wing chun or kempo karate

[iggyrip]

I have looked into Kempo, and it seems they have a lot of techniques and forms to learn. Seems like a good self defense style, but from what I have heard, wing chun is just as effective for self defense and easier to learn.

Also, I am getting older and wonder if wing chun is more applicalbe for older people.

Which art is eaiser to learn and can be done into old age: i.e. 50+

Any comments from any Kempo and Wing Chun practicioners?

[KarateGeorge]

Wing Chun focuses a lot on quickly and efficiently ending a fight. Kicks are not used as much as some other styles, though they do see some use, and are generally kept lower, below the waist. If you're looking for something that you could continue to practice easily as you age, I'd see Wing Chun as compatible with that. Since we tend to lose some flexibility and endurance as we get older, I think this can be a good art to choose.

As for Kempo, you'd have to ask someone else. I've not studied Kempo, so I can't really provide any useful insight there.

[MMA_Jim]

Wing Chun focuses a lot on quickly and efficiently ending a fight. Kicks are not used as much as some other styles, though they do see some use, and are generally kept lower, below the waist. If you're looking for something that you could continue to practice easily as you age, I'd see Wing Chun as compatible with that. Since we tend to lose some flexibility and endurance as we get older, I think this can be a good art to choose.

As for Kempo, you'd have to ask someone else. I've not studied Kempo, so I can't really provide any useful insight there.

Thats a generic statement for pretty much every single martial art in the world. EVERYONE trains to end the fight quickly and I have yet to see a system that doesnt.

[Toptomcat]

Self-defense is not what either of those two styles is best at due to their lack of aliveness in training, unless you've found a very good school.

[KarateGeorge]

Wing Chun focuses a lot on quickly and efficiently ending a fight.

Thats a generic statement for pretty much every single martial art in the world. EVERYONE trains to end the fight quickly and I have yet to see a system that doesnt.

True, that didn't come out the way I meant it to. What I meant by that is that in my prior experience with Wing Chun, there was a lot more focus on effective street fighting applications, with a lot of techniques that focused on breaking joints or maiming the opponent. Granted, it could have been my instructor at the time and not the style, as he's my only experience with Wing Chun, but he spent a lot of time trying to help us transfer our training from the class to the streets.

No, its NOT true of every single martial art either. Not all martial arts are combative arts, but they still fall under the umbrella of "martial arts." Some systems are more sport oriented rather than street, and some systems are more philosophical and about honing the mind.

To name a few examples: TKD and Judo, can be taught as effective forms of self defense, but they're also very sport oriented styles, and so a lot of schools focus on training for a tournament more time preparing for tournaments than teaching the self-defense side of the art. Tactics and strategies in a tournament are not the same as they would be with someone trying to mug you. Wushu, is more of the art side of martial arts. Tai Chi is an internal art, with minimal combat training. There's nothing wrong with those types of training styles either, it all depends on what you're wanting to get from your training. Different people have different goals.

[MMA_Jim]

Wing Chun focuses a lot on quickly and efficiently ending a fight.

Thats a generic statement for pretty much every single martial art in the world. EVERYONE trains to end the fight quickly and I have yet to see a system that doesnt.

True' date=' that didn't come out the way I meant it to. What I meant by that is that in my prior experience with Wing Chun, there was a lot more focus on effective street fighting applications, with a lot of techniques that focused on breaking joints or maiming the opponent. Granted, it could have been my instructor at the time and not the style, as he's my only experience with Wing Chun, but he spent a lot of time trying to help us transfer our training from the class to the streets. [/quote']

Any striking style you do should, by definition, be effective against a resisting opponent. If it can do that then its "street worthy" if you will. If the style proves to be very lacking when used against a resisting opponent, then you should probably find something else.

No, its NOT true of every single martial art either. Not all martial arts are combative arts, but they still fall under the umbrella of "martial arts." Some systems are more sport oriented rather than street, and some systems are more philosophical and about honing the mind.

Well, yes you are correct in the sense that some styles (i.e. Tai Chi) are just not meant for fighting and are an expression of the individual or meditation or however one wants to word it.

You falsely assume, however, that a style thats trained for "sportive" purposes no longer teaches one how to fight effectively in a "street" sceneria or no holds barred scenario.

Virtually all styles of martial arts were taught from a combative nature, and were turned into sports to help its practicioners enhance

their skills- (READ that is, the practitioners became better by competing in the sport than by just practicing techniques deemed too violent for practice). Take for example, wrestling. By some accounts the oldest form of fighting/martial arts, wrestling was quickly made into a sportive contest by the ancient greeks and continues to this day to the Olympics. As it stands though, in pure style vs style, the only thing that beats a good wrestler is a good jiu jitsu fighter, and these wrestlers have been training in a "sportive" context since their inception into the style

To name a few examples: TKD and Judo, can be taught as effective forms of self defense, but they're also very sport oriented styles, and so a lot of schools focus on training for a tournament more time preparing for tournaments than teaching the self-defense side of the art. Tactics and strategies in a tournament are not the same as they would be with someone trying to mug you. Wushu, is more of the art side of martial arts. Tai Chi is an internal art, with minimal combat training. There's nothing wrong with those types of training styles either, it all depends on what you're wanting to get from your training. Different people have different goals.

Im not going to touch TKD, lets just say Im not a big fan of it.

Judo, on the other hand, while very sport oriented is one the most effective forms of self defense. You bring up the topic of someone trying to mug you- such a person needs to grab you to mug you, and the moment you grab a judoka, you're in his world. If hes a good judoka, you'll simply wake up after you attempted to grab him.

You have to understand that what you see on tv or olympics is different than a street fight encounter- its significantly harder.

A judoka who trains for competition is training against another world class judoka in excellent physical condition who spends the majority of his days doing nothing but training judo. After fighting these people, an encounter against some scrub in the street who hasnt had day 1 of judo becomes a laughable encounter.

In context though, someone who trains for a street scenario and practices deadly techniques, but never at full resistance, never learns what its like to be a fight. Obviously one cant train full force with deadly techniques, such as eye gouging, biting, and so forth. This fight already took place though with the inception of Judo.

Before Judo, everything in Japan was ju jitsu- ju jitsu schools used to claim superiority over others based on which schools had more deadly techniques (i.e. if you have more violent means of fighting, you'd consider yourself the superior school, as would other people). Kano (founder of Judo) took the deadly moves out in favor of what you call the sportive moves. This allowed his students to train at full force. He then challenged the ju jitsu schools that were reknown for their ferocity and deadliness, and his students soundly defeated virtually all ju jitsu schools with their "sportive" techniques.

[KarateGeorge]

You falsely assume, however, that a style thats trained for "sportive" purposes no longer teaches one how to fight effectively in a "street" sceneria or no holds barred scenario.

Actually, I don't feel that way, and I agree with your point about how the sport was introduced to improve the skills of those practicing the arts. That's historical fact. I do feel though, that over time, many of the "sport" schools have watered down their art so that its not as effective a means of combat as it once was. That's not to say that everyone in the sport arts aren't fully capable of applying their arts in a real world self-defense scenario. I just think that a lot of sport-oriented schools have lost sight of the true purpose behind the sport side of the training as being an effective training tool to prepare one better rather than for the sake of just putting another trophy on their shelves.

There are two main benefits to competing that I see: First is the opportunity to put one's skills against new people. Second, is the added incentive of having reason to train harder to prepare for the competition. Outside of that, there's nothing that I can't get from regular training that I would get from a tournament. With appropriate safety precautions, I can and do fight at harder contact levels when sparring, rather than just light point sparring, and when doing grappling, I can and do with fully resisting opponents.

There's a place for the "sport" side of martial arts and I think it can be a valuable training tool. Its just that in my experience, many schools that focus on the sport have stopped teaching the application of how to translate it to real life back in the training. Competition is a tool, but it needs to be balanced with the rest of one's training.

[MMA_Jim]

You falsely assume, however, that a style thats trained for "sportive" purposes no longer teaches one how to fight effectively in a "street" sceneria or no holds barred scenario.

Actually, I don't feel that way, and I agree with your point about how the sport was introduced to improve the skills of those practicing the arts. That's historical fact. I do feel though, that over time, many of the "sport" schools have watered down their art so that its not as effective a means of combat as it once was. That's not to say that everyone in the sport arts aren't fully capable of applying their arts in a real world self-defense scenario. I just think that a lot of sport-oriented schools have lost sight of the true purpose behind the sport side of the training as being an effective training tool to prepare one better rather than for the sake of just putting another trophy on their shelves.

There are two main benefits to competing that I see: First is the opportunity to put one's skills against new people. Second, is the added incentive of having reason to train harder to prepare for the competition. Outside of that, there's nothing that I can't get from regular training that I would get from a tournament. With appropriate safety precautions, I can and do fight at harder contact levels when sparring, rather than just light point sparring, and when doing grappling, I can and do with fully resisting opponents.

There's a place for the "sport" side of martial arts and I think it can be a valuable training tool. Its just that in my experience, many schools that focus on the sport have stopped teaching the application of how to translate it to real life back in the training. Competition is a tool, but it needs to be balanced with the rest of one's training.

This is entirely true that some people have become way too sportive in their approach to some of the martial arts that are taught. Perhaps the most important thing when learning how to fight and defend oneseld, however, is learning how to combat a resisting opponent. This skill/attribute is so important, and even someone from a purely sportive nature skill becomes well adept at defending themselves because they're accustomed to using their techniques on resisting opponents.

On the flip side though, many people who teach martial arts "for the street" have never been in a fight in their lives. Many CLAIM to have been in hundreds, but the reason why I immediately discredit any street fighting claims is that its the easiest thing to claim and its impossible to refute- example:

Im 500-0 in street fights, having ko'ed everyone with a single punch-Prove me wrong.

Understand?

So, that becomes the reason for setting up fights and tournaments. Documented evidence with unbias results (i.e. a video)

In regard to what tournament competition offers- besides putting a skillset to the test the best part about a tournament is learning how to deal with the adrenaline dump, which affects everyone. The most difficult street fight I've been in, which had more than 20 people fighting at once, was fun and casual compared to the easiest competition/cage fight I've ever been in. Once you learn how to make your moves work against someone who's been trained in the same stuff, watches video on you, knows your strategy, and you've dealt with the adrenaline dump, the street is a piece of cake and not even so much as a warmup

[KarateGeorge]

On the flip side though, many people who teach martial arts "for the street" have never been in a fight in their lives. Many CLAIM to have been in hundreds, but the reason why I immediately discredit any street fighting claims is that its the easiest thing to claim and its impossible to refute-...

Very true indeed! One thing about teaching martial arts, is that really anyone can go buy a black belt and open their own school claiming to be a master, and even if they are legitimately a black belt in their chosen art, it doesn't mean they're capable of effectively teaching it and passing on their knowledge. Its always best to check a place out and make sure that you know what you're getting for your money before handing it over to them. "The proof is in the pudding", "Let the buyer beware"...and any other such cliche you can think of!