Karate Vs

[White Warlock]

Were i to be afraid, it would be of the person behind the weapon.

[Mart]

so its both?

[White Warlock]

so its both?

No... it's the person behind the weapon.

Regarding the punching in boxing not working without the gloves, this is only true if your hands and wrists arent conditioned correctly.

 

If you want proof of this go look up some recent bare knuckle fight videos and see some hard punches going in with no broken hands.

And the word here to emphasize is "some."

 

Boxers are conditioned to strike full-bore against the skull and jaw, otherwise known as hard vs hard. The bones of the hand are significantly weaker than the jaw and skull, and are also not well reinforced by the hand/wrist muscles... even when well-conditioned. Also, i actually 'do' have a collection of bare knuckle fight videos, and those striking have either learned not to strike the head with their fists, or they have hand wraps to help reinforce and protect their hand. Despite this, far too many actually still end up with hand/wrist injuries and cannot continue to the next round of eliminations.

 

Basic physics clearly indicates that, without adequate protection, the small bones of the hand/fingers will break, or the tiny ligaments/muscles will tear. Although there are many pain targets on the head, the two biggest targets are jaw dislocation and brain-jarring. Both of which require a substantial impact.

[White Warlock]

In an effort to bring this thread back to its original state, here go a few more of those entertaining pros and cons:

 

Aikido cons -

 

limited groundwork

 

limited lower body attack

 

limited clinch skills

 

limited striking

 

limited to no 'full contact' sparring

 

no competitions

 

pristine drills (assumes nothing goes wrong)

 

does little to counter being 'punch shy' (limited/no sparring, encouraged by pristine drills)

 

most practice is performed at reduced speeds

 

dependency towards oppositional commission

 

no improvisational training

 

designed for non-lethal submission. I.e., non-combat oriented (as opposed to sport oriented or combat oriented) *

 

requires a lot of training in order to gain competence

 

Aikido pros -

 

some of the best footwork (derived from kenjutsu)

 

excellent training in upper body impact deflection

 

excellent training in capitalizing on oppositional commission

 

weapons training

 

excellent techniques

 

excellent training in opposing body control

 

good training in conflict psychology

 

good training in de-escalation

 

designed for non-lethal submission. I.e., non-combat oriented (as opposed to sport oriented or combat oriented) *

 

Karate vs: An aikidoist will fare very well against a karate practitioner. It was devised with countering Japanese striking systems in mind and therefore empasizes counters towards 'common' Japanese attack styles. Its weaknesses will be evident when posed against Westernized versions of karate, which have adopted a more boxing-style of fighting. I.e., little to no commission. The asterisk notation on aikido, emphasizing non-lethal resolution, is both a pro and a con. It provides the practitioner with the choice of defeating an opponent, without resorting to extensive bodily injury or death. However, this self-same emphasis tends to subconsciously limit the degree of lethality an aikidoist is willing to commit to.

[muaythaifreak]

my problem with the gun thing in this argument is that one inherently has advantages over the other (9mm vs ak-47).

 

i'm not sure if this is the case with martial arts.

 

Certain sytems do have inherent advantages over other systems. i.e. BJJ and Muay Thai.

 

MT:

 

inherently has advantage standing up.

 

BJJ:

 

inherently has advantage on the ground.

[Drunken Monkey]

but the advantages themselves do have the same implications+consequences in any way similar to those with the examples of the guns.

 

if you mentioned two guns of the same 'type', let's just say revolver vs semi-auto, i would feel that is a better type of comparison.

 

the problem i have with the 9mm vs ak-47 is that one is in more ways than one, better then the other at doing it's job.

 

a person holding an ak-47 is more likely to kill someone, no matter how much or how little skill they have, than one holding a m92f (for a start, an ak can do everything the 9mm can AND more).

 

as it has been discussed before, the stand-up vs ground-fighting thing is much more complex and open to debate than this.

[muaythaifreak]

I see your point. And I can see where my analogy is not a perfect fit, but I think it made my point nonetheless.

[White Warlock]

Soo... anyone else in the mood to type up any of these fun little pro/cons?

[Drunken Monkey]

um, well, yes you made a point (albeit one that is flawed)

 

but i should point out that it ends up implying that the styles that you mention (bjj+muay thai) are the ak-47s where-as everything else is a 9mm.

 

is that your point?

[White Warlock]

I have a point. It's at the top of my head.