I could use some advice...

[circa02]

I've recently re-evaluated my position on what type of practical martial art I want to pursue. I've always preferred using grappling arts, for 2 reasons; it doesn't rely on my own strength, and it's considered less violent. But in my past dojo experiences, grappling, that is, attacking joints, is more violent then striking, because with the former, it's much more likely to break bones and to cause serous injury. Whereas with strikes, except for styles like boxing, the strikes aren't meant to be about just bludgeoning your attacker to a pulp, just into submission. But ofcourse there's situations where grappling is the only recourse, so could anyone offer me some advice on what style that uses strikes in a non bludgeoning way, which also offers at least some grappling skills? Thanks.

[Wastelander]

I've recently re-evaluated my position on what type of practical martial art I want to pursue. I've always preferred using grappling arts, for 2 reasons; it doesn't rely on my own strength, and it's considered less violent. But in my past dojo experiences, grappling, that is, attacking joints, is more violent then striking, because with the former, it's much more likely to break bones and to cause serous injury. Whereas with strikes, except for styles like boxing, the strikes aren't meant to be about just bludgeoning your attacker to a pulp, just into submission. But ofcourse there's situations where grappling is the only recourse, so could anyone offer me some advice on what style that uses strikes in a non bludgeoning way, which also offers at least some grappling skills? Thanks.

I'm afraid that what you're asking for is not going to be style related in most cases, but instructor related. For example, Shorin-Ryu karate contains both strikes and grappling and my instructor likes to fully explore both aspects, but some instructors choose to focus almost entirely on the striking. Many karate styles contain both, but you would still need to find out of the instructor actually teaches both. Alternately, you could take up wrestling (grappling for control rather than submission, for the most part) along with an art like karate and kenpo (striking and limb destruction, and maybe some extra grappling depending on the instructor).

[Lrtucker]

Remember boxing is a sport and its about points received from tactics not about violence. The way to keep the decision is out of the judges hands is to have a KO or TKO which SHOULD rely more on power and placement then on violence.

That said, I agree with Wastelander. What is taught sometimes is instructor specific. Kempo employs striking, kicking, felling, and grappling. However as an underbelt I had an instructor who did not have a lot of grappling experience so we did not do it much.

On the other hand, I also have training in BJJ and Muy Thai so my students learn our style's standard requirements for Kempo and I require supplements from BJJ.

Additionally, as a LEO I also teach many of the tech's that we use in our training. I teach them because they are very practical and easy to learn. Our training employs nerve strikes because they are simple and effective. Since I had to learn the names of the nerves for report writing purposes my students learn them. Our groundwork uses thinks like grabbing, pinching and twisting sking to create pain and back out of someone's guard. We do not teach technical guard passes to side control because for us getting away is more important than side control and twisting nipples would be frowned upon at a NAGA tournament but works great on the street.

If you want to find a "practical" martial art that has an equal blend of grappling and striking without being violent consider looking for a self defense seminar, series, or class.

[circa02]

It seems to be, based on my research, that the best arts which both meet my criteria and are easy to find, are some styles of both Kung fu and Karate.

[tallgeese]

I agree that several forms of kempo or karate will have aspects of both standing joint destructions and striking. As Wastelander said, how much of each will depend greatly on the instructor and flavor of art you're in. Be sure you watch sessions of both before getting involved fully, you want to make sure it's what you want.

One thing to consider, realistically, you won't be doing small joint manipulation without striking. I don't see a lot of use for tuite if I haven't first controlled the subjects mind with stunning strikes. It's too hypothetical otherwise. I too work in LE and I can say I've watched many a scuffle reach comic proportions due to officers attempting some sort of joint position (usually a straight arm bar takedown) against a fully resistive bad guy without first striking him. It turns into a dance that ultimately ends up badly for both parties.

The idea, to me, that standing joint locking can be performed without strikes is too dangerous to consider as a primary tactic. I'll never say never, but I try to stay away from it.

For me, grappling in the sense of positional dominance has taken the foreground of ground work and controlling opponents over joint manipulations that rely on destroying the joint. Even the much used and above mentioned straight arm bar take down, seen in multiple arts and RBSD systems is essentially a misrepresentation of what the movement is designed to do. It, as taught in older katas, is a movement to break the elbow joint and thus (dating back to older times) prevent your opponent from using a weapon against you. The takedown was added by us, in less violent times (yes, they are despite the news headlines) to take a proven movement and put it into a more acceptable format. Anytime we start deviating from mechanics created to do one thing and make them do another we lose efficiency. If you look at BJJ or other modern grappling arts, despite the heavy sport outlook these days, you'll see a system specifically designed to crush and hold from a dominate position. It's movement doing what it was designed to do. No reverse engineering needed.

I do; however, think that any art your looking at, boxing included. Is at some philosophical point about violence. It might be controlled for sport application, but anytime you're training to knock someone out via repeated brain trauma, it's violent. This holds true for grappling arts as well, and you've touched on that already. If you're really doing standing joint manipulation, you're really talking about breaking joints up. This is not non-violent either.

Summed up, martial arts are about violence if you're training them for self defense. We're talking about ending threats, not being non-violent in our response. The level of force has to be appropriate; however, it'll still be violent. The last thing I'm worried about when deploying the needed amount of force is how this will injure the other party. If I'm within my legal right to deploy violence (or force) and I'm at a proportional level the injuries to the bad guy don't matter.

[Wastelander]

...a bunch of great stuff...

Interestingly, I just wrote an article about applying joint locks in the context of karate--it's nice to see someone in LE who agrees with using striking in conjunction with locks .

To the OP, regarding your most recent reply--yes, some styles of karate and kung fu will have what you are looking for, as will some kenpo and plenty of RBSD programs like Krav Maga. The key isn't so much the style as the content that the instructor teaches and how effective it is, so you need to be doing more research on the content of classes in your area, regardless of style, and you need to go to those classes to watch them before you make any decisions.

[JusticeZero]

in my past dojo experiences, grappling, that is, attacking joints, is more violent then striking, because with the former, it's much more likely to break bones and to cause serous injury.

No matter how you slice it, you are studying violence. Violence that is more controlled, yes. But still violence.

You are going to need to come to grips with the fact that any technique you learn is inherently violent. It can be applied somewhat more gently for control and dominance, or it can be applied more forcefully to break and damage. But they are all violence, and they are all meant to be used in ways which are inherently violent.

If you cannot deal with this, you need to quit the martial arts. In my experience, people who cannot settle with their own potential for violence, yet who insist upon gaining skills with violence, are a danger to everyone around them. I would feel safer training around a self-admitted ganger street thug than around a conflicted pacifist of that sort.

The reason is this: People who are not comfortable with their capacity for destruction make abysmal pacifists. They generally "can't hold their evil".

If someone introduces me to a boxer, or something similar and aggressive, and tells me that he wouldn't hurt a fly, I believe them. They are doing a very aggressive thing with very explicit violence. They know exactly what they can do, how that would be done, have practiced how to do it, and choose not to. They have felt the force of their anger fall on them in the ring, they have ridden it, dug in spurs and mastered it, holding on and experiencing it. They know what anger feels like, and they know what it does to them, and they know that the anger does not control them.

If someone introduces me to someone who is trying "not to learn any damaging techniques", I give them a wide berth. They don't know what sort of violence they are capable of, and very likely would rationalize it away if they did it. They have no control, because they shy away from the consequences inherent to so many of the actions they are able to take. Any flare of anger on their side, and for some reason they anger easily, might send people to the emergency room.

One person I remember encountering from my younger days talked calmly about how he had non-violently and peacefully tripped someone, causing them to fall down a short stairwell. They had done nothing to provoke them, and were simply trying to go home for the night. The "pacifist" explained that "Their aura" had manipulated them into doing it, and that it was to "protect" some other students, none of whom had been the slightest bit threatened, nor had they felt any need for "protection". Even if they had, they wouldn't have found an attempt to kill the guy with a subtle push AS HE TRIED TO LEAVE to constitute "protection". I don't even know exactly what happened; all of that was from the guy's story to explain how peaceful and enlightened he was. Pushing someone down the stairs after class to show off to the girls in class is pacifism? Really??

[circa02]

I'm not saying I reject violence in relation to martial arts; I just prefer not to leave lasting damage. I guess that's why I'm going to visit a nearby Aikido dojo, but I've heard it takes like decades before it can be used practically for defensive purposes.

[MasterPain]

I'm not saying I reject violence in relation to martial arts; I just prefer not to leave lasting damage. I guess that's why I'm going to visit a nearby Aikido dojo, but I've heard it takes like decades before it can be used practically for defensive purposes.

Aikido is derived from Aikijujutsu, an art designed to break someones limbs and take their sword away so you can kill them with it. Non violent? Also anything that takes decades to become useful has a terrible training system. A decent teacher can make a system useful in a few months, and of course more useful over time.

If you want art for the sake of art that's fine. But self defense is about using the appropriate amount of force (i.e. VIOLENCE) to deal with violence. I've seen a video of a one armed Aikidoka in a full contact MMA rules fight, and the guy held his own despite his handicap. He didn't do it by using half-hearted atemi-waza. The man hit and threw like he meant it. That is for competition. If he wasn't actively fighting, he would have gotten his butt kicked. Which in self defense means killed.The only REAL nonviolent form of self defense is running away, which is fine if you're young, tall and thin. Aikido has good stuff in it, if it's trained with a progression from technique to live training AND while defending against realistic attacks. This is rarely the case, as the idea of nonviolence has pervaded the art. If nothing else the ukemi is good for you.

[Patrick]

What styles are available to you, circa02? This will help people to offer thoughts.

Thanks,

Patrick