Robert

I said nothing of this sort. What I said is that NO single style is effective for every situation. There are alot of styles that cover everything that you mentioned to some extent. Just because a style "covers" all of those ranges does not make it effective at all of them. If it did you would not be thinking about taking BJJ to improve your groundfighting. Again, I did NOT say all styles are equal. I said they are all DIFFERENT. And that it is up to the practitioner to make it effective by the way they train. Please learn to read. Remember that I am the one that said no style is effective at every situation. I said that every style Can be effective at helping you to defend yourself. Again "covering" all of the ranges does not make one an expert at any of them. I was saying that NO style can specialize in everything. Alot of style "cover" everthing. 99% of schools of ALL styles are in it only for the money and do NOT teach anything effectively. To say that it is limited to tkd is ignorant. This fact does not mean that martial arts are not effective, just that you must be carefull in choosing a school. This is a false statement. MOST TKD black belts have had only a couple of years experience with tkd. And this SMALL amount of experiance is usually limited to one classroom. While there are many well deserving blackbelts the majority of BB holders BOUGHT there belt. This is true for alot of arts. FYI This excerpt is from the website of the international krav maga federation. I personally think that KM is great. But could it be that this is a requirement because they do not specialize in punching and kicking. And that their instructor program does not cover it enough to make someone effective at it? Please PM me with any more argument on this subject. We are both beginning to sound like broken records. And it is no longer adding anything of value to the forum. Robert

While many of the top fighters may not spend a significant amount of time in TKD point sparring tournaments. Most of them incorperate SEMI-contact matches in thier training to develope effective combinations and strategies in the ring. I do not know anyone who ONLY trains full contact. Point sparring can certainly help your hand eye coordination, give you an additional arena in which to develope effective combinations, and definately help to increase your stamina. All of which can be VERY usefull in a real situation. This statement has no merit at all. I have personally seen a famous professional boxer get the snot beat out of him by someone with out any training whatsoever.(outside of the ring) To say that just because someone trains full contact that they are automatically better than anyone who doesn't is COMPLETELY IGNORANT. Any professional fighter will tell you "NEVER underestimate your opponent". What about the fighter who trains both full and semi contact? Should that person give up all other aspects of their training and only train with full contact fighting. Robert

I would say since KM specializes in street self defence it would usually be more effective. (It depends on how you are attacked). Now if you take the Krav Maga classes that are marketed for weight loss you would be putting yourself in a disadvatage. In a NHB match, I do not believe either would be very effective without some serious cross-training. But I think MT would be a better starting point as it is a competition based art. Robert

Yes Thai fighters that fight full contact fights several times a week usually have problems...thats because they fight so much...the same would be true for any stlye. many fighters in thailand fight for a living. anyone who gets hit int he head alot all their life will have problems...does not apply strickly to boxing. Isn't getting in the ring and fighting the majority of both Thia and regular boxing's training. If so then the effects that treebranch spoke of would be common in people who spent a good deal of time training in these fighting styles. To simplify: You can not train in boxing effectively without getting hit in the head alot. You can not train Thia effectively without being hard on the legs and joints. Of coarse not everyone who trains in these styles will have severe damage from it. As far as which to choose between TMA and MMA. I would say that you should choose something that emphisizes your strengths and minimizes your weaknesses. If you are smaller or weaker something like aikido or hapkido could be effective for you. If you are bigger or stronger something like judo and/ or a striking art would enable you to use your natural advantages. FYI With proper training most men can retain a great amount of strength well into their older years. Older does not mean weaker! Robert

no but my stlye does have stadup fighting, clinch fighting, ground fighting, takedown defenses,etc..where alot of stlyes are limited to one range..like TKD is limited to the punching/kicking range..yet somehow it's effective in all self defense situations? but it's ok well just pretend that all arts ar equal in every way. BTW I dont belive in an "ultimate" stlye I belive in cross training. Why would you crosstrain if your style completely covers everything that you mentioned? You seem to be contradicting yourself. You obviously have not been able to understand what I have been saying. I will simplify it. NO style is effective in every situation. But EVERY style CAN be effective in helping one to defend oneself. To say one style is better or worse than another is ONLY an expression of YOUR opinion. No style can specialize in everything. So if you want to be effective at every type of fighting then you will have to study more than one style. To say Tae Kwon Do is limited to kicking and punching only shows that you have had very limited exposure to it. Not every school is an olympic sparring factory. Does it fully cover everything? Of coarse not, no art does. Robert BTW I never said that TKD is effective in EVERY situation. This is something that you are trying to imply that I said. [edit] I also never said that every art is equal. I said that they are NOT equal and that they are NOT unequal, they are DIFFERENT. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. I encourage you to stop trying to put words in my mouth. It only weakens your argument when you resort to such tactics.

All styles have thier advantages and disadvantages. Grapling styles (jujitsu)are extremely effective against a rapist. But in a bar with brocken glass on the floor and your opponents friends surrounding the fight, the last place I would want to be is on the floor. Striking arts(tae kwon do) have an advantage if you are fighting in a situation where it would not be wise to be on the ground. But on ice, where it is hard to keep your footing it may be best to take your opponent to the ground. Of coarse these are just a couple examples. To say one art is ultimatly better than another is nothing more than pure opinion. They are all different. They can ALL be trained for many different circumstances. (I suppose TJS's style must be the exception and is the only style that is perfect for every situation) Any art can be effective for self defence if it is trained for self defence. If you are training in an art for point fighting then it will be much less effective for self defence, but much more effective for competition. Robert

It is how you train NOT what you train that will make you an effective fighter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken. As far as technique versus technique goes, there are instances of nearly every art defeating every other art. To say one art is better than another is nothing more than ignorance. Styles are not UNEQUAL or EQUAL, they are DIFFERENT. There is a HUGE difference. The effectiveness of an art is directly related to the way the practitioner uses it. A rock is only effective at being a rock. If a person who trained how to throw things accurately came along, that person could USE the rock effectively as a projectile weapon. That same person could use a stick, a baseball, or any other easily held hard object as such. I will admit that every art has it advantages in certain circumstances. But, no art is superior in every circumstance. Robert

One of the main things that breaking can help you learn is how to effectively follow through with your strikes.(hitting THROUGH the target instead of TO the target)No matter how strong you are, if your strikes end AT the target you will not cause any significant damage. Breaking boards gives you a visual tool in this area where a bag or sparring could not. Robert

I say your origional argument about boards could apply here. Since a "bag" can NOT emulate a person, by your logic, that renders training with one "useless". Unless a "Bag" can dodge attacks, counter attack, and act unprectictably, training with it has no more merit that training with boards. How can you practice "timing" on an inanimate object. Do you wait for it to continue to hold still before you hit it? Or after you hit it do wait for a specific number of swings before hitting it again? I do not see how this could be relevent in a fight with a real life person. I guess you have never heard of having multiple board holders, and applying combinations to break different boards. This part of your argument emphisizes your ignorance about board breaking. I can look at a spot in the air and aim for that. They do not train snipers by having them pick out a spot on the side of a barn and shooting at it. They use very small targets because it increases focus. The smaller your target is the less room for error there is. Because of this you focus more. Although if you look at your statement carefully, even you are admitting that hitting a board is at least as good for training accuracy as hitting a bag. Do not get me wrong. I think traning with a bag is usefull. I also think that training with boards is usefull. In fact I think that if you train properly you could use a fish or a sandwich effectively as your striking object. Robert

Your logic is flawed. Of coarse boards do not hit back. Niether do heavy bags, speed bags, double tethered bags, focus pads, buckets of sand or rock, bags shaped like people, or any other object that is not alive. So according to you, none of these items have any use in martial arts training. Also according to physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore the board technically DOES hit you back. As far as training technique goes. It is more difficult to tell exactly which part of your hand or foot you hit a heavy bag with because of it's softness. While I do believe a heavy bag is better for developing power, I also believe that a board is better for developing accuracy.(It is a smaller target.) Also everything has a use. It is up to us to figure out how to use it. Robert

I personally feel that one of the reasons you see this is because the Black Belt has lost alot of its value. Think about it, not long ago people trained for over a decade to recieve their black belt. These people now meet a 7 year old that is a 3rd degree black belt after only "maybe" 3 years training. The once coveted black belt has become so easy to attain that it is no longer seen as an outstanding accomplishment. I have studied martial arts for over Twelve years. I was fortunate enough to be able to train one on one with my instructer for the first seven years. During this time he did not use belts. When he finally started taking on other students he began using belts to help him differentiate between the levels of skill more easily. He wore a black belt. Some of the other students asked him what degree black belt he was. His reply was simple. "I am a person, not a belt."

Breaking can help you determine if you have learned the proper technique. Breaking actually does NOT teach anything(that is your instructors job). As far as breaking skulls are concerned, the reason you do not see it happening is not because of the lack of technique in the UFC(some of the ufc combatants are quite skilled), but instead because the human skull is the hardest bone in the human body. Even those of us that can break multiple bricks can not deliver a strike that will break a skull. I believe that breaking is usefull, but I think that one should not assume that just because you can break a board that you can also break an opponents bone. I think that assuming that could be very dangerous. Robert

Moo Duk Kwon and Hapkido Robert