What are the most practical and effective martial arts?

[JerryLove]

Me thinks thou doth protest too much! You make a post criticizing, and calling incompetent ("Have you ever been suddenly and violently attacked?? Obviously not") a poster who suggested that running was the first option.

 

You chose to nitpick that there were some instances where you could not run, and then to speak in "never turn my back", "always walk" generalities. I did the same nit-pick on you, and you became offended. If you don't enjoy the behavior, I would suggest you cease poffering it on others.

 

As to a point or purpose? I thought that would be ovious. My point is that you are unfairly attacking someone with a perfectly good idea because it's not 100% universal, while having the hypocracy to counter with other ideas that are also not 100% universal. I should not take you for an idiot and assume you will walk form a rifle at 50'? Then don't take superleeds for an idiot and assume he will run when someone is holding his child.

 

As to sudden, violent attacks. The first rule is, as always, awareness. Secondly, I find it hard to believe that you were confronted by a mugger in a busy street so crowded that you could not have kept a safe distance from others. Either you live in the most blase-to-crime area I have heard of, or yor had already failed basic martial awareness. That said; unles you are on the ground, you can run in the middle of an opponent activey beating on you (in many situations).

 

As I said in mypost; of course there is no "one solution" for everything. To presume so would be silly. I see no reason that superleed's suggestion of "run" as a first, bets option most of the time should be replaced with yours; and I see no indication that superleed must never have been attacked. I found and find your arrogance annoying.

I was pointing out that running is not the best "art" for self-defense. Your post says nothing of value.. I'm not going to waste my time on it any more. It makes no sense, say what will I don't care. I don't need to, nor have the desire to prove anything to anyone,

This does not appear true at all. Your ego appears highly tied into other's opinions of you. If it were not, you might have attempted to correct errors in my response, but would not have devoted an entire post to attacking me in a rather unconstructive manner and defending that you were the only "non idiot" here who understood somthing about "sudden, violent attacks".

 

Of course, you don't care, you just said so.

[ninjatrev]

I'd try a soft martial art, such as Tai jutsu or aikido, as you will be surprised how easy it is to apply self-defence very quickly from a few lessons. Very often it is the simplest movements that are the most effective.

 

But at the end of the day it is whatever art that suits you best as a person, try a few and see what you think

[Bon]

If you want self defense, I think you need to able to strike and grapple. If you have the time and money, consider taking two arts, an art that deals with striking and an art that deals with takedowns & groundwork.

 

As an example, if you're looking for a boxing gym, look for the gym with cauliflower ears and broken noses! IMHO (in my honest opinion =p), self defense == hardcore training!

[Bon]

Yes; but this time you will berunning toward them.

I think running at an attacker is foolish.

 

 

If there were one solution for every situation there wouldn't be so many arts.

Why then would you suggest running as the be-all and end-all and have a hissy fit when he suggests other options ?

 

 

If you could run, and assume it would be bad, then you must assume that your opponent is faster or has better endurance.

So you'd rather stay and fight them instead ? Very logical. In this situation, you could be possibly running for your life, while in comparison they're running for a few lousy dollars - too much effort & work on their behalf.

So a guy in an open field at 50 feet starts hooting an assault rife at you and you walk?

That doesn't dignify a response.

[Bon]

I found and find your arrogance annoying.

 

See below, I think your statement is a fair indication of you and your arrogance:

 

"This does not appear true at all. Your ego appears highly tied into other's opinions of you."

 

Also, 'Me thinks thou doth protest too much!' is a very cynical response which made no point, it was just a personal attack on Jade_Lotus.

My point is that you are unfairly attacking someone with a perfectly good idea because it's not 100% universal, while having the hypocracy to counter with other ideas that are also not 100% universal. I should not take you for an idiot and assume you will walk form a rifle at 50'? Then don't take superleeds for an idiot and assume he will run when someone is holding his child.

 

You mean hypocrite ? Yes, that's exactly what you are. I assume you know what that means, despite the fact you've contradicted yourself ? I'll give you an example, just in case you don't. If I was to say you're a bad speller, making it a personal attack by telling you to go back to grade 2, that would make me a hypocrite because I criticised one of your statements which had no point - it was just a personal attack. To suggest there is more than one solution for every situation and criticise someone for stating their solution is a contradiction on your behalf.

I find it hard to believe that you were confronted by a mugger in a busy street so crowded that you could not have kept a safe distance from others.

Do you even know what the outcome of the situation was ? How do you know the guy who attacked him didn't come off second best ? I would assume someone who's attacked off guard would come off second best.

[JerryLove]

If you want self defense, I think you need to able to strike and grapple. If you have the time and money, consider taking two arts, an art that deals with striking and an art that deals with takedowns & groundwork.

Or one art that does both.

I think running at an attacker is foolish.

I think that's a generallity, and I can offer a dozen examples where it would be preferred. The one actually in the post where I said that (someone attacking your child) would be an obvious one. I'm not going to take my time closing distance... I'm going to run.

Why then would you suggest running as the be-all and end-all and have a hissy fit when he suggests other options ?

Apparently you have not read this thread. I did not suggest it initially, superleeds did. Nor did he claim it was the "end all and be all". Please take the time to read the post before criticizing it.

So you'd rather stay and fight them instead ? Very logical. In this situation, you could be possibly running for your life, while in comparison they're running for a few lousy dollars - too much effort & work on their behalf.

Again, you seem to be addressing someone else's statement as if I said it. It was Jade_Lotus who said that running would be bad.

That doesn't dignify a response.

And yet you posted one...

Also, 'Me thinks thou doth protest too much!' is a very cynical response which made no point, it was just a personal attack on Jade_Lotus.

Considering the post I was responding to was simply an ad-hominim attack on me, it seems quite appropriate.

You mean hypocrite ? Yes, that's exactly what you are.

Kind of like where you make a personal attack on me for making a personal attack on Jade? Would that be a hypocrite?

To suggest there is more than one solution for every situation and criticise someone for stating their solution is a contradiction on your behalf.

However that is not what I did. I criticized him for *attacking* superleeds' statement as incompitent because it's not 100%, and then putting up a counter of his own which is also not 100%. That was the hypocritical act... and being personally insulting to superleeds is why he got a retort from me.

Do you even know what the outcome of the situation was ? How do you know the guy who attacked him didn't come off second best ? I would assume someone who's attacked off guard would come off second best.

I don't and it's not important to my comment. He claimed that he was in a street so crowded that he could not possibly keep a safe distance from people around him. And that in this crowd, there was an aggressor (with a knife IIRC) on him faster than he could react. Apparently, this "shoulder-to-shoulder" crowd had no particular response and just kept walking along ignoring the knife-wielding mugger in their midst.

 

That said, either this is the most blase' crowd I have ever heard of, or his scenerio is fishy. Either way, I agree with superleeds' suggestion that running is generally an excellent first recource in a violent confrontation.

[Martial_Artist]

JerryLove,

 

Are you for real?

 

Run at an opponent? Every single person that has ever ran at me in a fight, to hurt me or otherwise gain advantage in that fight has never succeeded in that attempt. I have had guys charge me quickly, thinking that running was the best way to close the distance, and eat a fist or a foot and end the fight instantly.

 

Running, as it is being discussed, would only be a viable solution for such outlandish circumstances as you offered (i.e. rifle at 50 feet.)

 

If you were to run at your opponent, the only thing you could actually do worthy of anything effective in combat would be to tackle the guy, or attempt some half-a$$ aerial kick. Which, unless the person being charged at, is blind, will see coming and either avoid or counter you.

 

You know forget anything personal your, or anyone else's posts have brought, let's get technical and talk fight effeciency. Let's not give a hoot who the post comes from, but look at what is being stated.

 

With nothing personal against the person who offered running as a solution, running is not a really good idea. It works, sure; but only in certain circumstances. If we are seeking the best things, the most effecient, not to mention efficacious, then we would have to rule out running for the simple fact that its use only becomes viable under very limited circumstances. (i.e. rifle at 50 feet.) While, at the same time, a vast array of confrontational options are more readily available and better suited to the advantage of the defender. (i.e. your advantage)

 

I know the situation Jade_Lotus is referring to, he has told it to me before. I don't know how you can really make a judgement without knowing what the situation was. The attack happened behind a dark theater. There were no people. The man appeared from a hidden place (i.e. he was lying in wait--ambush) The girl Jade_Lotus was with freaked out and drew Jade's attention away momentarily. No fault to Jade. When a woman freaks out (or even a man) it can disrupt anyone. He turned for a moment to see what was happening to her. (He didn't know if someone else was lying in wait for her and was attacking her, he turned to see; to find out) When he turned back around, the attacker was directly in his face. Jade reacted quickly and floored the attacker. If he were to attempt to turn around and run, he would have had a knife in his back. He neutralized the attacker as best he could and left the scene. The situation, under the circumstances was handled well. The deciding factor: did he survive? was anyone injured? No. He successfully defended himself.

 

About that shoulder-to-shoulder example: that was merely an example. He didn't refer to it as a personal experience. I think he was using that merely to reinforce a point.

 

Back to running, I would only run if there was nothing else I could do to take charge of the situation. Running does too many adverse things to your position as a defender. It can help, when things allow it to, but most of the time, unless it's a school fight, a dumb push-shove macho fight, or a fight instigated between people who know each other in some way, running doesn't. When you are attacked without warning your first option is going to be defend. You can run later, but if the attacker has a knife, or other weapon, turning your back and running could cost your life.

 

I suggest you test this. Gather four to five of your friends and stand all together in a room. At random have one of your five friends attack you. From behind, from the front, from the side, from anywhere. Just have one of them attack you randomly. Let them decide. Tell me if you can run away before his first attack is unleashed, before you have time to register that you're being attacked and who is doing the attacking.

 

This test is a bit inaccurate, because you'll be expecting the attack from one of them, but it adequatele demonstrates my point: running is an option, but only very rarely.

 

Try the test. Get together and walk around each other and then have one of them, or all of them, randomly attack you.

[JerryLove]

Are you for real?

*prods self to determine emperical existance* it would seem so.

Run at an opponent? Every single person that has ever ran at me in a fight, to hurt me or otherwise gain advantage in that fight has never succeeded in that attempt. I have had guys charge me quickly, thinking that running was the best way to close the distance, and eat a fist or a foot and end the fight instantly.

Anticdotal. Have you ever had both hands wrapped around a child you were tryig to abduct when the father ran up behind you to get close then engaged? If so, I'd love to hear about it. If not, then the situation I presented that (tounge-in-cheek) retort on would make it an appopriate action.

 

That said, I do agree that a "sprint" as a closing method is only good until you hot about 10 ft. Then, unless you are persuing a fleeing opponent, you'd probibly better slow down.

Running, as it is being discussed, would only be a viable solution for such outlandish circumstances as you offered (i.e. rifle at 50 feet.)

I disagree. There are plenty of instances of (for example) women outrunning woud-be rapists. Or even the simple attempt being sufficiently discouraging.

 

I see on TV all the time, footbll players with mass attackers attemping to force a fight to the ground (always bad for the lone person) by "tackling" running to get to the safet f the goal line. It seems that running away gets results.

You know forget anything personal your, or anyone else's posts have brought, let's get technical and talk fight effeciency. Let's not give a hoot who the post comes from, but look at what is being stated.

Sounds like a good idea. I agree with you that (under most circumstances) running into an opponent's range is a bad thing. I think that running away from an oponent can be an excellent idea under many circumstances.

With nothing personal against the person who offered running as a solution, running is not a really good idea. It works, sure; but only in certain circumstances. If we are seeking the best things, the most effecient, not to mention efficacious, then we would have to rule out running for the simple fact that its use only becomes viable under very limited circumstances.

Regarding running away, I disagree. I think the statistics on the success of fleeing by untrained people bear out my statement (anyone got numbers handy to intorduce here?).

I know the situation Jade_Lotus is referring to, he has told it to me before. I don't know how you can really make a judgement without knowing what the situation was. The attack happened behind a dark theater. There were no people.

If that is the situation, then the statement "people are walking next to you, typicall busy sidewalk" as an implied depiction of his experience was a lie.

Jade reacted quickly and floored the attacker. If he were to attempt to turn around and run, he would have had a knife in his back.

It is surpisingly hard to hit or stab a fleeing person. That said, I don't think he shoud have run in that situation as he had someone else to worry about.

He neutralized the attacker as best he could and left the scene. The situation, under the circumstances was handled well.

I disagree. He left an armed assalient with presumably homiciadal tendancies to walk the street without even cursoary attempt to get him behind bars; this despite the proximity of a movie theatre with phones and people, and a second party to go there while he sat on the assailent.

When you are attacked without warning your first option is going to be defend. You can run later, but if the attacker has a knife, or other weapon, turning your back and running could cost your life.

It all depends on everything. There are millions of circumstances which could be addressed case-by-case. I don't think that the general statement you have offered up removes running as a generally good action; but I think you are presuming more than you are indicating.

I suggest you test this. Gather four to five of your friends and stand all together in a room. At random have one of your five friends attack you. From behind, from the front, from the side, from anywhere. Just have one of them attack you randomly. Let them decide. Tell me if you can run away before his first attack is unleashed, before you have time to register that you're being attacked and who is doing the attacking.

We actuallg have one where 3-6 people surround you. They all attack at will and you try to line them up or get out the door. Try that without running.

 

Then there is the issue of martial awareness. I am remided of the kikboxing instructor that was attacked by the gang of drunk Peurto Rican youths in the park. A woman rollerblading into a group of drunk teenagers was a poor martial decision. While she carries no legal responsability, she "should have known better" and should not have gotten in that situation to begin with. It was a complete failure of her training.

 

One goal of self-defense training is to eliminate, as best as possible, having someone in range with a knife before you realize an attack is coming. It may not always work out (nothing is 100%) but that should be one of the first things you focus on, your first line of defense.

[Martial_Artist]

Hehe,

 

This is amuzing.

 

The anecdote...get enough use out of your thesaurus?...about the child abduction is quite irrelevant. For one, I would never attempt to abduct a child. So I couldn't theoretically fully place myself in such a situation. Second, if a child is being abducted, as per the example given, then the assailant is attempting to take the child from the arms of the parents. Where would running come into play? Unless the attacker had already succeeded in kidnaping the child, why would you run? Also, running to catch an assailant, or would-be kidnapper is a completely different application of running than the application under discussion.

 

I believe we are speaking about running when you personally are attacked. And that this running is the best first option in pretty much every situation. It being the general consensus thereof that running is being discussed under a defense option, not necessarily a rescue/hinder attempted kidnapping option. Under that light, the kidnapping situation, running doesn't become a technique, i.e. something that is used, it becomes a vehicle, a means of transportation to a situation in which techniques are to be utilized.

 

Back to running as a defense option under an attack situation, no longer referring to the child-abduction scenario. (Running in that scenario depends on the circumstances governing that scenario. For example, if your child has already been taken from your arms, then it must be determined that running be used to apprehend the assailant. Now, if the assailant is in the act of, then where would running be placed? He is already upon you, attempting to take your child, running to him would accomplish what? You could run away from the assailant, but for how long, or at what risk? Again, these uses of running are not the topic being discussed and can wholly be opened as their own seperate discussion.)

 

Running as a defense option is not the most effecient. I.e. bringing about the most desired result. We can run, when the opportunity presents itself. But, as history has taught us, most street confrontations do not present us with that option.

 

For example, a school fight would offer the opportunity to run. A push-shove macho fight would offer the opportunity to run. A fight between people who know each other and are not out to necessarily kill each other would offer the opportunity to run.

 

An assailant abruptly and violently attacking you would not offer the opportunity to run as a first option. An assailant attacking you with the element of surprise does not offer the opportunity to run first. Violent, sudden attacks are the types of attacks where running is not the best first option. It is best to first procure safety then retreat to a safer distance.

 

for example: a man leaps from the shadows, from behind a car, from behind a door, nonchalantly walks past you only to turn when you pass past line of sight, attacks you with a violent rush. Do you

 

a) take the hit then run. (The hit could be a knife, a stick, an iron rod, his bare fist. AND the attack came unexpected so the hit is unavoidable if the option is to run)

 

b) deflect the attack, incapacitate the attacker, and retreat to safety.

 

c) do nothing and get hit.

 

d) defend and incapacitate the attacker. Call for the authorities.

 

There are other options I could list, but these meager few suffice.

 

The point I am trying to make is that running works sometimes, but not most of the time as a FIRST option. It is an excellent complementary option. However, as for it being the FIRST thing to do I would not recommend it.

 

As for football, the object is not to kill the other team, and therefore comparing it to fighting is quite useless. Breaking a neck, gouging an eye, arm, or other bone are not the rules for football. Also, for football, the object of the game is to run. Again, most street attackers are not wearing complete football uniforms, including the protective gear.

 

About forcing the fight to the ground, I don't believe in letting the fight go to the ground. Nothing I have ever said bore any relevance to "going to the ground."

 

For rape victims, or near-victims. Most of them run AFTER warding off their attacker. Therefore, running was not the FIRST thing they did.

 

As for statistics, running reveals its head as what near-victims did AFTER warding their attacker off, or distracting their attention. Therefore, again, it was the SECOND thing they did, and obviously not the FIRST best option.

 

As for Jade's posts, you haven't read them. In one post he briefly describes his experience. He makes no reference to crowded, "shoulder-to-shoulder" proximity. In the next post he further decides to elaborate on what defines an "unexpected attack" and then proceeds to generally describe, in lay-mans terms, what is an unexpected attack. If you had read his posts, you would see that he is quite clear in those distinctions.

 

For someone who trys to come across as well-educated, you seem to have blatantly revealed a shortcoming in reading comprehension.

 

Jade Lotus didn't lie. You just didn't read his posts well.

 

Calling someone a liar is a very strong insult to many people. Especially when it is more than obvious your understanding of the supposed lie comes from not fully comprehending what was written. You would be wiser in choosing your judgements.

 

In finality, the point being made was not that running is forever and utterly useless. It was, and is, that running as FIRST option is not the best thing to do. As a SECONDARY option running is the quite possibly, aside from staying and contacting local authorities, the best thing to do.

 

About Jade letting some crazed maniac back on the loose, I'm sure he was more preoccupied about the safety of his lady-friend and getting her away quickly.

 

Your 3-6 people surrounding you they attack at will, you have to try and fight them one-by-one, or run for the door, teaches something that rarely happens on the street. 3-6 people encircling you. I suppose that these 3-6 people have already given indication that they desire to fight. And that you know they are going to try and attack you. That defeats the purpose of training for an "unexpected" attack.

 

My example was to test for an "unexpected attack". The 3-5 people are not circling you, but randomly walking around you, as if on the street. Then, randomly, one of them attacks you. You do not know aforehand which of them will(not like your example where you are expecting them all to) and therefore must react to the sudden and "unexpected"attack. Try to run when the first decision has already been made for you and you will be put at the disadvantage.

 

In your example, you know aforehand that they will attack. They are pre-positioned for attack. The first decision has not been made, but the field set. You and your attackers are sitting on the same square. You could act first and run and it could work. That is not training for a sudden and "UNEXPECTED" attack, is it?

 

BTW, I have trained where more than 6 people have surrounded me and attacked. Only after removing several of them was an opportunity to run made available. Unlike the movies, people don't attack one at a time providing an avenue of escape where the others aren't attacking. When ALL of them attack simultaneously there in no avenue of escape, unless you make one, and you won't make one by simply running into them.

 

Even more potent an example, I have been attacked by five people on the street. People I didn't know, people who didn't look like a threat. People who minding their own business until I walked by and they decided they didn't like the way I looked. Being surrounded it was a bit impossible to simply run away, as I was encircled and running away would have meant running through them, which would have put me in a situation I would not want to be in. Instead, the best thing I could have done, was what I did, and that was fighting them off and then leaving.

 

Martial awareness, a nice catch word used by dojos and instructors of self-defense classes to feed their students "pertinent" information, and build self-confidence. Martial awareness is the same as simple environment awareness, or more aptly common sense. There is no trick to it. As humanity and history teach us it is the minority that possess and use common sense, not the majority. Being aware of your surroundings helps in eliminatins those obvious situations where danger could exist.

 

But martial awareness, or common sense, does little to foresee the planned ambush or sudden, instant attack, without provacation or indication. Being aware of one's surroundings is paramount.

 

I'm not saying anything against being aware; what I am saying is that even being aware doesn't prevent 100% of attacks. And it is those attacks to which running is not the best FIRST option.

 

I'm not arguing with you. I am merely clarifying some misunderstandings I see occuring concerning Jade_Lotus' posts. As I would do for anybody's posts. Just view my posting history.

 

Our entire discussion boils down a simple clarification: Where running is to be used. Under what circumstances. In a situation where the attack is anticipated, running could be the best first option. Where the attack is sudden and unexpected, running would not be the best first option.

 

The argument lies in clarfying where running is to be used, and not about running itself. Just the application of running.

[amp]

I might be biased is saying this, but I think Hapkido is probably one of the most practical and effective martial arts around in itself. It incorporates punches, kicks, pressure points, locks, throws, jabs, wrist grabs, rolls, breakfalls, weapon techniques, etc. It's very comprehensive and well-rounded. If you train hard enough, you'll be able to stretch however much you need to.

 

That's just my .02 cents.