Martial_Artist

I do it because I almost know nothing else. It's been a part of my life since before I can remember. I was taught to defend, and my training today carries on what I was taught: to fight and win. Everything else I do in the martial arts is a benefit from my training to survive. By the primary reason I still train, was trained, and will continue to train is self-defense and defense of loves ones. MA.

Hi, You've got a good question, unfortunately I don't live out that way and don't know of any schools in that area. The advice I have to offer is: pick the school that accomplishes what you what you want to attain from study. If something particularly catches your interest, i.e. self-defense, then pick a school that promotes self-defense and do some research into that style. You can ask questions about the style here, if you like. There are many informed people on this forum. I'm sure you would information to help you form your decision. Then, talk to the instructor. If you feel good about the instructor, then that's a good thing. Also, watch a few of the classes. See how things go. Compare visits to several schools and go with what you like. MA.

Welcome.

Welcome.

A bit old, but in the early part of Chan's career he was interviewed and asked the same question. Could he have beat Bruce Lee? Jackie Chan answered something like, Bruce he's a martial artist, he trains to fight. I'm an actor. I don't think I could beat him. He added some more, which I cannot remember, but he was very honest about it. Don't know if that helps. I think that Bruce would win. I've watched Chan and I've watched Bruce. I still think Bruce would win. I don't know why I even...... I'm going...going...gone..... MA.

Bag work = must. Bag work = regularly. Bag work = good. The heavier the bag = the better.

I have a few I like. But at the top is Return of the Dragon, Bruce Lee. I like some of JetLi's obscure films. My favorite etLi movie is Fist of Legend. My favorite Jackie Chan movie, I forget the title, but he has a fight where he's dressed as ChunLi from StreetFighter games and fights a KEN from the game. The scene is complete with game music, special effects, and costumes. It is by far my favorite Jackie Chan fight scene. I could not stop from laughing. I saw this Hong Kong movie called "OperationBlacksheep." It stars the same guy who took over from JetLi in the Once Upon series. Has a couple funny fight scenes. The scene where he meets his buddy is exceedingly funny. I mean, who does that when they meet someone? Funny stuff. I don't like most American martial arts movies, they're just too corny for me. The cheeziest ma movie I've seen (not counting the endless American ones) is a film with Jacky Woo(not the Jackie Wu of other film fame. This Jacky Woo is japanese), titled Total Aikido. Funny. But it's not trying to be.

Also, in the Once Upon...in China series Jet Li isn't in the latter ones. I forget if it's 4 or 6 when another actor tackes over. And the whole series is 10 movies. I watched them all when I was living in the Philippines, I got them from Hong Kong. Unfortunately, I also left them in the Philippines. And then there are some off-shoot films like Once Upon A Time in the Old West, and another one, I forget (It's been three years since I saw the off-shoots.) They get bad in the middle, but pick up. 7 is good. It's not JetLi, but still good. MA

Kirves, Precisely. Each serves its own purpose. And each must be used at the discretion of the user. I think both complete the picture and give you every possible option. You can use empty-handed techniques to handle your drunk neighbor or a gun to defend your life against armed thugs. But I agree with you. There is a saying in firearms training circles. "If all you carry is a hammer, then all your problems start to look like nails." In the defensive handgun world it is always stressed that the gun is the last option, only to be used when there is absolutely nothing else you can do. This is because it is a great responsibilty to wield a firearm, and it is not to be taken lightly. Almost every single defensive pistol class I know of always teaches the handgun user to carry other options. I.e. pepperspray, a knife, auto-baton, etc. Something else that might deter the fight or diffuse the situation. And, almost every gun school almost always also has an empty-handed class to teach the gun user that the gun isn't and shouldn't be the only tool you carry. I think we got some good ideas out and discussed them well. MA.

Well, it's better to have the tool and never use it rather than really need the tool and not have it. It never hurts to expand your knowledge or library of weaponry.

Well, no, in Canada not being able to carry a handgun properly doesn't change its effectiveness as a self-defense weapon. Just because in Canada the laws say otherwise doesn't change what the firearm can do. The laws change what you, the law-abiding citizen, can do with a firearm. And laws can be changed by the people. A firearm will always act as a firearm regardless of what law governs the person carrying it. However, you did bring up a valid point and I should excuse my post as being directed to those who have the ability to carry a firearm. If, due to the laws of the land, you are restricted to the point of ineffectiveness of usage then you will have to focus more on the archaic-weapon, including empty-hands, weaponry of the martial arts. But then again, my post was in relation to another post that stated firearms are not effective as self-defense weapons when the logic behind such a statement is fatally flawed. Also, my post, should be viewed in the light of accessibility of firearms. In a country such as Canada where the citizen is not allowed to defend themselves, most of what I said does not apply, because the laws of the country tell the law-abiding that they cannot carry a means of self-defense. So, other avenues need to be explored and exploited. Thus, as I stated in the beginning of my post, there should be a time share between the two, but in the case of living in a country with restrictive laws, then the time in the dojo will have to be more--because there will be no time on the range. But, again, the laws of a nation do not change how effective a firearm is as a firearm. When used as intended and unrestricted by laws, the firearm is the best weapon (not including being smart, safe, and avoiding danger, i.e. your brain) for self-defense. Now, it is up to the people who wish to defend themselves and their loved ones and their way of life from the criminal element to determine which laws most effectively accomplish this. Prohibiting the law-abiding only benefits the criminal. But now I am straying from topic and discussions concerning gun-control pro/anti should really be opened in another thread/forum. I appreciate your input, Karate_Woman, and must apologize for not clarifying that my statements about carrying a firearm were really intended for those who have access to a firearm. MA. p.s. The statistics do not change, however, because of a lack of firearms. When a firearm is used to defend in a rape case the success rate for the rapist drops to almost nil. Whereas women who fight back with other methods 1 of 3 will still be raped and/or seriously injured. The firearm still protects the honest citizen more than it is used in the hands of the criminal.

I didn't reply to the poll because of the two answers neither one reflected my opinion. I believe a martial artist should be proficient in both. Years in training should also be years at the range. The handgun is the single best weapon for self-defense. No martial artist can really be complete in his self-defense training without knowing how to use one and at least have intermediate accuracy. Especially if that martial artist lives in the U.S. But, the martial artist needs to be able to fight without a weapon as well. There will be times and circumstances where you cannot use a handgun, or the use of a handgun is not justified. You should be able to use you body. Finally, I have some facts to share with the readers of this thread. Particularly I would like to address Treebranch's post. I apologize in advance as this will be somewhat long. Before I begin I recommend reading a book called "More guns, less crime." by Dr. John Lott. These statistics and facts are gathered from the FBI unified crime report, US. Dept of Justice statistics, and others as will be cited. First about countries that banned firearms. Their crime rates, per capita and on comparison with their records, has risen. The UK and Australia both have experienced rises in crime, particularly with handguns because now only criminals have guns. In 1999 Australia was at the top of the list, and the UK was second in a list of the top 17 industrialized countries of the world. With 4.1 and 3.6% of the population being victim to robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force. These countries have strict gun control. Yet, you are more likely to be victimized in these countries than you are in the US, which was only 1.9% of the population. (Taken from Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001) Every year there are at least 30,000 gun related deaths(most of this number is suicide and accidental death) commited in America. That sounds like a lot, well it is, but another statistic that is always overlooked is every years there is an average of 2,500,000 million crimes prevented by law-abiding citizens with firearms. 2,500,000 vs 30,000. Guns in the hands of law-abiding private citizens prevent more crime than is caused by guns. Of the 2,500,000 (that's 2.5 million) incidents where a handgun was used to stop a crime over 85% of those involved say the use of their gun saved their life, that without their gun they would most likely be dead or severely handicapped. US states with stricter gun control also have the higher crime rates. Why? Because when you enact a gun-law only the law-abiding follow that law. Criminals don't follow laws. At least, none of the criminals I've ever had experiences with do. I mean, that's why they're criminals. Vermont has the most lax gun-controls laws in the nation. And year after year they are the lowest or second lowest in crime per capita in the entire US. james Wrighte and Peter Rossi conducted a survey among criminals in prison on violent charges for the book, "Armed and Dangerous: A survey of felons and their firearms". 60% of those polled said they would not attack someone if they knew that person was armed. 60% were more afraid of being shot by a private citizen than by the police. Another 40% said they would not attack a person if they thought that person was armed. Police are 11% likely to accidentally shoot the wrong person. Private citizens are 2%. In conducting a study on rape, the US Dept. of Justice and several researchers have concluded that armed resistance(with a gun) is 7 times more effective than any other type of resistance. Victims that resisted with a firearm were 85% more successful in preventing the rape altogether than their counterparts that resorted to other measures(including hand-to-hand, and running--running, BTW, will get you more injured in a rape case according to research.) Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented by just showing a gun. Of the crimes prevented the gun is fired in 0.9% of the incidents. zero point nine percent. Private citizens are saving lives by merely showing the gun and rarely, rarely firing it. The mere presence of a gun is a strong deterrent. It stops around 2.5million crimes a year. So much for law-abiding citizens never using a gun in self-defense. In short, private ownership and possession of firearms, particularly the handgun do more to stop and prevent crime than any other means in the US. So, back to the original question, I refer to my original answer. A martial artist should be proficient in both and use both everyday. For more statistics or crime information PM me. I can get you numbers or references and links to sites with this information. This kind of research is a little hobby of mine. MA. p.s. In Micheal Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" he lied and falsified almost every statistic he gave. The real statistics can be found on the US Dept. of Justice's webpage, the FBI's Unified Crime Reports, and independent University studies. "Bowling for Columbine" is a useless documentary. (This has nothing to do with the thread, but some of the posts reflected information as if it had come from that movie.)

JohnnyS, At least we can agree to disagree civily and not get childish about it. I appreciate your insight and comments. I still hold to my original statement, but am appreiciative of yours. MA.

Thank you Kirves, Yes, I think we agree on the subject, we just have two differnent way so of expressing it. I didn't forget BJJ's stand-up grappling. I just presented it under the light of needing a better curriculum for a complete self-defense package. And yes, about any single it can be said it is a single method of thought, that, too, was my point. When asked about BJJ alone being effective for self-defense I assumed what the question wanted to know was pertaining to being able to defend your life when needed. And, IMO, BJJ alone cannot do that sufficiently. Neither can any one other art. And I think we both see this. I do apologize if I came off ignorant, I sometimes express ideas without fully explaining the reasoning behind those ideas. I like to let the reader gather what they can. I look forward to further sharing knowledge pertaining to the martial arts. Thanks. MA.

Kirves, I think that you are wrong in your assumption here. BJJ is considered a grappling art, not because of its stellar striking techinques. Also, according to the web-sites of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu(https://www.armlock.com), Jiu-Jistu.net, Ralph Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, and Fabio Santos Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, BJJ is promoted as a grappling art, an art that takes the fight to the ground as its primary focus. The Machado brothers have been quoted as saying, "I am a shark, the ground is my ocean...and most people can't even swim." Now, each of these sites in some or another mention striking techniques, but their focus, their living core is grappling. Were it not so, then let's just call BJJ a striking art, because it's not a grappling art??? Self-defense BJJ is promoted as a grappling art that incorporates striking techniuqes. The Gracie's website clearly states, So, no, my perception of BJJ is not based on what I see in the ring, but what the teachers themselves, the very founders have to say about BJJ, about the combat orientated BJJ. That being said, BJJ is effective, but not by itself. It cannot be. It is a single method of thought, a single approach to a myriad of problems and circumstances that vary and are random. It has a specific function, an ability to control a certain level of circumstance, but it is not, by design, capable of handling every situation. Therefore, what I said about BJJ is qualified by what the very instructors and founders of BJJ have said. It is a grappling art. Though it may cover parts of other ranges it is not as specific or as deep in those ranges as arts dedicated to those ranges. Please, don't assume that I haven't done my homework on a subject or that I merely watch UFC to learn about something. I speak from those I have met, what has been written by those respected as authorities, and what I have experienced. I think you have the misconception that somehow I have something against BJJ. If the question was reversed to another art, my answer would remain the same. Not alone, but coupled with something else. For the striking arts I recommend coupling a grappling art. No matter what grappling the striking art teaches it will not be as comprehensive as what you will learn in a grappling class. The same goes for a grappling art. What striking you learn there will not be as comprehensive as what striking you will learn in an art dedicated to striking. Thank you for your input and comments. You always have good information to share. MA.

JohnnyS, About being hit from behind. Just for example get on the ground and have someone come up and try to hit you from behind. Your mobility isn't that much or quick. Now try the same exercise standing. For this particular circumstance it wouldn't be wise to get your hands tied up with your opponent. However, you missed the point of my post. If the guy is bigger than you and can knock you out with one punch how do you know he isn't skilled, or even another martial artist? Taking someone much larger than you physically to the ground because you assume he's not as skilled as you isn't tactically sound. But, regardless of his size, it would be in your advantage to have more than rudimentary striking skills against someone much larger and seemingly stronger than you. Yes, there are many times when standing grappling is useful. I never said anything otherwise. I said by itself BJJ is lacking, but coupled with other skills becomes more effective. My comments were based solely on BJJ stand alone. While some standing grappling techniques are used, basic striking, and rudimentary ranges, it is still primarily a ground art. And as such its standing skills pale when compared against the standing skills of a striking focused art. Conversely, a striking art that only dabbles in grappling will have inferior grappling ability when pitted against a grappling-centered art. But, this is another discussion altogether and if you want to further discuss it should be opened in a new thread. Anyways, The reasons you give for standing grappling are well-thought out, and cover a wider range of circumstances. But, a single art is still limitating and doesn't cover all circumstances. Therefore, BJJ coupled with other arts makes for a more well-rounded fighter. BJJ alone, while effective for some circumstances, lacks in others. And that is the core of my meaning. One thing to remember is that on the street don't trust your life to another. Don't expect that just because he's got some buddies that they won't interefere. Unless its an 'honor' fight or some other 'civilized' encounter you will be jumped by others. Schoolyard fights, some bar fights, kid fights usually result in others just standing by. Gang fights, thug fights, or fights for your life result in the other guys jumping in and hitting from behind while you're fighting their buddy. It's simple thugs fight to win. They don't care how, except that it done with the least amount of risk. IF that means shooting you, they'll do it. Using a knife, they'll do it. Or having their buddies jump you from behind, they'll do it. Every fight I got into in the Philippines more than one thug jumped at me. Strength in numbers and on the street that equals survival and power. But I hope you see that I'm not writing off BJJ completely, just making point of the fact that alone it is not that effective of a self-defense art for the street. BUT, when other 'arts' are added then it becomes part of a more complete self-defense arsenal. MA.

This might fit in better under general martial arts.

It's a matter of circumstance. If the opportunity presents itself, then go ahead and do it. If not, don't. Also, it takes a great deal of skill to do high kicks properly, meaning with enough speed that you don't get caught or miss. Not too many martial artists take the time to develop this speed or the power that needs to go with it. Personally, I have ended fights with high kicks to the head. Would I recommend it for every fight? No. Just where it works, or when needed.

The basis for my statement is that it is a solitary art with a primary focus that limits the fighter. While it may bring in other ranges to the fight, that is not its primary function. Thus, it is good, but not by itself. It, IMO, must be coupled with other arts in order to achieve a balance necessary for self-defense. We are talking outside the ring where the possibilty for random change in circumstance is high. In the ring, you will face only one opponent at a time and that opponent will not be armed. Outside, there is no certainty. Taking an opponent to the ground, or otherwise restraining them, also restrains you. While you have them in an armbar, your hands are also busy and you are left susceptible to external attack from an outside source. Same for taking the fight to the ground. While you are in the guard, what's to stop someone from hitting you in the back of the head with a iron bar while you are busy contending with the guy on the ground? Also, being on the ground is not the best defendable position, tactically. You cannot manuever as quickly as you can on your feet, i.e. change position, direction, or distance. (I've seen Tito Oritz 'crawl' after an opponent in the ring, reaching out with one arm to try and save a missed take down. His opponent just kept backing up.) It is faster to move on your feet than crawl. Being on the ground in a self-defense situation just isn't sound. Why would you want to take an opponent to the ground when, while busy with him, you are completely susceptible to outside attack: you are on the ground. You are facing down, your hands are busy, you cannot manuever as quickly as when you were standing, &c. Even simpl placing a choke hold, armbar, or other restraining hold on an opponent leaves you just as vulnerable. Because you cannot define the uncertain. And in a self-defense situation you are doing all you can to control the uncertain and survive. Again, though some other techniques are taught or even worked on besides grappling the primary function and focus of BJJ (or any other grappling art) to grab. Grabbing, while can be effective at times, also does one thing negative in a random fight situation: entangles your hands as well. That's why BJJ is a grappling art. That's its most center core. While some schools and teachers teach the striking, teach the standing, that's not what BJJ is about. The core of its effectiveness is grappling. If not, if would be classified as a striking art, not known world wide as a grappling art. So, BJJ, can be a good addition to a self-defense program. But alone, IMO, it is lacking and needs to be supplemented. Because, limitation is detrimental to the martial artist seeking ability in a self-defense situation. Any form of limitation to knowledge might cost you your life. And self-defense is the topic here. I won't argue BJJ effectiveness in the ring, because, well, it has won in the ring. But the ring is not the outside world. That's my basis for stating: "not alone, but coupled with something..."

Not alone, but coupled with something can add to effectiveness.

I need to add something else. I don't believe that all arts are equal. I believe some arts are better at doing things than other. i was merely trying to make a point with my first post, not come across as a smart A. I will concede that some arts can be more effective than others at accomplishing certain tasks. I won't list any because I don't particularly agree with styles, systems, etc. I leave it up to the individual to find what works best for them, what seems to be the most effective, and learn from experience what they can use to defend themselves most effectively. I don't believe in promoting any one style or system. So, that's the basis behind my first post. This post is the reasoning. I don't want to seem like I'm not taking the thread seriously. If styles are your thing, then there are a plethora of ones to choose from. There will be some that work for you and some that don't. That being said, I think some good suggestions will be stated in this thread for those seeking to do research.

Yes, I concur. A child couldn't perform such a task. Perhaps a child around 14-15; anything younger is not the norm, but the exception.

Best Mixed Martial Art Me. Best Grappling Martial Art Me. Best Standing Art Me. Of course, none of these arts mean nothing if I don't train myself well. Or, if my training isn't quality, efficient, effective, or I don't put my heart into it. I could learn pankration and still get my rearend handed to me by a TKDist if I don't take my training seriously, or if my particular flavor of training is flawed. Style alone does not the best make. There is something of the individual that contributes to that. And a bit of fate. So, don't take my answers as they are written. I wasn't referring to myself as the best, but as to the generality of the statement. I can take the arts of grappling, standing, or mixed and make them as good as I am or as poor as I am. They alone will not make me anything I am not already.

I don't find that disturbing at all. It just means that for every would-be rapist there are 10x as many good guys. It also means to any invading force that the whole country is a force to reckon with and not just a standing army. Yes, if someone is really intent on doing evil not too much to stop them but better people.

When I used to teach I taught for $100 US an hour. I wasn't hurting for students either. I don't teach anymore, but $100/mo is fine for quality instruction regardless of where you categorize it.