Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Martial arts - How good are they for self defense?

By guitartroll in Culture
Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 02:06:16 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

Like a lot of geeks, I am attracted to Martial Arts. The idea that study, practice, and resulting increase in skill will allow you to defend yourself against someone stronger is attractive. The philosophy and culture of martial arts is attractive as well. Of course, one has to wonder how useful they are for actual self defense.

   I have studied a few Martial Arts over the years. I haven't earned anything over an intermediate rank in any art, so I'm no expert in any particular style. On the other hand, I don't have as much time or ego invested in any art in particular, so I feel I can be a bit more objective.

   Here are some martial arts, and my take on them. Note, there are many different styles within a particular martial art. I'm talking generalities here. I'm also talking about the way these arts are practiced in the present day, in the western world, as I have no experience training in Asia.



Karate: Lots of focus on Katas (pre-arranged "forms" of movements. Some sparring, but it's mostly low contact "point" style sparring, with protective gear (Kyokushinkai is one of those exceptions to the generalization here, as they spar full contact - until knock down or knockout, with no protection, but with no punches to the head). Lots of time doing traditional stances, kicks, reverse punches, etc. I'm not so sure this is very effective in self defense situations, as many of the techniques are very ritualized, and unrealistic.  

Tae Kwon Do: Same as Karate, except much greater focus on high kicks. Even less realistic for defense than Karate.

Japanese Ju-jitsu: Focus on stand up grappling, wrist locks, escapes from grabs and chokes, many throws and falls. Has the same ritualized formal practice as Karate - lots of practice against an un-resisting, unmoving attacker than grabs and then freezes, or punches then freezes. Some punches and kicks thrown in, but just a few. I'm not sure this is so great against a resisting, moving opponent - mainly because the practice methods don't allow practice in that sort of situation. The techniques are more realistic than Karate, but I'm not so sure all of them are usable in real life. Since you don't have to punch or kick to fight or repel and attack, this is ideal for use against someone you don't want to hurt - a drunken uncle at a party for instance. Against a determined attacker, I feel some of the primary techniques are less useful.

Aikido: Similar to Japanese Ju-jitsu, but more focus on flowing with an attackers force. More philosophy, less "hard" techniques. I think most of the criticisms of Japanese Ju-jitsu apply here as well.

Hapkido: About 80% Tae Kwon Do, and 20% Ju-Jitsu. Same observations of those arts apply.

Judo: Has many of the techniques of Japanese Ju-Jitsu, but has many of the "deadly" techniques removed. By taking out the punches, kicks, wrist locks, etc. you are left with some techniques that are safe to be used in a sport. Lots of throws, falls, trips, and groundwork. Most of the practice is against a resisting, moving opponent.


If you can throw someone who is expecting it, and has trained in resisting it who is REALLY trying to stop you - then the odds are really good you can throw some guy in a fight who doesn't expect it. Its weakness is that it is missing striking, and maybe some of the "deadly" techniques that might really be useful.

Western Boxing: Since you are practicing against someone actively resisting, as in Judo - the training has great value for actual self defense. The weakness is that only the hands are used, there is no grappling or kicking. Also, much of the body isn't a valid target. It's also worth saying that the transition from wearing gloves (and fighting someone wearing gloves) is a big one.

External Kung Fu: There are many styles that fall into this category, and there are some big differences between them. There are ones that focus on punching and kicking, and others that include techniques similar to Ju-Jitsu (or you could say Ju-Jitsu has techniques similar to them). It's worth pointing out that Karate is basically a Japanese version of an Okinawan version of certain external Kung Fu styles.


There are forms as in Karate, and some schools practice sparring as in Karate. The techniques are a bit different of course. Kung Fu in general is a bit "softer" with more circular motion, and flowing stances, versus the linear movement of Karate. Of course, that's a generalization - some styles are very similar to Karate. Some styles such as Wing Chun focus on "trapping" which involves hampering and controlling an opponents arm so as to facilitate striking, and to prevent them from striking you. Other arts, such as Chin-na focus on grappling, pressure points, and locks as seen in Japanese Ju-jitsu. I feel that many of the same critisms of Karate and Japanese Ju-jitsu apply here.

Internal Kung Fu: Tai Chi Chuan is the best know style in this category. The other styles are Hsing-I, and Ba Gua. The focus is on training the generation of Qi (life force or energy), and the application of Jing (the manifestation of power through the use of Qi). The idea being that this energy is generated internally to the body, rather than through gross muscle movements as in Karate. Practice involves slow practice of forms, drills such as "sticky hands", and basically pushing a partner. There are punches, kicks and other strikes of course - but the emphasis is on the power coming from the Internal methods. There isn't much sparring that I have seen. It would seem that these arts don't have a lot of application in actual self defense.

Muay Thai: This art has western style boxing punches, elbow and knee strikes, and kicking. This is practiced as a sport, so many of the positive comments related to boxing would apply here as well. In my opinion this style has the most effective kicks of any


Style - utilizing a very powerful round type kicks to the leg as a common target area.


There is also a significant amount of techniques done from trapping or clinching range.


The disadvantages would be that there are very places to train in this art in the West, and the training is very strenuous and hard on the body. You probably won't find a school that trains for actual Thai style matches, but rather a school in another art that incorporates the techniques specific to this style. There is a lack of grapping beyond the clinching techniques I have mentioned.

Brazilian Ju-Jitsu: This is derived from Japanese Ju-jitsu, but is actually more similar to western wrestling, with elements of Judo and Ju-jitsu. Western style wresting takedowns are used, and most of the focus is on grappling on the ground. Chokes, armbars, and submission holds are used. The training is against a resisting opponent, as in boxing.


One disadvantage is that the majority of the training is on getting an opponent on the ground and fighting them there. It's very debatable whether this is advisable in most environments that self-defense scenarios would occur.

I purposefully have left out topics such as using weapons, defending against weapons, and fighting multiple opponents. These are all very much worth discussing, but are beyond the scope of what I'm discussing here. However, these topics are worthy of serious consideration.

I also haven't mentioned non-self defense benefits of these arts. That was intentional as well, but it's worth noting, that the non-self defense benefits probably far outweigh the self defense benefits for most people. If you aren't a bouncer, repo man, cop, or someone who is in dangerous situations on a regular basis - concerns such as health benefits, fun, and cost probably will be more important than self defense.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by guitartroll


Display: Sort:
Martial arts - How good are they for self defense? | 276 comments (236 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden)
Some experience too (none / 0) (#1)
by zephc on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 12:40:19 PM EST

I have some experience in Karate and a little in Wing Chun Kung Fu.

Karate: seemed unnecessarily mechanized, too much rote (i.e. katas)

Wing Chun: designed more for women and men with smaller frames.  It's very effective in that regard, but it requires learning to be very loose in the upper body, while keeping the lower body more 'rooted'.  This is easier for women, who have a lower center of balance, but was too hard for a guy like me where a good lot of his bulk is in his upper body (no, I'm not fat, just broad-shouldered and my legs are a bit too short proportionately).

Self Defense (3.00 / 8) (#2)
by 1318 on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 12:50:49 PM EST

The best self defense is to win your battle without fighting. That is, not to place yourself in a situation in which punching, kicking, grappling are necessary.

It could involve paying your taxes and voting for that bond measure that funds a pay raise for the police, better equipment and training and a new 911 dispatch system. That is self-defense.

One author whose name escapes me talked about Privatized Profit and Commonized Cost (Garret Hardin?). The idea is thus: our economic system rewards people for taking publicly valued things and making them into privately valued things - for example a publicly valuable forest becomes a privately valuable chair, desk or house. Costs, for example pollution, are "commonized" - that is displaced on everyone. We all get to breath the pollution from cars even though only the car owner gets to enjoy the car (a "private profit").

Self defense implies crime, or defense against criminal action. As above, I'd argue that the best defense against crime is a public investment in a collectively safe environment. To pay someone to train you to protect yourself is to, in essence, withdraw from the common problem of criminal safety and to invest only in your own safety. The cost of this withdrawal is displaced onto everyone as they must deal with crime. You, however, are safe. You have privatized your own safety - a car alarm, a home burglar alarm, a hand gun, martial arts training, and perhaps even a body guard. Your measures do nothing to make the situation safer, and so they "trickle down" to others who cannot afford these deterrents.

Your article is, to me, loaded with these kinds of larger assumptions about who and what is to be "defended" by self-defense and simply focuses on the current trend in martial arts on "what is more effective".

The recent trend in "no holds" UFC style fighting has clearly suggested that brazilian jiu jitsu is the hot martial art flavor-of-the-month and this kind of discussion will definitly keep those particular instructors paying for their kids braces.

However, it might be more plausible to ask "which martial art is more entertaining to watch on pay per view" than suggest there is something in self-defense that needs questioning.

I had a friend who worked grave yard shifts and who was no martial artist, but he liked to stay up all night on his days off and wander around the city. He recounted to me how he was menaced by one fellow larger than him at 3am at a local 7-11 who he immobilized with pepper spray. Which makes me wonder - has any martial art been tested against someone with pepper spray?

It would deflate the whole "which martial art is more effective" pseudo-debate if it turned out a $10 bottle of pepper spray could immobilize someone with $30,000 worth of private training.

"So then, why don't you die?"-Antisthenes

i dont think this is the right approach (3.00 / 2) (#8)
by insomnyuk on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 02:11:59 PM EST

While I too have dabbled with martial arts, I think your approach has a few problems.

1) There are an endless number of styles. Look at 'newer' styles like Krav Maga or Jeet Kune Do.  How is this a worthwhile exercise if you just arbitrarily pick and choose a few. You open yourself up to the objection: well you ignored '[any given style]' and that therefore disproves your case.

You have to put it in context, you can't just talk about martial arts and try to say a given art is valid in the real world when you are just comparing art vs. art. You need to give real world examples of martial arts helping people, like martial art vs. weapon.

  1. You don't talk about weapons.  Someone with 5 hours of training on a gun has an exponentially greater advantage over anyone who has received 5 hours of training in any martial art.
  2. Even if my previous problems are not at issue, you are merely listing a few subjective, personal observations about a few arts. More experienced people in specific arts may disagree with you, and furthermore, self-defense is not the be-all and end-all of martial arts.


---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
Weapons (none / 1) (#9)
by vadim on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 02:22:14 PM EST

Actually, it's a pity that you exclude weapons, because if I decided to try learning martial arts again, I'd like to train in one that is practical and teaches how to use a staff.

Why a staff? Because it's an incredibly simple weapon, doesn't look as threating as a gun or a knife, and has a longer reach than a knife. Sure, there aren't many of those lying around, but I bet something good enough is a lot more likely to be found lying in the street than a gun or a knife.

Now, this interest is purely theoretical. In fact, it's been more than 5 years since I felt any desire at all to fight against somebody. But just like you, if I'm going to train in a martial art, it might as well be good for something.

Anybody has any recommendations?
--
<@chani> I *cannot* remember names. but I did memorize 214 digits of pi once.

The point of kata (3.00 / 4) (#15)
by SocratesGhost on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 02:50:02 PM EST

When I studied Karate (in fact, that Kyukushin style you mentioned that didn't have protective gear), I found the study of kata to be very useful. A kata is to martial arts what a book is to education. We study books to increase our experience with different strategies in handling a type of problem including how to even construct a sentence. We study kata, not so that we can repeat them exactly as presented, but so that we have experience with different strategies in handling an encounter, including how to even change your stance.

Think about the effect of learning many different kata: suppose you were in a stance in which you had just punched to your right with your right hand, you left hand is pulled in toward your side, and you're in a horse stance (bow legged, it looks like you're riding a horse). Now suppose that you receive a low attacked from the front, well, I know a kata which maneuvers my stance so that I can defend and respond to it. Alternatively, if I were attacked from behind, I know a part of a kata which lets me change my stance to respond to that.

-Soc
I drank what?


Self defense? (2.50 / 10) (#20)
by kitten on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 03:16:37 PM EST

"We learn karate so that we may never use it."

By the time I was through, I was one degree from having a black belt (red belt, black stripe) in a variant of tae kwon do known as Choi Kwang Do, under Grandmaster Choi, and this was one thing that was drilled into us from the beginning (although not in those words -- that's a Simpsons quote).

Not long ago I was talking to some guys who were intermediate ranks in a nearby hapkido studio, and they were going on about how a low-ranking hapkido student could kick the ass of a middle-ranking tae kwon do student. This is probably true, since the first few belts in tae kwon do are things like learning how to breathe and stretch and you don't learn a lot of punches or kicks, but it also misses the point, which is that martial arts are as much, if not more, about discipline than pure ass-kicking abilities.

Low-ranking tae kwon do students usually think they're badasses for knowing martial arts (this is not unique to most martial arts students, I guess), and more than once I've seen them deliberately try to get into fights just to show off. By the time these guys are green or blue belts, they've mellowed considerably, and when you get to higher rankings you almost never see this sort of thing (almost -- there's always going to be some jackass), because by the time you've developed the ability to kick ass, you're also confident enough in those abilities that you don't need to, and you know how to get out of a scrape without fighting.

All those forms in tae kwon do and karate aren't for self-defense; you obviously aren't going to execute pre-planned patterns of memorized movements against an attacker. They're there to teach you mental discipline. Some instructors will have you do silly things like balancing crap on your head or outstretched hands or even feet, in front of everyone, to teach you the value of humility -- not spineless grovelling, but that you don't need to "prove" yourself and that just because you can kick a guy's face in doesn't mean you're above everyone.

For the very rare times you'd have to actually fight, though -- for what it's worth, those high kicks and such aren't worthless. Street fighting is an anything-goes situation, but people tend to watch your hands, and aren't expecting kicks to come flying out of nowhere. A kick to the head will put a swift end to trouble. Additionally, the blocks learned are highly effective if you know when to use them, and though I'm not sure about pure tae kwon do, in choi kwang do there was significant training with choke holds and weapons -- both offense and unarmed defense against, which is helpful.

The trouble is, as you pointed out, a lot of fights end up on the ground at some point, and neither tae kwon do nor karate are going to teach you a lot about how to handle that. Being "hard" martial arts the idea is to strike first and strike fast, leaving your opponent no time to take the fight to the ground. From my very limited experience with these matters, it's about as effective as any other supposition -- a lot of fights first involve some harsh words, then some shoving and then the punches come in. If you feel you're in a situation like that, you'll know (if you're a student of tae kwon do) how to put the guy down before anything happens.

Or better yet, you'd know how to walk away, or not get yourself into such situations in the first place.

Plus all that flexibility, balance, and coordination makes you a better dancer at the clubs, which impresses the ladies, and isn't that more important than kicking some idiot's ass?
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
-1, Inspires too much wankery (2.83 / 12) (#21)
by thelizman on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 03:22:10 PM EST

The article, excepting formatting that is annoying, is itself decent enough to warrant a section vote. Unfortunately, its lack of depth is eclipsed by the wannabe wankery of the flip-wristed effeminite geek crowd eager to prove the their knowledge of some obscure style of martial art entitles them to not only comment on the whole field, but to brag about their ability to achieve x-level dan su or some such. Frankly, listening to Kittyboy brag about being a black belt threatens my respect for martial arts as a discipline.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
People often miss the point. (3.00 / 7) (#22)
by sudog on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 03:29:55 PM EST

Martial arts--any martial arts--are designed specifically to get rapid, combat-useful responses built into your reflexes. The constant motions and endless repetition of the same movements become incorporated into your muscle memory and can be used instantly in a reaction, completely or nearly completely without specific conscious direction.

As long as there is some use in a kata, it will be useful. The problem that Karate katas solve is one of practicality, really:

i. Constant, realistic combat with other individuals, as would be required to train "properly," invariably leads to injury.

ii. People usually have a lot more free time in solitude than they have the company of willing combat partners.

iii. Exercise is good for you.

Katas and similar self-directed practice solve these problems. They give you the necessary repetition, while at the same time providing visualisation exercises that, while not perfect, are *the next best thing* and give you a nice workout.

A mistake people often make is assuming that people who practice katas believe that katas are the end-all of Karate training. Karate-ka are perfectly aware that katas are only a tool that when employed properly, can provide some measure of benefit.

Consider someone who's practised nothing but kata for five years under the direction of a trained specialist. Now put them in the ring with someone who's never been in a fight before. My money's on the karate-ka. Just because the karate student can't whup someone who's been in hundreds of real fights before doesn't make it completely useless.

Another incorrect assumption people make is that the forms create little prisons of the mind: that katas end up limiting the person doing them.

Anyone who's actually done it for years or decades can sit back and laugh at this point, because they already know what I'm about to write: the constant practice puts the movements in your muscle memory, but you aren't locked into a specific sequence and if someone comes at you with something new, it's just as effortless to switch into something else: it's all like a book of basic structures that you'll find you can string together in new ways as the need arises, instantly. It's all in there: kicks, punches, blocks, throws, locks, feints. If you do them enough, they're *all* instantly available.


This is one of those subjects (2.66 / 3) (#42)
by Dont Fear The Reaper on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 05:09:49 PM EST

that are really really good at getting people flood the comments with inane opinionating. It doesn't even matter if they have martial arts experience or not, the question is just not a good one. It's not even that the non self-defense benefits far outweigh the self-defense ones, it's that the question implies the existence of something that simply doesn't exist.

The best style for self-defense is Jeet Kun Do, because there is no best style for self-defense, because there is no such thing as self-defense.

To paraphrase an idea from computer science, even thinking about the question is premature optimization, which is the root of all evil.

Concerning martial arts and self-defense (2.66 / 3) (#48)
by codejack on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 05:28:06 PM EST

First off, my background in such matters consists of fights in school (many), fights in (or outside of) bars (not so many), and some training in different arts over the years.

So my biggest complaint is that you have missed the most important attribute a person can have to win a fight: Aggressiveness. Give me an 18 year old kid for a month to teach him aggressiveness, and NOTHING else, and I will back him against 75% of the black-belts out there. Note how the military trains soldiers; Teach them to attack, and worry about technique later.

As for the various forms, your comments have much merit, though it is worthy of note that most forms are specialized for the environment in which they developed; Tae Kwon Do, with it's fan kicks and such, is generally a good way to get killed in a street fight (Sensei Reynolds first rule: Never kick above the waist). Using against a man on a horse or ledge, OTOH, becomes a reasonable idea, if still likely to result in failure. However, this was the environment in which the art developed.

Karate, Ju-Jitsu, Hapkido, Kung Fu, etc all have similar strengths and weaknesses. Aikido, IMHO, is one of the most useful martial arts for self-defense, because of it's concentration on balance and using your opponents strength against them.

The two aspects of training you are looking at, self-defense, and the ability to fight, need to be separated to be effective. As others have noted, "...and then run away." should be the basis of any self-defense training. If you really want to learn to fight, go take whatever martial art you want, then walk into a biker bar, find the biggest guy in there, and spit in his drink. When you get out of the hospital, if you think you need more training, go do it again.

I should point out that the vast majority of fights I have been in wound up on the ground, and the most useful training I had came from high school wrestling. Also, lest anyone think that I am "wanking", I have had my ass kicked many, many times.


Please read before posting.

I just have one thing to say (1.50 / 2) (#50)
by collideiscope on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 06:02:30 PM EST

Brazillian jiu-jitsu +1 year + Muay Thai +1 year + weight and endurance training = instant badass

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
Not a martial art... (none / 1) (#53)
by gordonjcp on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 06:28:15 PM EST

... but it works for me. If you're 6' tall (about average and 14 stone (195lb or 90kg, for those of you outside the UK) and can lift a car engine, then people tend not to give you much hassle.

I've finished very nearly every fight I've been in. I've not started any of them.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


How to defend yourself - Monty Python style (2.20 / 5) (#55)
by smallstepforman on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 06:40:33 PM EST

Say someone attacks you with a Banana, the best way to defend yourself is to drop a 16 Tonne weight on top of the guy. And if the bandit decides to use a cherry or a strawberry, it's time to take out the heavy artillery - a 32 Tonne Weight from above.

Well (2.50 / 2) (#56)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 06:40:34 PM EST

You seem to have a pretty decent rundown, there. The only self-defence martial arts worth anything on the street are the ones without (much) dogma. Many of the eastern martial arts are infused with ridiculous rules and dogmatic view of how a certain strike/kick/whatever is to be executed, whereas many of the western self-defence arts are more concerned about surviving a real-life situation.

So, brazilian jiu-jitsu and krav maga (my choices) are some of the best. Shoot-fighting and other MMAs are also good, but I doubt any non-hardcore martial artist would join any of the above (with the exception of krav maga) for purely self-defence purposes. They are hard sports for Real Men and injuries happen all the time.

I'd like to point out that your criticism of BJJ's reliance on ground-fighting is not entirely valid; the reason for this is that the fathers of the sport realized that almost all real-life fights end up in the ground. From my personal experience this is exactly the case. So they took the fights to the ground from the beginning. What is a valid criticism against BJJ, though, is that it works only against 1 attacker. That's why I take Krav Maga, too. OTOH, you're pretty much fucked if you don't have a gun against multiple attackers.

BJJ is a really great martial art, excellent exercise and is nothing less than devastating against a non-grappler (though even judokas and western wrestlers are easy). Since most people think fighting is about punching the other guy out, getting someone to charge you and grab you is a shock to most people; just look at the early Royce Gracie UFC fights where no one knew WTF he was doing.

I can attest that if the other guy doesn't know how to defend against even some of the most basic BJJ chokes or locks, it takes only a few seconds till the opponent is in an unescapable choke or joint lock.

In addition, I carry a good combat folder everywhere I go. I don't care what you call me, but I have that just for the same reason there's a fire extinguisher at home. If it was feasible and legal I'd carry a handgun or at least Mace, but it's not possible in Europe because "guns are bad, mmkay."

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


You forgot to mention the bestest of them all: (2.75 / 4) (#60)
by MotorMachineMercenary on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 07:03:03 PM EST

NINJAS!

--
"What's next, sigging a k5er quote about sigging someone on k5?"


What about Qi-gong (2.94 / 17) (#61)
by A Bore on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 07:18:16 PM EST

I am a practitioner myself. Every day I dig a hole and jump in and out of it 100 times. Then I run through a paddy field taking as light a step as possible. One day I will fly. How can an earth bound attack hope to deal with my gravity defying martial arts expertise. I will be like a wasp to him or her.

you forgot trolo kiroshin (3.00 / 11) (#62)
by nlscb on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 07:26:48 PM EST

first, insult your opponents beliefs

then, as he attacks, use his own moves against him by baiting him w/ever more outrageous points, slowly putting him into a choke hold

finally, once he is caught in a choke hold, slowly make him realize his situation, with a final YHBT to knock him out

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

I think you misunderstand the Jiu Jitsu teachings. (none / 0) (#63)
by Apuleius on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 07:29:34 PM EST

A very basic level of JJ training (whether Japanese or American - not sure about Brazillian) will let you render just enough injury to your opponent to let you disentangle from him and run. (Your opponent won't be injured much, but it's not fun to chase a guy who just gave you a nasty limp and made you dizzy with a blow to the back of your neck. So most likely he won't. And if he does, you'll be running faster.) For most self defense contexts, that is all you need, even in multiple attacker situations. Jiu Jitsu teaches you things that you can do with very little risk of meeting with subsequent legal trouble, since it does not teach you much about being an aggressor. If you're just a layman, that is likely all you need. If you want to be a cop, or bouncer, or psychiatric orderly, you will need more than JJ, but before learning any other martial art, you must learn the laws of your jurisdiction.

Now, say you do work as a psych orderly, then a good martial art to learn is (surprise, surprise) American folkstyle wrestling. It is more a sport than anything else, but it does provide you with the proper frame of mind for subduing another human being, as an aggressor, and yet taking full responsibility for your opponent's well being. Not that I would recommend this line of work. Never met anyone who liked it.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
TFT is the ULTIMATE in Martial Arts (none / 1) (#72)
by freddie on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:00:45 PM EST

Traditional martial arts assume that both parties adhere by the same ethical principles. Therefore the objective is usually not to hurt the other party but rather react to his aggression and submit him. These are not sensible assumptions to make in REAL street fights

From the website

Faced With A Gun To Your Head,
A Knife To Your Throat, Or
3 Thugs Following You To Your Car...


You'll Instantly Know What To Do,
Reacting Immediately To Save Your Life,
Leaving These Guys Sprawled
On The Ground, Totally Disarmed,
Writhing In Pain



Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
I was in a fight the other day, (2.00 / 4) (#79)
by Sesquipundalian on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:48:21 PM EST

with this guy at the subway sandwich shop. I used a crane sweeping kick with a reverse side thrust to take the guy out. As the fight went on, the kicks and punches flying fast and f*ckitty; The thing that I kept noticing was, after a while he was just trying to cover up the vulnerable parts, the testes and such. Later, during the bone crunching part, the sweat smell combined with the howls, was really something.

Tae-kwon-do totally kicks ass man!


Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
my mlp (2.00 / 4) (#84)
by Eight Star on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 11:18:56 PM EST

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/martialarts.html

Some crazy texan guy once said (none / 1) (#92)
by Kurosawa Nagaya on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 12:04:15 AM EST

(he was doing a demonstration on how to really hurt someone with martial arts)

If your in this because you want to know how to, and generally interested, fine. But if your in this for the ego then go get yourself a gun, you'll save yourself some money.

Bill Maher: You know it always amazes how you coloured folks manage to use the word fuck as a verb, an adverb and a pronoun all in the same sentence.

I don't remember the name of the thing... (none / 1) (#98)
by mjfgates on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 02:06:16 AM EST

A few years ago, somebody did an "Ultimate Fighting" tournament, pitting practitioners of various fighting styles against one another. By the time they got to the third round or so of fights, nobody was left but wrestlers-- in a fight against somebody using one of the "striking" styles, they'd just grab the first limb the other guy threw at them and crawl up it and suddenly, hey, it's wrestling!

On the other hand, my wife once got grabbed by a guy who proceeded to drag her into a nearby alley to rape her. She punched him in the throat, he fell over gagging, and she got away.

I'm about half way to black belt in american kenpo (none / 1) (#103)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 09:33:58 AM EST

like most Americanized martial arts it's been through several changes on the way from China; but the emphasis is on practical self defense rather than on style - there's a lot of emphasis on blowing out your opponent's knees rather than high kicks for example.

But, by the same token, I'm still an un-athletic 40 year old desk jockey.

In the end, though, I think it has been worthwhile. While I'm still moving in slow motion compared to my 17 year old sparring instructor he has gotten me to the point where I can see openings and at least try to take advantage of them- and while I'll never be Jackie Chan I can at least react appropriately.

Most importantly (to me) is that by forcing my son to sign up with me, he's ended up discovering a sport he really enjoys - which makes all the crunches and bruises worthwhile.

How many trolls could a true troll troll if a true troll could troll trolls?

Bullshido (2.75 / 4) (#111)
by HolyCoitus on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 12:55:14 PM EST

My favorite site for looking at the martial arts and their effectiveness is at a site called Bullshido. The site makes fun of a lot of the things that are often accepted in the movies and has some people on the forums that are on various levels of the fighting game.
------
That's Scary.
Oh-so-unrealistic Taekwondo... (none / 1) (#113)
by lilnobody on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 03:42:47 PM EST

Taekwondo, at first glance, is pretty unrealistic. Lots of kicking around in goofy ways, sport sparring that doesn't really teach how to hurt someone but instead to score points, an almost criminal ignoring of upper body abilities.

I thought that too, but it was ok, I was just doing taekwondo for exercise.

Then I met them. The guys who had been doing it forever. The guy who could break round river rocks placed one on top the other with the inner side of his knuckles, and not just break them, but shatter them, to the point where regular spectators wore safty glasses. The guy who kicked a practice pad so loud that it was, quite literally, louder than a rifle (it broke, of course, quite spectacularly). The guy who could cross the room seemingly without moving his feet, because his calf muscles alone, from years of kicking and sparring, were enough to literally throw him off the ground.

On the other hand, I learned how little effort is required to learn to be a modicum of self-protective. It's all about confident. Every try and pick up a cat that doesn't want to be held? Most people attacking you aren't any more coordinated than you are, and you'd be surprised how easy it is to stop an attacker. Hints: BITE BITE BITE, and EYES EYES EYES. Very few people have the self control to strangle a person while their index fingers are in their eye sockets.

In the midst of meeting a lot of people over 4 years of martial arts, of many different disciplines, I picked up a piece of wisdom from an older instructor, always told in his 'stories of wisdom' pseudo-korean accent. Worth noting is that this is a guy who had spent 35 years with taekwondo. It goes like this:

Many roads to top of mountain. All of them long.

View from top? All the same!

nobody

Wing Chun Kung Fu (2.33 / 3) (#116)
by stuaart on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 04:46:47 PM EST

I studied Wing Chun for a couple of years, and I also did capoeira for a bit. In my experience Wing Chun was a highly practical, non-showy martial art to practice with some real relevance to actual situations you might encounter on the street.

What is most compelling about it, I found, was the way in which you rely on simple positions and simple techniques (e.g., slapping to distract), build these up into a kind of language that can enable you to deal dynamically with many situations.

Wing Chun is a very close-up martial art, and you often stand within conversation distance of the other person. In this way it mirrors what can really happen in sticky situations. I recommend it probably because of the way I was taught it. Our instructor was very practically-minded, and for him, any technique even if it was not strictly part of the Wing Chun forms, was valid and useful if it could help in certain situations...

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


I think you're on target (none / 1) (#117)
by jmzero on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 05:36:27 PM EST

And the common theme is this: if you're going to learn how to fight, you better be practicing at somewhere near full strength against a resisting opponent.

Imagine learning how to play basketball without playing basketball?  Sure drills help, and you can think some things through - but the only way to get good is to go out and do it.   Someone who's played 50 games is going to have a strong advantage against someone who's never really played.

...

A few people have mentioned the UFC (and other sport fighting competitions), and the dominance of grapplers over strikers.  It is worth noting a recent trend - strikers are doing much better than they had done.  Now that the basics of ground-fighting are more generally understood, the balance of power is shifting substantially.

Take a guy like Mirko "Crocop" Filopivic.  He has legs like trees, and ends nearly every fight with a kick.  He has a solid sprawl to keep the fight standing (even against world-class wrestlers like Mark Coleman), and only needs one rib- or skull-breaking kick to end a fight (though he still lost to BJJ expert Minotauro Nogueira - who's kind of an improved-in-every-way-and-larger Royce Gracie - in a great fight).  Current Pride FC middleweight Wanderlei Silva is another guy to watch.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

Self defense? (2.85 / 7) (#118)
by wji on Sat Jul 02, 2005 at 08:39:42 PM EST

I think you mean fighting, which is completely different. Neighbourhood Watch is self defense. Running away is self defense. Fighting isn't self defense at all in virtually any circumstance a normal person will encounter in their life, and even then it isn't the most important part.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
I agree with another comment below (none / 1) (#124)
by fleece on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 02:47:13 AM EST

which intimated that the potential for wankery is high in this article. I think that's borne out in the comments so far...
so I'll try to be matter of fact in saying that in my experience in Jujitsu, a good advantage of studying any kind of martial art is that you become more impervious to pain, espec. if the school you study at allows appropriate amounts of sparring. When I first started Jujutsu, getting hurt during sparring would really stop me in my tracks, whereas now I normally don't notice I get hurt until sparring is over - actually it's not that I don't notice, but I don't get distracted by it. So in that sense, I feel I'd perform much better in a real self defence situation, as I would find getting hit/injured less distracting than if I hadn't have done martial arts. In terms of skill, I think it would take more years of study and dedication than I have given the art to reach a level of proficiency to consider myself to be highly successful in any self defence situation.
One thing you learn from sparring is that if someone wants to hit you, it's very hard to stop them getting through some of the time, no matter how skilled you are. Go to a karate tournament and see for yourself the winners are often as battered as the losers. To that end, I'd avocate attack as the best defence, if you are in a situation where physical aggression against you or your family is inevitable, as either way, you will get hit.



I feel like some drunken crazed lunatic trying to outguess a cat ~ Louis Winthorpe III
On "soft" styles (aikido) (none / 1) (#125)
by nate s on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 03:08:20 AM EST

I'm a pretty low-ranking student at the moment, but I've been studying aikido for about two years so I have a bit of room to talk.

I think that the reputation for "hard" and "soft" that different arts get isn't really necessarily useful.  A lot of arts tend to blur together at the higher levels, and a lot of it will be really dependent on your specific instructor.

My girlfriend has a blackbelt in tae kwon do, and some of their high-level self defense techniques (derived from hapkido) are pretty "soft," relatively speaking.  And while aikido is reputedly "soft," getting your joints twisted to the point of pain or forgetting to block atemi to your face isn't exactly what I'd consider feathery.

Also, in a good school, the philosophy aspect will be available, but not forced.  It's that way at my dojo - we don't ever actually discuss the philosophy on the mat (in fact, most often my sensei will instruct us to keep our mouths closed in order to avoid biting our tongues while taking falls/hits, so we don't talk much at all!).  If you want to know about the philosophy, he'll recommend some books for you to read on your own time.  At some tae kwon do places I've seen, the master insists on drilling a "discipline, focus" sort of philosophy into his students at every turn, along with tear-jerking stories of human triumph in the face of great disability, bla bla bla.

It will ultimately depend a lot on you as a person, and your teachers, as to whether or not your art comes across as effective, hard, soft, useless, practical, philosophical, etc.  Martial arts are dizzyling variable; the most important thing seems to be to find something that works for you and your body type, and to stick with it long enough that you make it work for you.  If it doesn't seem to work, and you've given it your best shot, then consider a different teacher before you write the entire art off.

it's exercise (2.50 / 2) (#126)
by jcarnelian on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 04:44:11 AM EST

Martial arts may prolong your life because they keep you in shape.

However, as for personal safety, your best bet is to avoid dangerous situations, to run or comply if possible, and to negotiate if necessary.  The fraction of situations where self-defense using a weaponless martial art is going to be necessary, legal, and effective (you are prevented from running away, your opponent is unarmed, and you can handle him) is going to be negligible, unless you are a woman or unless you are in prison.  And if you are going to face real thugs, you aren't going to be able to compete with guys that grew up fighting, have had to defend their life many times, are seething with anger, and aren't afraid of getting hurt.

Having said that, I'd go with one of the martial arts where the risk of injury during training is fairly low.  You can figure out which ones that are yourself.

you purposely (none / 1) (#127)
by Abominable Abitur on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 05:13:28 AM EST

left in a few typos too. asshat.

you obviously haven't viewed much beyond a few matches, so stick with something and you might learn a thing or two. if you're looking for a fight you might want to check this shit out.

"Terrorism is only a viable "political activist" method for marginalized nutjobs, bottom line. The backlash that it causes makes it intractable for any reasonable ideology. Which is why you don't generally see wild athiest suicide bombers in america's streets." - lonelyhobo

Sambo/nt (none / 1) (#128)
by i on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 06:19:00 AM EST



and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

Ninjutsu (none / 1) (#129)
by Raindoll on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 09:06:40 AM EST

I have trained Bujinkan Ninjutsu only for a little while. I had a few instructors who were working as bouncers and security guards who claimed to have been using their skills in their work. There are no competitions in Ninjutsu, so it is concentrated only on fighting. There is an emphasis on not being too close or open to an attack from your opponent.

The most important effect the training got them was better reflexes - the ability to read people quickly and anticipate that a fist would be flying towards them the next half-second.
They had the best use of grappling techniques where they took control over the assailant, pinned him to the floor and tried to calm him down.
Fancy kicks and throws would not get them anywhere, and if they had hurt someone badly it would only generate bad publicity for the club or lots of serious questions from the police ...

Instructors also strain that fighting should always be a last resort. Regular martial arts training should also give you the fitness to run away. ;-)

Skill Versus Urgency (3.00 / 2) (#134)
by Misterfixit on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 01:03:03 PM EST

Greetings.  Thank you for posting an interesting thread sure to generate all kinds of responses.  Self-defense is just that:  saving your life.

I began study of martial arts in 1968 at a small dojo located on Jagaru Road in Okinawa when stationed there with the US Army.  I have been a student in various places since then.

My skills are minimal: I do not profess to have any martial arts knowledge other than that of a rank beginner.  In my opinion the "color" of one's belt is not as important as the "rank" one holds in one's mind of one's skills.  It is vital to remember that whatever your Teacher tells you, you are the sole authority over your capability.  You might "qualify" for a one hundreth dan (if there were such as thing), but when the need to independently exercise your skills, only you are the arbiter of your skill level.

Martial arts of what ever flavor is an exercise in the mind's control over the body.  This is a given.  How the practitioner uses that control is what counts.

For self-defense, the first and best "defense' is to not be there at all.  Situational Awareness, if you will.

Secondly, if you are placed into an envelope of danger, you should endeavor to extricate yourself as soon and as safely as possible.  If that means running away, acting out the part of a sniveling coward, then do that and recall later how foolish the attacker was to have believed your acting.

Third, like the 1980's song goes, "You Dropped a Bomb On Me", if you have tools at your disposal for defense, then use them.  Recall that you are surprised but that your attacker will be more surprised by your aggression.  Even a rolled newspaper thrust into the attacker's diaphram will get his attention and delay him while you run away.

Fourth, if you absolutely must stand and defend yourself and your loved ones, fight to kill the attacker.  Do not be hesitant and remember that the attacker means to kill or gravely injure you and your companions.  Do anything it takes to completely disable the attacker and then kill him as quickly as possible.

Fifth, the use of martial arts forms may or may not be of use to you in your fight.  Some forms are only artistic exercises, developed through the years from more deadly forms.  For instance, if you attempted a tomenagi move (falling backward after grasping the attackers arms or clothing, extending the leg and ejecting the attacker over your body to a place behind you), you had better be prepared to do something other than stand up and bow quickly to your vanquished foe.  This is a crude example, of course, but illustrates how one must think through the situation from start to finish.

Sixth, use a weapon if you have access to one.  I love the scene from one of the Indiana Jones movies where he is approached by some character doing sword moves and chanting convincingly.  Jones pulls out his pistol and shoots the attacker.  "What ho!", you say, "but that isn't fair".  Not so -- he defeated his attacker in a simple and efficient manner.

Seventh, think about the alternatives, since there are many cases, particularly the "lover's lane" attacks where the man and woman are both killed but not before the woman is raped and tortured.  One case the man submitted to being anally raped by the attackers in order to preserve the woman.  The attackers killing him anyway but leaving the woman alive after raping her.  I submit that the man took a path he thought right, but died for his decision.  What action should one take in such a situation?  Fight, flee or submit?

At the end of the day, the sum of the equation is who remains standing.  Ryukyu Ryute Renmei teaches one to survive the encounter, using either grappling, thrusts or weapons, for example.  Other forms teach other means, but the endgame is the same:  survival.

Respectfully,

Dave Mann

My own take on martial arts... (2.66 / 3) (#140)
by skyknight on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 03:12:00 PM EST

I've taken Tae Kwon Do for many years, and also wrestled for a couple of years in high school. This seems to be a pretty good blend.

Despite what you say, Tae Kwon Do can be extremely effective in a fighting situation. It's not going to be of much use to you once you're on the ground, but if employed properly it can basically end a fight before it gets started. I'm fairly confident that a properly placed snap kick or side kick to someone's center of mass as delivered by yours truly would be either fatal or severely debilitating. The higher kicks can also be extremely disconcerting to someone who is expecting hand techniques. Either a spinning side kick or spinning hook kick can cause an opponent much grief in anticipating how you will attack.

Of course, if all you know is Tae Kwon Do, then a bit of bad luck is all it takes to get clobbered. If you're caught off guard by a surprise tackle, then you'd better know more than how to kick. This is why wrestling ability is indispensable. Not only can you win a fight on wrestling alone, but it can help you break out of an ambush such that you can employ techniques that require some distance between you and your opponent.

Also worth mentioning is that grappling techniques are basically useless if you're outnumbered. With Tae Kwon Do, however, you have the ability to quickly disable one opponent with a single blow and then deal with another one. Try doing that when grappling techniques are the only thing in your arsenal.

All that being said, you'd best not fight unless forced to do so. All it takes is some clown with a gun and the utility of your l337 ninja tricks is quickly diminished.



It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
Question for all the most skilled fighters (none / 1) (#145)
by chroma on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 05:35:44 PM EST

In what specific scenarios would you use your fighting skills? In other words, where would you be and what would be happening that you would need to kick, punch, or grapple?

Effective for kids at least (2.50 / 4) (#146)
by cooldev on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 05:40:07 PM EST

I took Tae Kwon Do for several years when I was a kid and it benefited me greatly. As a geek, TKD gave me confidence and helped me get out of the wasteland known as middle school unscathed. It also kept me somewhat fit and flexible, which is good because I wasn't really into other sports.

My favorite memory of middle school is when I was getting picked on during class by a bully that outweighed me by ~20 lbs (a lot when you're in 7th grade). It stopped when I delivered a quick, confident punch to the face. I pulled the punch to avoid causing more serious injury, and he knew it. I never got picked on again (well, beyond normal teasing that everybody endures). Amusingly, the teacher witnessed the whole thing and considered my action justified so I didn't get in trouble.

A couple other students in my TKD class had similar incidents, but no fights I ever I saw or heard about lasted longer than one or two punches or kicks from the TKD student before the other guy lost or backed down.

So, at least for a kid I'd say that martial arts are pretty effective. This is partly because most kids don't even know how to punch, dodge, or block effectively, so there's a significant skill gap.

Evolution of fighting styles on Wikipedia (none / 1) (#150)
by bethree on Sun Jul 03, 2005 at 06:15:08 PM EST

There's an interesting article on Wikipedia: mixed martial arts

Krav Maga (3.00 / 4) (#168)
by shmert on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:38:26 AM EST

I've taken a bit of Krav Maga and it's a truly no-nonsense form of self defense. Case in point, pretty much all the scenarios covered incorporated--at one point or another--a sturdy kick to your opponent's groin.

I'm pretty sure that Jack Nicholson's character in Chinatown used Krav Maga when he took down the big guy who was trailing him outside the hotel. Kick to the groin, then lots of knees to the abdomen, and walk away. I could be making that up, and there's really no "technique" to identify Krav Maga, but it sure looked familiar when I saw that scene.

Our instructors also raised some interesting points about how to deal with agressors in a public setting. In addition to quickly incapacitating someone, it's important for you to appear to clearly be in the defensive role in the altercation, such as by putting up your hands and stating loudly "I'm not looking for any trouble". This becomes quite significant after the fight, when law enforcement arrives and passersby recount the scene.

One disturbing effect of the training: I found that I would compulsively plan how I would react if accosted by random people I saw on the street. I planted my boot in many an imaginary testicle, let me tell you. Eventually, I cancelled my membership and took up soccer. Much more carefree, but keeps the old kicking leg strong, just in case...

what good are martial arts? (3.00 / 2) (#169)
by Rhodes on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 02:05:37 AM EST

One question to ask yourself, is do you want to be a fighter, or a warrior? If you want to be a fighter, buy a handgun, and go to the gun range. If you want to be a warrior, train in a style that fits your personality and your body type.

I've done 4 years of high school wrestling, 4 years of Tae Kwon Do in college (received my black belt), and am now 3 years into Aikido.

I'm relatively stocky, and wrestling / grappling arts fit my body type more than high kicking or punching (I have a very short reach).

My take on martial arts is that first, be aware of the surroundings, and your situation. When you are surrounded by 30 people, and someone just stole your cell phone- you can buy another cell phone.

Second, train hard enough to be able to run away.

Any violent confrontation is more and more likely to put you in direct physical harm (or cause enough damage to your opponent to put you in financial harm), no matter your training. That, and you are more likely to go to jail. Perhaps training will come in handy.

The essence of training is to confront, and avoid conflict. Confronting results in a non-violent conclusion- violence in the rarified sense that words can harm.

holy cow... (none / 1) (#180)
by aendeuryu on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 06:39:01 AM EST

Can't speak for the Japanese and Chinese martial arts, but for the Korean ones, you need to do a bit more research.

Hopefully, if you missed the mark with the other Asian styles as much as you did with Taekwondo and Hapkido, other people who're more knowlegable will speak up.

Common points for most of the examples below -- alot of what gets learned is going to depend on the master, and whether or not they're going to want a lot of sparring or focus more on technique and forms.

Taekwondo: Punching and kicking martial arts, with pretty much all sparring involving kicking only. To attain a black belt in Korea you'll need to memorize a set of forms, do a quick sparring session, and perhaps do some extra skill tests. Kicking-based sparring is going to involve a lot of open fighting, so if you're cornered or in a close hand-to-hand combat situation, you might be at a slight disadvantage. Post-black belt allows for some weapons training. Lots of fitness and flexibility. You only need to memorize about one routine per belt, so masters frequently spend a good two to three days a week practicing technique and fitness, and one day a week sparring. Often, more frequently on the advent of a competition.

Hapkido: Most certainly NOT 80% Taekwondo, Hapkido is an amalgamation of punching, kicking, grappling, and weapons training/defence. Progress from white to black belt level requires extensive grappling training involving practically every form of hand-to-hand defence imaginable, as well as punching and kicking defences, and even judo attacks. Around the black belt level you get to learn how to be proactive instead of reactive, defend and attack with daggers, and upper dan levels include swords and bo-staff training. Sparring will mostly just involve kicking bouts, however, since the grappling would be too dangerous for those involved. Usually no memorization of routines, and little in the way of forms. Striking technique, however, is very important. You can make a strong argument that hapkido is one of the deadliest martial arts out there, rivalled only by its Chinese and Japanese counter-parts. It deserves a bit more than the two-sentence dismissal given in the article.

Gumdo: Sword-based martial art. Two main styles: Haedong Gumdo and Daehan Gumdo (hopefully, if the English spelling is wrong on the second someone will pipe up). Probably the least useful in terms of actual self-defence, Haedong Gumdo is almost entirely forms-based, while Daehan Gumdo is the sparring type which is most similar to Japanese Kendo. Other hybrids exist which mix the two, including HanGuk Gumdo, which combines the forms and routines approach of Haedong and the sparring of Daehan. Little real-world application, although once you get your black belt you can actually buy samurai-type swords legally.

The upper levels of most of this stuff allows for a certain amount of creativity. Hapkido demonstrations will sometimes involve fans and even more exotic weaponry, down to using a cane, a schoolbag or even your own black belt to string up your opponent.

Judo is also pretty popular here (refered to as yudo, though), and given the success of former judo practictioners in mixed martial arts competition, you can guess it's pretty effective, if only because of the ridiculous strength and speed advantage gained by having to fight in deliberately crippled conditions. Taking an upper-level judo master and giving him some basic punching and kicking training is a potent combination.

I purposefully have left out topics such as using weapons, defending against weapons, and fighting multiple opponents. These are all very much worth discussing, but are beyond the scope of what I'm discussing here.

On the one hand, you want to talk real-world scenario practicality, and on the other, you want to dismiss something like knife-fight training? That's really odd.

I'm also talking about the way these arts are practiced in the present day, in the western world, as I have no experience training in Asia.

It's possible that you might have bitten off more than you can chew, then, given your mission statement with this article. You really ought to spend some time in an Asian country studying this stuff before trying to opine on the usefullness of martial arts.

You've confused "leathal" techniques (none / 1) (#182)
by v1z on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:41:06 AM EST

Judo is (along with ju-jutsu) one of the few martial arts that actually actively uses proven leathal holds in competion, not only training -- namely strangulation (popularily called choke holds, but while stopping airflow is dangerous over a period of minutes, stopping blood to even one side of the head is potentially leathal in 15 seconds).

Now, very rarely would you be justified to kill someone in "self defense" with a choke hold, but it certainly is leathal technique. Unfortunately police officers do this quite often.

This is before you consider the effect of a throw onto pavement on someone without any ukemi traning. Particualry if you *try* to land your victim on the head.

This is one of the reasons kicks to the heads sometimes leads to deaths in brawls also -- rarely you'll kill someone with the kick, but hitting the back of your head on cement certainly can kill you.

Now, your post is supposedly about self defense; And if you want to be able to win a fight there are a few rules of thumb:

1) If you have to fight, strike first, and strike hard.

2) Learn how to take punches (you'll rarely be able to do 1) unless you're an asshole or a sosipath, because if you *could* you should run).

3) Learn how to fall without injuring yourself.

4) Learning how to grapple -- or at least get up off the ground quickly.

I'd say Aikido is a very effictive form of self defence, but only if you actually practice striking and all the techniques Akido defends against seriously -- rarely will you see an Aikidoka that can hit or kick -- and therefore few actually are able to preform Aikido as effective real-life self defense. This isn't a problem with Aikido per se, though.

I'd agument Aikido with Karate or Tae-kwon Do for strike and kick technique, judo or ju-jutsu for grappeling, and kick-boxing for speed, and learning to take a beating.

Personally I'm just a beginner at Aikido, and I'd certainly not employ aikido as self defense yet -- I'm more comfortable with a jo, using judo, or preferably getting out of the situation :-)

I've witnessed a few fights -- some ugly -- but I've yet to be forced to participate in one. And I've yet to hear about any serious fight that couldn't have been avoided with a cold head, and maybe a little less to drink.

And lastly -- if you want to become a good fighter, the only way to do that is a lot of training -- 5 years if you practice 3 times a week with a good instructor, or 3 years if you beat up people every weekend. You'll probably become a better person going the long way round, though.

slap boxing (none / 0) (#185)
by astrx on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:26:44 AM EST

First, my background: i have taken about three years in tae kwon do, then three years in tang so do, then four years in kali (mixed version). i dont think that i saw anything about kali mainly because it is a martial art devoted mostly to stick and knife fighting. since i took a mixed version, a lot of wing chun was incorporated for empty hand stuff. the main principle of kali, as it has been taught to me is "defang the snake" basically meaning demobalize the opponent. most initial hits are to the legs or arms, with the assumption that if the persons arms or legs are gone, then they will not pose too much of a threat anymore. we use sticks to break bones, and knives to cut tendons. i thought this was a very practical martial art, because i always carry a knife, and it definitely helps to immoblize people with much greater skill/speed/strength. the unfortunate downside is that my skills are split with half of them good for empty hand combat, half for weapons. as for kali versus grapling techniques, on kali practitioner told me "i hate jiu jitsu guys, thats why i carry a neck knife". grappling i believe is the worst form of martial art against a bladed weapon. but anyway, i'll get to the point. i grew up in a predominantly black (african american) neighborhood, and so went to a black school. i doubt most of my classmate took martial arts but they definitely got into a lot of fights (lets not get into a racial discussion, i do not imply any causality here). anyway, i noticed a huge difference in the "self defense" training i got and the actual fighting style of most people around me. i believe most martial arts, when dealing with defense against a strike, are dealing with what i call committed strikes. strikes where a great deal of force is applied, and possibly balance is offset momentarily by the attacker. in my school, no one faught like that. fighting styles basically derived from game skills from our youth such as slap boxing. because of this, a very leaned back stance was taken, and speed was everything since in slap boxing only a touch to the face is needed. with this being said, it would be almost impossible to grap one of these people because they where so fast.

Jiu-Jitsu (none / 1) (#197)
by tannhaus on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:10:50 PM EST

I disagree with your assessment of Jiu-jitsu.  I studied Akayama Ryu Jiu-jitsu for 2 years.  I studied Kyokushin karate for 2 years before that.  I would say jiu jitsu is VERY realistic.  Of course, it depends on the instructor, but we were always cautioned NOT to do takedowns if there were other potential attackers around.  We were also cautioned against using the Aikido style wrist techniques on anyone BUT a drunk.  We frequently had sparring sessions against resisting, moving attackers.  So, I'd say your assessment is pretty off.

As far as brazilian jiu-jitsu, you are very off as well...especially if you're considering Gracie Jiu-jitsu...which was honed in barroom brawls.  Hoyce Gracie is the least indicative of the style of all the brothers...and they will tell you so.  

As far as Kyokushin, you mention the knockdown tournaments, but that is only a small part of the training.  The dojo I trained in did not, but the larger dojo actually had a boxing instructor come in from time to time to help with hand techniques.    The ritualized forms are good for showing technique...just like a boxer working with a bag.  But, your fighting technique is going to differ.

Kung Fu (none / 0) (#220)
by overcode on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 01:03:14 AM EST

I have about a year of experience in Li family style Kung Fu.

Our school doesn't have many students, because we don't teach the things new students are generally excited about. Our style is very defensive, with a strong emphasis on avoiding the fight in the first place (one of our forms begins with a hand clap and a "Kiai!" shout, which we're taught should remind us to try to solve any dispute verbally first). Our sifu has often said that the best way to win a fight is to be on the opposite side of the street from the person who wants to start the fight.

Kung Fu teaches us self control, quick thinking, flexibility, confidence, and internal strength. Fighting is only a secondary purpose. Sure, we could do some serious damage to an aggressor, but it would be unthinkable to start a fight ourselves. We don't claim to teach the "best" style of Kung Fu, if there is such a thing, but we do claim to teach something that is useful and beneficial.

From my experience in sparring against other people in the school, I know I would be better off in a fight now than I would have been before I started. I know how to observe my opponent, keep my balance, predict his moves, and react quickly.

The benefits of good martial arts training are enormous. A year of training made me a much stronger person, both physically and mentally. But fighting is a very small part of the overall picture.


My thoughts (none / 0) (#226)
by rsayers on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 10:09:55 AM EST

I trained at a McDojo in TKD as a kid, I think the self confidence part may have been a bad think.  As I looked back on what I leared as well as looking at what a kids class teaches today, there is no way I could have used that stuff to defend myself.  Never once did I get to try any of the great techniques we  learned on a live opponent.

I also trained in Kung Fu for about a year.  Many of the techniques were pretty good.  I had the advantage of training with a buddy of mine who was also pretty hardcore so every jointlock, throw, whatever could be tested against someone who was indeed resisting.  With all the stuff I learned here though, I only felt a handfull of it would be helpfull in a real fight.

I think the main shortcoming of Martial arts is that they have to make money.  A TKD school can attract a wide amount of people who want to get in shape, learn some self defense, or simply enjoy martial arts a a hobby.  Schools have to make the class setting appropriate for a wide range of people.  While TKD may be a great martial art, if they trained in a way that made it really effective, they would have much fewer students.

I'm currently training in brazilian jiu jitsu and striking.  By striking, I mean pretty much MT, but with more western boxing than anything else.

Because I've actually grappled to the point of exhaustion, been hit in the face, thrown knees and low kicks with force, I would have no hesitation using this stuff in a real fight.  I've already figured out what techniques work best with my body  type, so I'm not left to discover that something doesnt work out on the streets instead.

art or utility? (none / 0) (#248)
by dimaq on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:57:43 AM EST

you gotta decide whether you what you want exactly - the art or the fighting bit of a martial art.

arts tend to fall into the useless category in general, if you wanted self-defence, you would have studied krav maga.

next question how much self-defence do you want? for example you may want to learn a self-defence style that puts emphasis on legality of your actions, or perhaps on subduing an opponent without causing them much harm. at the other end of the spectrum you may want to learn a self-defence style emphasizing you rate of survival when faced with multiple armed and deadly opponents (like the movie gun-fu/kata).

in short, re-evaluate what attracted you in the first place.

Effectiveness of a martial art depends on the user (none / 0) (#251)
by enfoldedorder on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 12:38:01 PM EST

Effectiveness of a martial depends on the user. The primary things any martial art trains one (imho) in are: a) readiness and awareness (japanese call it zanshin) b) technique c) controlled release of violence and/or anger (or lack of it -- personally, I'd fight an angry opponent than a cold calculative one). d) adaptability While harder martial arts forms like Karate etc teach you striking, soft martial arts like Aikido teach you to be adaptive and fluid (though there are strikes as well) and use something very important (the assailant's intentions and force) to your benefit. In a street fight, one would have to "think on his/her feet" (no time to plan, etc) -- if there is sufficient training, it'll simply kick in (auto pilot) -- the body will know how to act/react. A combination of the two (blending -- as it is called in Aikido lingo; and striking would then both be needed in order to be effective). The important thing is whether the fighter is mentally capable of doing another person harm. While on paper (and in talk) it's easy enough to envision, the ground reality changes...

The topic is too difficult to test. (none / 0) (#272)
by kelbear on Tue Jul 12, 2005 at 05:57:55 AM EST

The problem is that the context of grading a martial  art is too difficult. The martial artist is going to be the ultimate factor in how effective the martial art is.

Some styles are more suited some folk, close-combat and straight-line standup works for short heavy-set men. Obviously doing the same for tall lean men is a bad idea.

How much effort goes into the martial art and how it is taught is going to be important, this should be known intuitively. You wouldn't get the same training from a fitness oriented school, a traditional school, and a combat-oriented school. However, all 3 lend new focus to the same art, giving a mix of benefits that are all desirable.

I'm sure many will look to MMA(Mixed Martial Arts) fighting for insight, and my personal opinion is that MMA'd give the most accurate account of one-on-one fighting between two men of the same weight class and both training their asses off for practical hand-to-hand combat application. Takedowns and pins are probably the most practical in one-on-one combat and are probably the least desirable in multiple opponent combat(Use the right tool for the job).

Self-defense is not restricted to combat everytime. A timid person doing some training will benefit most from the experience in that they learn to stand up for themselves in social or professional situations. In my own opinion, combat is the least significant benefit of martial arts. Most people simply are not attacked, and just a casual knowledge of self-defense should have instructed you on how to avoid becoming a statistic: Don't go looking for trouble.

In the end for self-defense purposes, the best style is "Run-Fu". Its probably got the highest success rate of self-defense, plus it's great conditioning. The emphasis on cardiovascular fitness extends the lifespan by several years, particularly in an age where obesity is a major trend. Excercise. If you're in a dangerous situation you shouldn't be looking to get your first taste of life and death combat, you should be looking for your best chance at life. As for situations where it's not just your life at stake, that's a story for another day.
*I am dead, leave a message and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.*

Best Self Defense (none / 0) (#276)
by evodevo on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 12:21:04 AM EST

So with regards to the striking arts like karate etc. - what happens when you're a 5'4 110 lbs man who can only curl 20lbs? How can you grapple with someone and apply JJ moves if you're not naturally strong? Would Aikido be better? I'm thinking of Aikido or Krav Maga but I really don't know.

Martial arts - How good are they for self defense? | 276 comments (236 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!