Ranking Martial Arts for Self Defensw

[Steve]

Welcome to the Internet.

Jesus, if experience is required, most of the discussions on this site, even among "experts", would be very short and not super interesting.

 

[lklawson]

Bruce Lee talked about this a lot, the stagnancy of styles. It's true no matter where you look, anybody who claims their style is best, starts to resemble a very fixed pattern, locked into position.

Feh. When he talks about "stagnancy" it's also silly. Not every martial art is supposed to "change." In some cases it is either silly, irrelevant, or contradictory to the purpose. Some martial arts are still studied because of their historic or cultural significance. Why would you want to change that to fit into some young kid's idea of what is "stagnant" or relevant. The kid was only, what? 27 or something when he "developed" Jeet Kun Do. I mean, c'mon, I've got underwear older than that.

There are many arts which practice what is considered "archaic" weapons such as the Dao or the German Longsword. Who uses those things any more and why would an art that studies them need to "change" based on what some kid thinks is "stagnant" or relevant?

Don't get Chris Parker started on some arts being more "effective" than others; he's got a long and well reasoned rant that start with just studying an art to appreciate it as it is.

Even BJJ dudes get caught up in their "lifestyle" as if it's unique to their art, and at the same time often diminish the Kung Fu lifestyle, which done well is legitimately tough trainingas well.

The Wing Chun peeps love to fight each other online, but can barely be seen in competition. For them it's all about who/what/where. Again, in isolation from other arts, what do you really know about your own? That's how you get a martial art that claims to be best for self defense but can't even seem to score points fighting. Makes me one sad panda.

"A herd of martial artists get together and a fight breaks out. Quell Suprise." - Chas Clements.



Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

I stopped after they seriously suggested that aikido's founder gained his reputation because he was a superhuman and that's why people can't replicate what he did. We're probing the sewers of intelligence here.

Do you really think they were talking about superhuman ability, or is it possible they were making another point? When I heard that, in the context of the rest of that exchange, I took it to mean that the founder of Aikido, and his most skilled students, all came into Aikido as very accomplished, skilled martial artists from a wide range of styles. Superhuman was a hyperbolic reference to their relative skills outside of aikido. That maps to some of the things that many aikidoka on this forum have said over the years, along the lines of Aikido being a great supplemental style that needs a solid foundation of skill prior to training in order to be practical.

 

[lklawson]

TMA began with combat effectiveness as the very dominant goal as most of its early practitioners were professionals in the field.

It did? Are you sure? Which ones? Where? When? What is "combat" and what is considered effective?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'm old school, I'm going with Sinanju

Since you seem to have known most everyone in the MA world, no doubt you have worked with Sinanju's Master Chin. What did you find most valuable from "Little Father's" teachings?

(Can't wait to hear your response)

 

[drop bear]

Nowhere is this more true than martial arts styles man.

Bruce Lee talked about this a lot, the stagnancy of styles. It's true no matter where you look, anybody who claims their style is best, starts to resemble a very fixed pattern, locked into position.

Even BJJ dudes get caught up in their "lifestyle" as if it's unique to their art, and at the same time often diminish the Kung Fu lifestyle, which done well is legitimately tough trainingas well.

The Wing Chun peeps love to fight each other online, but can barely be seen in competition. For them it's all about who/what/where. Again, in isolation from other arts, what do you really know about your own? That's how you get a martial art that claims to be best for self defense but can't even seem to score points fighting. Makes me one sad panda.

Self defense is one of those goofy terms we love to use. I never use it. If I defended myself successfully with Wing Chun I guess I might be able to say "I used it for self defense!". But then I'd have to correct myself and remind me that I learned the same techniques in other arts.

When you look at the "DJs" of style like Wong Fei Hung or Helio Gracie, you see the key is to expand your horizons. Absorb everything.

Self defence is a weasel word. It sounds like it should mean something but then is so vague as to mean nothing.

 

[drop bear]

Self defense where? When? For what? Self defense in the U.S. 2022 is different from Venezuela 2022 which is different from Germany 1550, which is different from the Philippines 1700, which is different from Hawaii 1200, which is different from Rome 500 B.C.

I agree with you, it's a goofball chase.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yep. The only constant is wrestling.

 

[drop bear]

There are many arts which practice what is considered "archaic" weapons such as the Dao or the German Longsword. Who uses those things any more and why would an art that studies them need to "change" based on what some kid thinks is "stagnant" or relevant?

I think this is a red herring. If the concepts are sound then they are applicable.

It is why the better boxer still dominates in bare knuckle even though he is trained for fighting with gloves on.

 

[Steve]

I would put Parkour on there, as well. Maybe C- or possibly D. It's as much a martial art as some of the others, and is very effective at teaching some very practical self defense skills.

 

[Steve]

Just adding a little more context, Rokas gets some hate on this forum, but in case anyone is interested, the other guy is a former cop. Not sure what his MA credentials are, but it looks like he's been in the self defense game for a while.

 

[isshinryuronin]

It did? Are you sure? Which ones? Where? When? What is "combat" and what is considered effective?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

In the case of karate, yes. It certainly did not start as a commercial enterprise or feel good hobby. Many of the top guys in the 1800's, and even the early 1900's, worked in the security field as field agents, bodyguards, anti-Satsuma rebels and policemen, unrestrained by modern ROE and PC policies. Their fighting skills had a strong chance of being put to use in life threatening situations. I could supply a couple handfuls of documented names, dates and places, but won't. This has already been well established by noted MA historians.

What is "combat?" I think The physical use of force between two (or more) individuals seeking to subdue the other (to a greater or lesser extent) is a reasonable general definition for our purposes. "Effectiveness" is variable, depending on the situation. It may be to successfully capture, restrain, fend off, disable, maim, kill, or just escape with minimum damage.

I appreciate and share your desire for accuracy and veracity. Not sure, though, if your questions were rhetorical, meant to illicit more info and discussion, or if you have a differing (as yet unstated) opinion on the subject.

 

[Steve]

One more general comment. A lot of folks getting worked up about the topic, about whether folks are qualified to comment on this or that.
But I'm still curious whether anyone disagrees with the relative rankings. I mean, do you disagree that someone with a year or two of training in a particular style will be well prepared for self defense (however you like to define the term)? I look at the rankings and think for the most part, it's pretty accurate.

Particularly if I think of it more as a relative spectrum (i.e., this style over that style) vs a concrete rating (i.e., this style gets a B). There are several styles I'd move up or down one click, but the only one I think got a bum deal is TKD.

 

[Steve]

Self defence is a weasel word. It sounds like it should mean something but then is so vague as to mean nothing.

Your video isn't viewable in the USA, by the way.

 

[isshinryuronin]

do you disagree that someone with a year or two of training in a particular style will be well prepared for self defense

Yes. One or two years of training will very rarely make someone "well prepared." I think four to eight years of dedicated training at a self-defense oriented school will do it for many.

Most any style will help someone's self-defense capability, as the majority of untrained people have such little ability to begin with. Styles have their strengths and weaknesses. A big part of an individual's ability lies not so much in the style's strength, but in being able to get around the style's weaknesses.

But both of the above points are secondary to the individual's natural aptitude, mind set, desire, work ethic, etc. Accordingly, ranking various styles for effectiveness is generally non-productive, IMO.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

One more general comment. A lot of folks getting worked up about the topic, about whether folks are qualified to comment on this or that.
But I'm still curious whether anyone disagrees with the relative rankings. I mean, do you disagree that someone with a year or two of training in a particular style will be well prepared for self defense (however you like to define the term)? I look at the rankings and think for the most part, it's pretty accurate.

Particularly if I think of it more as a relative spectrum (i.e., this style over that style) vs a concrete rating (i.e., this style gets a B). There are several styles I'd move up or down one click, but the only one I think got a bum deal is TKD.

Honestly, I haven't watched the video, and don't plan to. Not anything to do with Rokas (I don't know him well enough/haven't watched his stuff), or that I don't think there's a point to ranking styles (it's useful when there's a specific purpose. But, I don't have an hour and a half to watch it, when I could spend that time doing a myriad of other things more enjoyable. There's no need for a ranking video to take that long-sensei seth gets in depth enough to explain his viewpoints with his, yet his ranking videos are below 20 minutes long.

I'm willing to bet others commenting here also haven't watched the video. And without watching it, even if you were to take a screenshot of his total rankings and post it to compare, any ranking responses wouldn't make sense (in comparison to his own), since we don't know what he's considering self defense/what his ranking criteria are, and what's needed for someone to get a b vs. a c.

 

[Steve]

Honestly, I haven't watched the video, and don't plan to. Not anything to do with Rokas (I don't know him well enough/haven't watched his stuff), or that I don't think there's a point to ranking styles (it's useful when there's a specific purpose. But, I don't have an hour and a half to watch it, when I could spend that time doing a myriad of other things more enjoyable. There's no need for a ranking video to take that long-sensei seth gets in depth enough to explain his viewpoints with his, yet his ranking videos are below 20 minutes long.

I'm willing to bet others commenting here also haven't watched the video. And without watching it, even if you were to take a screenshot of his total rankings and post it to compare, any ranking responses wouldn't make sense (in comparison to his own), since we don't know what he's considering self defense/what his ranking criteria are, and what's needed for someone to get a b vs. a c.

the tl;dr version is that they created a relative ranking system. They did give arts a letter grading, with S at the top, then A through F, though I think in the end it was calibrated mostly to be a ranking of arts relative to each other.

The simple criteria was how well prepared folks were after a 'year or two' of training in the styles as they are commonly trained.

The video is so long, because they actually chat about each style at length, so whether or not you agree with them, you'll at least understand their rationale for where they placed the style and why.

So, the question is, how would you rank the following styles? If you don't know or aren't comfortable ranking a style, just ignore it. If you're not interested in participating, it's okay. Don't sweat it. Just a little fun. I'll list all the styles out below, in the order they ended them with in the video.

Tier 1: Wrestling and catch wrestling
Tier 2: GJJ and MMA
Tier 3: BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai, and Lethwei
Tier 4: Kickboxing
Tier 5: Western Boxing
Tier 6: Capoeira, JJJ, Karate, JKD, Kenpo, Krav Maga
Tier 7: Kali/Escrima
Tier 8: Aikido, TKD, WC
Tier 9: Ninjutsu, Pencak Silat, Systema, and Tai Chi

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

the tl;dr version is that they created a relative ranking system. They did give arts a letter grading, with S at the top, then A through F, though I think in the end it was calibrated mostly to be a ranking of arts relative to each other.

The simple criteria was how well prepared folks were after a 'year or two' of training in the styles as they are commonly trained.

The video is so long, because they actually chat about each style at length, so whether or not you agree with them, you'll at least understand their rationale for where they placed the style and why.

So, the question is, how would you rank the following styles? If you don't know or aren't comfortable ranking a style, just ignore it. If you're not interested in participating, it's okay. Don't sweat it. Just a little fun. I'll list all the styles out below, in the order they ended them with in the video.

Tier 1: Wrestling and catch wrestling
Tier 2: GJJ and MMA
Tier 3: BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai, and Lethwei
Tier 4: Kickboxing
Tier 5: Western Boxing
Tier 6: Capoeira, JJJ, Karate, JKD, Kenpo, Krav Maga
Tier 7: Kali/Escrima
Tier 8: Aikido, TKD, WC
Tier 9: Ninjutsu, Pencak Silat, Systema, and Tai Chi

Ok I guess I have to watch the video, now… this… Steve… is all your fault. I plan to hold you responsible for whatever faces or eye rolls I make. If your ears burn around 8 tonite you will know why.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

the tl;dr version is that they created a relative ranking system. They did give arts a letter grading, with S at the top, then A through F, though I think in the end it was calibrated mostly to be a ranking of arts relative to each other.

The simple criteria was how well prepared folks were after a 'year or two' of training in the styles as they are commonly trained.

The video is so long, because they actually chat about each style at length, so whether or not you agree with them, you'll at least understand their rationale for where they placed the style and why.

So, the question is, how would you rank the following styles? If you don't know or aren't comfortable ranking a style, just ignore it. If you're not interested in participating, it's okay. Don't sweat it. Just a little fun. I'll list all the styles out below, in the order they ended them with in the video.

Tier 1: Wrestling and catch wrestling
Tier 2: GJJ and MMA
Tier 3: BJJ, Judo, Muay Thai, and Lethwei
Tier 4: Kickboxing
Tier 5: Western Boxing
Tier 6: Capoeira, JJJ, Karate, JKD, Kenpo, Krav Maga
Tier 7: Kali/Escrima
Tier 8: Aikido, TKD, WC
Tier 9: Ninjutsu, Pencak Silat, Systema, and Tai Chi

We already know the answer to these. Master Ken told us years ago…

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Just to say and then I'll let it drop... I don't think honesty or dishonesty is in play here. But I do understand that you don't like the idea of opining on arts you haven't personally trained. Fair enough. I disagree that you need to train it to discuss it or have an opinion about it, but if that's what you think, I'm not asking you to change.

What I am still interested in is where you'd rank the styles you're familiar with.

How do YOU rank them? Outside of WC, Gung Fu isn’t even on the list. Not sure if I am even invited to this party.

 

[Dirty Dog]

One more general comment. A lot of folks getting worked up about the topic, about whether folks are qualified to comment on this or that.
But I'm still curious whether anyone disagrees with the relative rankings.

If someone is dinging the video because the poster is ranking systems they have no experience with, then by their own logic (logic I tend to agree with, mostly) they cannot really rank the styles themselves.