What do you think?

[IMGONNABEUSMC]

What do you think is a good all around MA? (has grappling, throws, kicking, punching ect.)

[Shorin Ryuu]

I am actually a bit distressed by the fact that this one particular topic has had numerous posts in many threads (some still going) with slightly different names. However, I'll just resort to copy-pasting some of my responses from other posts.

 

Shorin Ryu (but really this applies to Tradtional Okinawan Karate in general).

 

Employs both the use of hard and soft techniques.

 

Has a myriad of striking techniques (not just the variations of the punch and kick, but fingers, various bony protrusions in various places of your body, basically, everything).

 

Has a huge emphasis on grappling (yes, I said karate and grappling, do some homework if you don't believe me).

 

Meant for use at all ranges, but best at close, in-fighting ranges.

 

Kata. Kata. Kata.

 

If you don't know why I like kata, force yourself to read some of my other exhaustive rants on the topic (maybe exhausting would be a better term for it).

[White Warlock]

Ballet

[Master Jules]

LMAO !!!!.......WW.....good post.....hahahahaha.......yes......as we all know.....there are many " hidden bunkai" applications in Ballet........in fact way to many to list here.......Ballet is definetely one of the deadliest arts, and truly one of the most complete.......

 

All kidin' aside though.....Ill have to go with Shorin ryuu here......most Okinawan arts in general are extremely well rounded....but again.....it seems as if weve been through this type of thread before.......so.........whatever.....lol....

 

Sorry.......havent had my coffee yet and Im still a bit punchy.......

[Shorinryu Sensei]

Living where I do, I haven't had the exposure to all of the different Okinawan karate systems...but I DEFINITLY recommend Shorinryu (especially Matsumura Orthodox) also.

[White Warlock]

I can see it now. Shorinryu Sensei in a tutu.

[Gumbi]

What do you think is a good all around MA? (has grappling, throws, kicking, punching ect.)

 

Hehe, I know this one is going to piss everyone off.

 

Quite frankly put, if you do a martial art that emcompases ALL aspects of a fight, you may learn all aspects, but you'll never be proficient at any one. Actually, the only style I can think of that has all of what you mentioned is Japanese Ju Jitsu, and the success (or lack of) of that style speaks for itself.

 

Its better to learn from people who have perfected one aspect of the fight, and then combine that to your own. For instance, boxing is a style thats known for its punches. Joe Frazier will teach you how to throw a proper punch much more so than say a random MMA fighter, simply because thats ALL he does is punch. Much the same way that no one is going to have better takedowns than a wrestler/judoka, better knees than a thai fighter, or better subs than a jiu jitsu fighter.

 

All fighters in MMA have one particular aspect which is their best (striking, clinch, or ground) and learn the others so as not to get caught off guard. Go to a boxer if you want to know how to punch, a wrestler/judoka if you want to know how to throw/take people down, etc etc.

[Shorin Ryuu]

To me, and don't take this the wrong way, your argument seems sort of flawed. Forgive me for sounding rather direct, and I certainly am not offended or anything, but I just have trouble following your logic. Here's why:

 

So, what's the difference between learning how to kick in one place, punch in another place, grapple in another place, throw in yet another...or doing it all in one place? It realistically doesn't matter where you do it, since the net result is that you are one person doing all of them anyway. If anything, I would think it would help learning them all from one place since it incorporates all of them as a part of a larger group of context in a similar context (one of the only few real main purposes of having styles anyway). This isn't to say that it isn't useful to see things from multiple perspectives, but then again, your argument isn't going down that route anyway.

 

Your argument is saying that if you do them all in one place, you will never get proficient at any one specific skill. Then, you say that you should still study every basic set of skills, but from different places. Either way, you still learn every basic set of skill. Merely saying "You're so well-rounded that you don't have a point" doesn't make it true.

 

Perhaps it is because your logic is this: Learning it all from one place is dangerous because you will never specialize in one thing. To solve this, you should learn from as many different places as possible all the different types of skills.

 

Again I ask you, what's the difference in learning it in more than one place or just one, as you will most likely be well-rounded and quite competent in many of the aspects of fighting but extremely good in one or two of them regardless of however many different styles you train in?

 

And then, you use the example of BJJ...?

Actually, the only style I can think of that has all of what you mentioned is Japanese Ju Jitsu, and the success (or lack of) of that style speaks for itself.

 

Well in that case, you can either think harder, since I know several that come to mind, or I can just tell you one...(see posts above).

 

And if you don't see my point, that's fine. But please explain to more specifically how your logic works. I'm a little slow sometimes.

[White Warlock]

If i were to guess at what Gumbi's point is, he is referring to certain systems 'specializing' in various aspects, and thus having a far more indepth degree of study available to the student in that particular aspect... be it grappling, striking, kicking, etc.

 

In many respects, i agree with him. However, i do not agree that you should go study a little in one system to learn one particular part of that system, and then join another system to learn a particular part of another system. You enter into a system to learn the 'entire' system, for every system incorporates principles that are at the core of the effectiveness of their system. I.e., it's not the particular techniques applied in a system, but the system as a whole that incorporates techniques in a fashion that makes them effective.

 

And to illustrate this:

For instance, boxing is a style thats known for its punches. Joe Frazier will teach you how to throw a proper punch much more so than say a random MMA fighter, simply because thats ALL he does is punch. Much the same way that no one is going to have better takedowns than a wrestler/judoka, better knees than a thai fighter, or better subs than a jiu jitsu fighter.

Actually, the punches in boxing are not what you would want to learn, for the application of punches in boxing 'assumes' the use of gloves. In this case, you would learn improper use of punches, in that you would learn to strike hard parts of your opponent's body (chin), with hard parts of your body (fist). Seeing as you would later attempt to apply these techniques in a real confrontation, without having studied the entire system associated with boxing, you will invariably walk away with a broken hand.

 

In truth, the strength of boxing is not in the punches, but in the overall use of the body to both apply a very small repertoire of techniques with maximum speed and power, and overall use of the body to absorb, or redirect blows. I.e., it is not merely the punch that matters. In fact, that is actually one of the least important, but most noted, aspects in boxing. People notice the punch, but fail to recognize that they lasted 9 full rounds of repeated blows (an average of 60 'solid' punches a round) before applying that 'knockout' punch. Instead, all they pay attention to is that 'one' knockout punch. In fact, they don't even consider the tactics associated with being able to render his opponent susceptible to this knockout punch, such as focusing on the lower body, the ribs, the abdomen, to cause the opponent to lose his ability to keep his arms up for defense, or maintain lateral movement of the torso to absorb a 'knockout' blow... etc.

[White Warlock]

Oooo, just had a flashback of that tutu!

 

http://www.jameslew.com/pictures/tutu.jpg

 

That's James Lew, in case you couldn't recognize him in that spiffy outfit