand here; you have to train for the appropriate range. Just because the rules of boxing entail that its fighters stay at that range throughout their training doesn't mean that fighters in other arts can't either...

 

[Freestyler777]

I did not imply that traditional striking arts are not as good as boxing. That's why I said boxing, kickboxing, or any other art where striking with the hands is primary. I just think boxing is good because it is scientific, objective, and sportive. There's a lot of limitations to boxing, namely, the reliance on gloves, which allows people to punch everywhere, even bony places that would hurt their hands if they were barehanded. But boxing is effective anyway. So is any art or sport where the hands are emphasized. There are other striking 'weapons' and there is armed combat, which I don't even want to ponder.

This is a great website, where intelligent people discuss MA like it was an academic subject. Excellent!

 

[Sapper6]

For the past ten years, my mind has been fixated on finding 'the best' self-defense. So now is my final dissertation on which 'style' is best.

I would say that boxing, or kickboxing, or any sport where the striking with the hands is the best self-defense. Boxing however, has no martial art characteristics to it. It is just a brawl with gloves on.

So if boxing, and all it's variants is number one, I would say that throwing is number two.

Judo is self-defense, discipline, philosophy, ettiquite, sportsmanship, sport, and social activity. It is also a viable alternative to boxing in some SD situations.

Groundfighting, while it may have been proven in fair fights, is not really geared to the reality of the bar or the battlefield. One should stay standing, in theory, for self defense purposes.

So there it is. Boxing and Judo, or punching and takedowns. Feel free to rip me to pieces.

good luck with the dissertation.

you might find the answer in your quest, but you sure as hell won't convince the masses your theory of the "best style" is correct.

how many systems have you studied? from your profile, you're a Judo brown with experience in BJJ and wrestling. how can you even begin to ascertain what system of fighting is best when your own personal experience is just as limited as the next guys. don't take me wrong, i'm not bashing you. your question has been asked time and time again and never will all groups of people agree on the same. it's not the system, it's the person. it's not only the person, but the situation and environment. until someone comes along and creates a system of fighting built for ALL people and EVERY situation, then these types of questions/quests will go unanswered.

good luck in your search.

:asian:

 

[Freestyler777]

you have some good points.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Hey, Freestyler Good to see you're enjoying the topic.

It's kind of interesting to watch you as you progress on your search for what is "best" because, actually, you remind me of *me* about 10 years ago


Just a little background on how I got to be where I am:

From the time I was 12 till the time I was 20 I was on and off involved in quite a few arts myself, and though I never got higher than brown belt in one of them, i was exposed to about 7 styles that I got varying degrees of formal instruction in and independently kept reading up on anything i could find; if it was to do with a martial art i'd never seen, I wanted it. (I was a 20 year-old Boston Irish kid who thought that'd give him all the answers to make the best style there was, what can I say?

Then while I was yet so young and certain, I figured out, about the same time I figured out a lot of things, that any system of hand to hand combat, regardless of national origin, will teach a person one or more of the same five things:

*hand/arm blows
*Leg/foot blows
*Grappling while standing
*Grappling while grounded
*Weapons

And any or all of those things can work in a "real fight" if the person using them is a "real fighter". Almost any tool will do, if *you* will do.

Eventually I finally realized that what mattered most was not how your movements looked or if they were "scientific" or not, but how you handled the adrenaline dump into your system and how many techniques are *right there* in your nervous system that you can cover a standing/grappling/armed/whatever situation with that you can snap off lightning quick, and to that end, understanding what each art's function is, and choosing which functions suit his /her abilities/limits/temperament, and then doing the "absorb what is useful" bit.



Thing is though, come time you reach that point you probably have visited at least 5 styles trying to "find yourself" 'fore you finally realize you were always there, and you know enough at last to make informed decisions about what suits you.

Now that I'm 29 and been around the block a few more times, most of my preconceptions are gone, and I've no longer got any grand illusions about who or what I am, I'm not gonna become some grand poobah of some new art, I ain't gonna bring the martial arts world to its knees, all's I'm gonna do....is take a look with my now hopefully wiser eyes, at my limitations, what styles exist that function in a way that makes my limitations less "limiting", and go from there.

And to this end my choices have been thus:



FMA/Silat are what I started training in as much as I can

Mainly because:

* All have a reputation for adaptability and/or simplicity.

* i like the fact they seem to have a natural flowing response rather than rigid prearranged actions,and are brain dead simple to learn, the work comes in getting them down(any person can do sinawali *drills*. NOT everyone can spar using them--certainly not me--YET)

*I like the fact that they seem to transition from armed to unarmed and back with very little hitch
stylistically(your nervous system won't hesitate while your mind tries to tell your body "It's a weapon. Change fighting styles" and gets you killed).


* I wear glasses and can't afford contacts/ corrective surgery right now. I'm severely nearsighted. If during a crisis those glasses come off my pistol just became worthless unless there's a laser sight on it and sufficient darkness to see it(my eyes without glasses can no longer use the sights but CAN still track the dot).I can however see enough for H2H/contact weapons just barely enough and such training is best there(If it were available around me I would have actually considered Wing Chun as well since it and FMA are supposed to have a lot in trapping range, Wing Chun's a Punching style, I used to box, and of course the trapping is an excellent area to be skilled at both because so few people are comfortable fighting that tight and for close in when you're nearsighted).

Does this mean I think other arts are "not as good" or somehow "less"? No it doesn't. It just means these are what click the most with who/what Andy Moynihan is at this stage of his life.

But before I decided that, I first had to go through those other 7-8 to figure that out, is that making sense now?

As to the "sport" and "art" thing:

Did you know when I was in my late High school years, competing in a UFC was one of the only things I wanted to do? See, I was at a point then where I too had grown sick of the "McDojos" in my area--I loved MAs but was sick of getting lied to. there being no MMA style gyms near me, the next best thing was a karate/boxing gym which did groundwork, a judo dojo some ways away, and I lived about 20 min. drive from no less than Dick Kimber's kickboxing gym. Meeting him the first time was cool, i'll tell you what. I was the same height as he but not even *half* as wide and I ain't talkin fat neither.
anyhow, for awhile there I tried to train in that general fashion till I found myself workin with this kid who signed up for the same boxing class as me. I thought *I* was a testosterone poisoned 20 year old kid? I had nothing on this kid.
Now, I didn't learn until much later that this kid was already an accessory to murder, but you begin to see where this was heading.
Went right to his head, thought he was big bad man because he knew boxing, whenever someone challenged his bullying he'd want to take it out side with gloves( he for some reason never challenged me outside boxing rules--can't imagine why).
Kid was about to go to trial and jail for assisting in killing someone( they said it was manslaughter, unintentional--i dont know), and he very likely KNEW once he got to trial he was cooked, and yet here he was wanting to do nothing but "fight" to gain "respect". I guess some folks just aint wired right.
Anyway, long story short, he served his hitch, got out, jumped himself BACK in for assault again, spent some time under house arrest and who bloody KNOWS what happened after, or if he's even still around. Nothing to help him slam the brakes on when the darkness fell.


I had other physical concerns that derailed my interest in competing (I suffer from both impaired vision and hearing and i got the crazy idea that maybe years and years of whacks to the head wouldn't help either condition, and since then I've been made aware of warning signs that could help me stave off the heart disease and diabetes that my parents have since we caught it early, and it's likely best not to tax them with such a lifestyle, to say nothing of the fact I feel the whole industry has devolved to where I feel I want no part of it anymore anyway even if I WERE still at a competetive age ( almost 30 which as pro athletes go is post prime or on the way).

But, needless to say watching him doom himself like that took a bucket full of stupid right out of me as concerned true violence and left a bad taste in my mouth for all such displays, and so it probably just became clearer why the current MMA marlketing/reality show/ fan trash talk about "prove it in the cage or it ain't ****" just sets my teeth to grinding some days. I had enough of that watching this diseased life form find out just exactly what "Mr. Tough Man" gets you.

Which also has shaped how I view things now.

*The MMA vs Traditional "Fad" type of thing:

On both sides ( with varying degrees of radicalism in individual opinions expressed but the points otherwise remain the same) we have the question of how what we do relates to SD.

On the one side we have the camp which appears upset at the other for a percieved lack of what they deem necessary for SD ( in this case, not having, or at least not publicly appearing to have, a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress, what to them, from the outside, appear outdated training methods, and lack of athletic conditioning.)

On the other side we have the camp which appears upset at the other for a percieved lack of what they deem necessary for SD ( in this case, a mindset percieved to be all about "winning" and not "surviving", concern over the fact of what the resultant attitude could be in the legal aftermath or public opinion of such activites , a claim that because there are rules the match is different from a "real" fight, concern over the fact that the style's operators totally ignore or are not permitted the use of weapons or their equivalent simulators).

But here's the crucial thing Everybody needs to get, but apparently nobody WANTS to get:

It is this:

Both points of view are wrong....because both camps are RIGHT!

* Physical conditioning is beneficial to any person regardless of chosen path, since, apart from specialized conditioning to execute a given path's techniques, if a person is unhealthy or injured they cannot even train in any path.

*a means of working with an alive, resisting opponent under conditions of adrenaline stress is beneficial to anyone's SD abilities/confidence, but some people need more time than others and may not be able to handle the same amount, so paths with different levels of emphasis on this will attract the people able to handle that level, since if a person is dissatisfied with too low a level or overwhelmed by too high a level they'll quit and not get ANY benefit because if you don't like your path you won't stay on it.

*Mindset is important concerning how you approach SD--the qualities you must possess to be successful in professional athletic competition differ from, and in many cases could be at direct cross purposes with, what must be your mindset in pure SD situations, and vice versa. Exposure to both activities can help you figure out for yourself where you must find your balance, on your path.

* like it or not, in our present society, a basic knowledge of national, state( where applicable) and local legal precedent regarding SD is a stone dead MUST. May not be the way it *should* be, but it's the way it *is* right now.

*Knowledge of weapons is beneficial to anyone interested in SD from either side since A) if you know their use it is far easier to determine their defenses, B) if you have a path which treats every incoming punch as though it is a knife, what is necessary for the weapon translates over ( another reason I chose my path) and it is more difficult to gain surprise which most criminal knifemen try for ( in many reports people report not knowing they were stabbed till they looked. There's a very real lesson there). C) weapons have always been humankind's first choice to fight with, so knowing how to be alert for them is beneficial to anyone of any camp, and for those of you who are US residents an additional D) according to the last few FBI Uniform Crime Reports cite that an average of 8 out of every 10 streetfights involve weapons.


*As to what is or is not an "obsolete" training method( the usual bone of contention is forms, but there are others)---"obsolete" for what purpose, "obsolete" for whose needs? If we were to discuss the hot button of forms, the greater part of whether they are useful tools or not largely stems from people on the outside( and, sadly, exponentially too many on the inside too), plain and simply not understanding what the tool is FOR. I have been uncommonly fortunate to find a teacher who can break down each part of any formlike movement we do and say"here is the form movement" and then "now here is *one way* the streamlined application version of the movement can be used". "This is a drill", then" here are the attributes that drill burns in your muscle memory so that you are able to do *this* aspect of the system". Most schools( which could perhaps be classified under the "McDojo" umbrella) are unable to do this because the ones teaching were never taught it either, and so can demonstrate the movement only at "face value" and this , I'm certain, is the most significant contributing factor in the position that this method is "obsolete". But in all of those movements, cvollected over all those millenia, ebgineered for all those different putposes and times, has GOT to be something for everyone whatever their needs.

I been hearing that word "obsolete" most all my life---and they still dig holes with shovels.

 

[Freestyler777]

Thank you, Andy. I really liked that post.

For me, boxing was always the measuring stick by which every other discipline was measured. I grew up thinking western boxing was for 'the real toughguys' and oriental martial arts were 'hogwash'. But then I saw judo, and for many years I looked at videos and books, of which i have dozens on the art, and judo turned out to be what makes me happy, regardless of how good or bad i am at it. I don't need to be the best, I just need to be happy.

watching boxing appeals to many young, angry men, and everyone has some experience, good or bad, with sparring for the first time. now that i think about it, boxing is human cockfighting, and is not for a respectable, civilized man. That's why only poor people really devote all their time to it. And even amongst the thousands who strive, only a few make the millions, which is no indication of character or merit anyway.

i didn't mean to bash boxing, there are some good people involved in the sport, but i was trying to segway into my point:

Judo is both a viable self-defense method, and a classical art, with all the beauty and grace of any style of karate. Judo is many things to many people, and I can't imagine a better use of one's free time.

So I'll give my boxing pipe dream a rest, and go back to judo. It's the best thing for me, and like you observed, i've dabbles here and there in a few different things, like JKD, shootfighting, boxing, judo, and BJJ, and Judo is the only thing I have stuck with for any serious amount of time.

Thank you for the reality check, and the response.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Thank you, Andy. I really liked that post.

For me, boxing was always the measuring stick by which every other discipline was measured. I grew up thinking western boxing was for 'the real toughguys' and oriental martial arts were 'hogwash'. But then I saw judo, and for many years I looked at videos and books, of which i have dozens on the art, and judo turned out to be what makes me happy, regardless of how good or bad i am at it. I don't need to be the best, I just need to be happy.

There you go.

watching boxing appeals to many young, angry men, and everyone has some experience, good or bad, with sparring for the first time. now that i think about it, boxing is human cockfighting, and is not for a respectable, civilized man. That's why only poor people really devote all their time to it. And even amongst the thousands who strive, only a few make the millions, which is no indication of character or merit anyway.

I might agree that the environment that *surrounds* professional boxing is something I don't like, rather than talk about boxing itself. There isn't "good" or "evil" in any weapon, tool, or martial art until first there is "good" or "evil" in it's operator.

i didn't mean to bash boxing, there are some good people involved in the sport, but i was trying to segway into my point:

Judo is both a viable self-defense method, and a classical art, with all the beauty and grace of any style of karate. Judo is many things to many people, and I can't imagine a better use of one's free time.

So I'll give my boxing pipe dream a rest, and go back to judo. It's the best thing for me, and like you observed, i've dabbles here and there in a few different things, like JKD, shootfighting, boxing, judo, and BJJ, and Judo is the only thing I have stuck with for any serious amount of time.

Thank you for the reality check, and the response.

Then enjoy Judo, and stay with it, but also keep in mind that you shouldn't stop learning either. There could be other small things from other arts that could make your Judo better for self defense as well.

 

[exile]

Hey, Freestyler Good to see you're enjoying the topic.

It's kind of interesting to watch you as you progress on your search for what is "best" because, actually, you remind me of *me* about 10 years ago ....

Lovely, sharp-edege post, Andy—everyone interested in the MAs as they relate to SD would do well to go back and read the whole thing!

I did not imply that traditional striking arts are not as good as boxing. That's why I said boxing, kickboxing, or any other art where striking with the hands is primary. I just think boxing is good because it is scientific, objective, and sportive. There's a lot of limitations to boxing, namely, the reliance on gloves, which allows people to punch everywhere, even bony places that would hurt their hands if they were barehanded. But boxing is effective anyway. So is any art or sport where the hands are emphasized. There are other striking 'weapons' and there is armed combat, which I don't even want to ponder.

No, I understand your point, Freestyler. My point was that the role of the hands may be in effect a secondary by- product of the variable that's actually primary, namely, training for a particular fighting range. So, for example, there a lot of techs in the various karate-based arts which involve use of low kicks from `outside' the assailant to damage his knee to the point where he can't stand—and taking out a car's tire is just as effective a way to keep it from moving as damaging the steering wheel, eh? Hard knee strikes to a controlled attacker's midsection can be extremely damaging. I'm not saying that the emphasis shouldn't be on hand techs—I've gotten into a fair number of scraps on MT about that issue!—but my main point is that the thing to train is not hand techs for the sake of hand techs, but hand-techs, elbow techs, leg techs and anything else that's relevant to close-in fighting range. What I'm getting at, I guess, is that I think that if any art or style built its teaching curriculum around the idea of close range fighting, there would, over time, be a seemingly remarkable convergence of techniques so that that over several instructional generations, the various arts would wind up converging (much as current automobile offerings, based on the same kind of state-of-the-art wind-tunnel design modelling algorithms, look enough alike that it's not easy telling them apart unless you can see their grills and head/tail-light treatments).

I think you're correct that boxing is an excellent model of hand techs for SD, because of the constant, unending training boxers engage in at realistic fighting ranges: that's basically all they do. But leg techs, low kicks to accomplish limb destruction and trigger automatic responses that make weak points in the attacker's anatomy accessible, are important too, and boxers don't train those. And from what I've seen of kickboxing—and this might not be representative—it tends to employ leg techs at a more distant range than, e.g., Combat Hapkido, where low kicks are invoked to inflict significant damage on a controlled attacker at or within the 12"-16" distance that many SD experts take to be typical of violent street encounters in progress. MA historians are unanimous in the view that the leg techs of the early forms of karate were low, and designed for effectiveness at just this range. That's why I find it useful to identify the range as the crucial variable in thinking about what techs are valuable for SD, as vs the limbs themselves...

 

[still learning]

Hello, MR Free styler...Right ON! Boxers training is one of the closest thing to real street fighting, skills learn in the rings works on the streets.

If you ever spar against a boxer? ....you will know the skill they learn in the rings works fighting against any martial artist.

JUDO: anytime you can takedown someone first? ...you will have the advantage! You do not want to grapple or ground fight! Unless you have many years of knowlege in grappling/wrestling/so on...."BUT" on the streets you will want to end any confrontation as fast as possible! (standing up)

Judo is NOT only about takedowns and throws...this is the sport side...try JUDO and experience the street side of it? ...it is more than you think!

Aloha (just my thoughts)

 

[exile]

If you ever spar against a boxer? ....you will know the skill they learn in the rings works fighting against any martial artist.

I don't think you can necessarily make that strong a statement, SL. Remember, there are multiple sources which document the success of Choki Motobu, at the age of 50, defeating a western boxer in 1924, apparently by knockout. Motobu was an extraordinary fighter, but there are plenty of very talented close-range fighters amongst the current ranks of karateka. If one of them trains specifically against boxers for a long enough period of time, I certainly wouldn't want to have to bet anything very valuable that even a skilled boxer would necessarily win an `all-in' (i.e., `street rules') match against them.

Again—boxers are very formible fighters at close range fighting (which is where street defense has to work) because they train at that range constantly. That's why I think it's misleading to focus on the art per se, as opposed to the range. Olympic TKD and sport karate are one kind of expression of TKD and karate, shaped by a scoring system that imposes a certain fighting range that doesn't correspond to most street or enclosed-space attacks. But there are variant interpretations of these MAs at much closer ranges, at the same range as boxing. At that point, as always, it comes down to the skill of the individual combatants.

 

[jks9199]

For the past ten years, my mind has been fixated on finding 'the best' self-defense. So now is my final dissertation on which 'style' is best.

I would say that boxing, or kickboxing, or any sport where the striking with the hands is the best self-defense. Boxing however, has no martial art characteristics to it. It is just a brawl with gloves on.

So if boxing, and all it's variants is number one, I would say that throwing is number two.

Judo is self-defense, discipline, philosophy, ettiquite, sportsmanship, sport, and social activity. It is also a viable alternative to boxing in some SD situations.

Groundfighting, while it may have been proven in fair fights, is not really geared to the reality of the bar or the battlefield. One should stay standing, in theory, for self defense purposes.

So there it is. Boxing and Judo, or punching and takedowns. Feel free to rip me to pieces.

You've spent 10 years on a quest, and reached some conclusions. But you haven't supported those conclusions.

By this point in the thread, several people have taken you to task for the conclusion you've reached, and tried to explain how there is no "best."

Let me start by noting that my opinion here is based on more than 20 years training in one martial art, coupled with a longer attraction to the martial arts. Add in several years working experience as a cop -- which means that when I speak of self defense experience, I'm actually talking from direct experience with a special emphasis on containing, controlling, and subduing the person -- which is emphatically NOT the same concern as an "ordinary" person's goal in self defense, which should be to escape, and deter pursuit -- not subdue.

With all that in mind -- no real fight is predictable or follows the same formula. Many times, striking is of limited utility; you may throw one or two punches, but many fights turn into stand up or outright wrestling matches, with some wild punching mixed in when opportunity permits. Many times, grappling is of limited utility; fighters wail on each other with no concern for style and no opportunity to grapple. Many times, nothing is of utility, because in real self defense, the guy has a weapon or attacks with such surprise that you're defeated before you know what happened. A baseball bat to the back of the head tends to win... especially if you don't see it coming.

What's all that mean?

The "best" self defense is, most importantly, learning to be aware, and developing reasonable skills across a variety of ranges and fitting many types of attacks.

Many styles will answer these needs; the best one for you will take into account what's available in your area, what you can afford, your own body type and mindset, and the way they train. Because that's what will make the biggest difference; 2 or 3 one hour classes a week, with no contact... Probably not going to prepare you for a real attack. 5 hours a day, 6 days a week.... You'll be tough, but probably so beat down by training that, if you're attacked in the few moments you have outside the gym, you'll collapse from exhaustion. Good training will address fitness (both aerobic and anearobic endurance, as well as strength, agility, and more), as well as developing solid principles that you test under controlled pressure with real risk of some pain or injury. A boxier's workout does this - but so does a competitive wrestlers, or a judo club's or lots of others.

In short -- there's no one best way to fight. But there are bad ways to prepare for a real fight.

 

[exile]

The "best" self defense is, most importantly, learning to be aware, and developing reasonable skills across a variety of ranges and fitting many types of attacks.

Great overall post, jks! You might be interested in this article by Iain Abernety on this very point (teaser quote: If your karate training focuses solely on physical techniques for fighting, then it is not addressing the needs of self-protection. Self-protection is not the same as fighting.) I think we actually have a thread somewhere or other back there in the archives about how to train awareness...

 

[Tez3]

We have a number of boxers ( a big Army sport) come to us to train in MMA as well as self defence...note I separate the two, and I have to say that it can be relatively easy to defeat a boxer so I'd be careful about making such a blanket statement as boxing will defeat all martial artists. MMA is a sport and should be viewed as such but the martial artists who do that sport should not be viewed as only being able to fight within rules. I know that many if not most are very handy when it comes to 'no rules' fighting. I can box and spar against boxers but find it's not the best self defence style for me being small and female, if I were Mike Tyson I suspect that any style would work, though I'd love to see him doing Capoeira lol! A lot of the men however find sparring against boxers no different than sparring against karateka who I find actually tend to have the advantage( without using kicks too) one poor boxer was dropped with a backfist another with a liver shot.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Good point JKS9199!

OK watch Chuck Norris (not sure what it is call) team fighters..ususally those with Boxing backgrounds wins.

Sparring is NOT real fighting...not hard hitting to take someone out like in a real fight!

Take any two of your own students have them spar....Now let them really fight each other....the person who has boxing skill will have the advantage.

People do not really fight like they sparr in a real fight (most times). Real fights are anything goes-NO rules.........sparring has rules (cannot poke/gouge eyes out? break bones? ...hair pulling? and slamming to the floor?

Motoki against boxers? Motoki he is a great martial artist (we do not know anything about the boxer.

Boxers train in a ring, bodies learn to take punches,they develop better cardio, they learn to move,they learn when to fake,hit,duck,weave,..they can go many rounds....IN a real fight? ...how long can you last? How often to do train for a full on fight? like a boxer who has to keep his guard up and head protected.

Sparring is NOT REALLy fighing...just drills. Watch martial artist sparr...then watch them in a real fight? ....two different animals here!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Shotokan Sensi once said (many times)....you want to learn to fight? ...take up boxing .....what we teach is Karate! .......Aloha

 

[Tez3]

Hello, Good point JKS9199!

OK watch Chuck Norris (not sure what it is call) team fighters..ususally those with Boxing backgrounds wins.

Sparring is NOT real fighting...not hard hitting to take someone out like in a real fight!

Take any two of your own students have them spar....Now let them really fight each other....the person who has boxing skill will have the advantage.

People do not really fight like they sparr in a real fight (most times). Real fights are anything goes-NO rules.........sparring has rules (cannot poke/gouge eyes out? break bones? ...hair pulling? and slamming to the floor?

Motoki against boxers? Motoki he is a great martial artist (we do not know anything about the boxer.

Boxers train in a ring, bodies learn to take punches,they develop better cardio, they learn to move,they learn when to fake,hit,duck,weave,..they can go many rounds....IN a real fight? ...how long can you last? How often to do train for a full on fight? like a boxer who has to keep his guard up and head protected.

Sparring is NOT REALLy fighing...just drills. Watch martial artist sparr...then watch them in a real fight? ....two different animals here!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Shotokan Sensi once said (many times)....you want to learn to fight? ...take up boxing .....what we teach is Karate! .......Aloha

Any two students? The pro MMA fighter students? The one that knocked a guy out with a flying knee to the head.........................on the street? That lad is Muay Thai trained by Thai instructors in Bangkok.Or the Wado Ryu instructor in his fifties who dropped two guys in the pub we were in when they tried to punch him? Or my instructor(Shotokan as well as other styles) who stood on one leg...the other ankle was broken in three places as well as dislocated and broke the boxer's ribs who had attacked him in the street with his knees strikes plus bust his face up. The attacker was an 18st ex army boxer.
We have a whole host of karateka who are very good at 'streetfighting', Geoff Thompson for a start. We have very good full contact karate fighting tradtion here! Extol boxings virtues by all means, there are many but don't ridicule karate when it's clear you know little about it.
It's not to everyones' taste but we are a fighting club, we can do everything a boxer can and a wee bit more lol!

 

[Rich Parsons]

For the past ten years, my mind has been fixated on finding 'the best' self-defense. So now is my final dissertation on which 'style' is best.

You last part discusses Ripping you apart. I will point out some things, in hope of understanding, not ripping. But it may seem so.

If you have a final dissertation, does this mean you not open to learning ever again in your life?

It is good to have goals. but even if one is the best today, someone else will come along tomorrow and be the best. You are in for a long disappointing road in my opinion.

Find something you like, with an instructor you like. Much more productive for you and others around you, in my opinion.

I would say that boxing, or kickboxing, or any sport where the striking with the hands is the best self-defense. Boxing however, has no martial art characteristics to it. It is just a brawl with gloves on.

This is in contradiction to your WAKE-UP thread.

I disagree to it being a brawl. Brawl are much more deadly/serious from my experience

So if boxing, and all it's variants is number one, I would say that throwing is number two.

Is this what lead to the Wake-Up thread?

Judo is self-defense, discipline, philosophy, ettiquite, sportsmanship, sport, and social activity. It is also a viable alternative to boxing in some SD situations.

I thought Judo was a sport. No real striking in Judo, just throws and take downs, no real strikes.

Groundfighting, while it may have been proven in fair fights, is not really geared to the reality of the bar or the battlefield. One should stay standing, in theory, for self defense purposes.

I agree with this. But one should have principals of the body that work on the ground so if/when you find yourself there, you can get back up.

So there it is. Boxing and Judo, or punching and takedowns. Feel free to rip me to pieces.

See my post in your wake-up thread:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=829914&postcount=26

 

[exile]

I just want to reinforce what Tez has said with a story from the top of the self-defense mountain... Geoff Thompson himself. In his book The Three Second Fighter, Thompson, a sixth dan Shotokan BB, first dan jukoka, and long time professional club doorman/bouncer and close protection consultant, tells the story of two good friends of his, one a successful professional boxer in the UK, the other a `brilliant international Karateka' and ace kicking adept, who had a match in a boxing ring under boxing rules. As he puts it

Not surprisingly, the boxer tore the kicker a new ****...

A couple of years later the same boxer ventured into my club to box with one of my students, a capable boxer with a heavy background in traditional Karate. At the start of the fight, they fought full contact and to boxing rules. There was no doubting the ferocity and prowess of the boxer's hands; he was brilliant. Although my student fought a hard and brave fight, he was catching some heavy bombs. After a few rounds of boxing, and with the consent of both fighters, I changes the rules slightly and allowed the use of kicking. Within a minute, the boxer had been on the floor more times than the cleaner's mop and was incapable of carrying on. My student had used only one kick to reach this end—a Thai leg kick. The boxer came to see me a week later, still limping, and told me that he hadn't been able to attend work for a week and was absolutely amazed at how effective the kicker was.​

(The Three Second Fighter, 1997/2005, UK: Summersdale, pp.9–10; my emphasis.) With this simple low kick, Thompson's student was able to demolish a consummate boxer. Freestyler, still_learning... doesn't that tell you something? It's become a cliché (but a lot of clichés are clichés for a very good reason: they're mostly true): if you train for a certain set of conditions, you're going to become good under those conditions, and if you fight under different conditions, you're going to be vulnerable to someone who's trained for those conditions. It sounds to me like you're both thinking of boxing (or something very much like it) as a universal cure for street vulnerability. But the street is a particular set of conditions like any other (maybe a good deal harsher); when Thompson goes on to say that

In the western boxing ring, with boxing rules, the pugilist is, no doubt, the ultimate combatant; in the arena of Olympic Wrestling—with wrestling rules—the grappler is potentate, and in the Thai boxing ring—with Thai rules of course—the Thai figher comes away with the accolade... I do not look for, nor am I interested in, who is the `best' fighter. What I do look for and I definitely am interested in is what can I learn from the boxer/wrestler/Thai boxer/Wing Chun man, etc.​

he's saying something that we definitely need to take seriously: you can't judge the efficacy of a kind of fighting outside the range and conventions that practitioners of that fighting style train for. What Tez is saying, what Geoff Thompson is saying, based on years of experience, needs to be taken seriously. Otherwise you'll wind up jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted by the full range of facts...

 

[kidswarrior]

And any or all of those things can work in a "real fight" if the person using them is a "real fighter". Almost any tool will do, if *you* will do.

Andy, wish I could say I read your whole post, cos I know it's well-thought out and well worth the time, but just can't do it right now. But the portion I quoted is just classic. May have to steal it, copyright it, and sell it back to you...No, no, no, just kidding. :lfao: Sheesh....

Really, it's a stroke of brilliance in my book. :asian: Unfortunately, gotta 'spread the love' before I can rep ya for this.