shurikengirl

Almost forgot...lookit this site for more info: http://members.aol.com/ThaiRing/nhb.htm

Hi, welcome to the forums! Everyone here is interesting, and unlike most other places they know what they're talking about. Some seasoned fighters here, and at least one fitness trainer too.

The UFC is an inaccurate portrayal of the styles it represents. The UFC is supposedly meant to bring together all MA styles to see which is best in one on one combat, pitting one against the other. Of course, there will never be a *best* all-reigning completely superior style, but certainly some are more suited to one on one combat than others. Or even *gasp* all-around -better- than other styles. (My opinion is that, yeah, some styles are definently better than some others. But let's not get into that.) Anyway, while the UFC is a very attractive idea - taking the best fighters of many styles and seeing which style gains more wins - it isn't a very good measure of the true capabilities of different arts. If you look at the results of the fights, the overwhelming majority of wins are from grapplers, especially Brazilian jiu jitsu. This is because of the size of the ring - it's pretty small. Striking type arts have less room to move around in, making it easier for them to be grabbed by grapplers. It's quite apparent that the truth of the martial arts is that there are three major determining factors to the outcome of a fight: 1 The fighters themselves 2 The arts 3 The circumstances Grapplers will have a natural edge over strikers in small spaces. And I'd imagine it's the opposite in wide open spaces. My point is, you -can't- judge an art based only on it's history of wins. You -can't- say it's mostly the skill of the fighter, and not the art as much. There are too many factors to take into account. If the UFC truly wants to know which arts are generally better arts, then they have to be more serious about it and fight in a variety of environments. It'd be so cool if there was a fighting championship that really took all factors into account and looked at the different arts, then analyzed them, almost scientifically. Will we ever know the truth? Without the glitzy masked wrestling crap?

That's great you love what you're doing. Life is so much richer when you have a sport or hobby, anything you do that you really like. I think taking a second martial art would be a good idea for you. Fore one thing, once a week is really not very much. Three times a week is usually ideal. For another thing, if you want to learn how to really fight, taking an oriental art will teach you more technique and strategy than kickboxing when you're fighting for real. Kickboxing is great for sport and fitness, but against another more fighting-oriented art like karate or kung-fu, the kickboxer would have less of a chance of winning. Same goes for boxing. So if you took a second art you'd end up pretty well-rounded. I'd recommend it. But if you can avoid taking one class after another, do. Maybe try finding another MA place (shouldn't be too hard) so you can take classes different times in the week. It's usually better to be consistent and balanced than doing it all at once, and then not going to any class for a long period of time.

-:, it's very interesting to read what you write. Kyusho-Jitsu is another pressure point martial art

I'm surprised no one's mentioned that there's simple blocks that can, in a couple quick motions block the knife and then disable the attacker. They teach techniques in the military and in judo, and other arts. In one move, you block with your arms crossed like a v, the attacker's arm falling into the v. From there you slide down their arm, maintaining their forward momentum, to grab the wrist and bring it up and over your shoulder. You then break their elbow by pulling their elbow down the wrong way over your shoulder. If you don't want to break it, you can just take the knife.