G95champ Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Depends on who they were looking at. Kung Fu - Bruce Lee Karate - Chuck Norris etc... Fighter makes the art the art don't make the fighter. No some styes are simply more effective than others, Percentage wise certain Stlyes dominate standup fighting...Muay Thai, Kyokoshin, San da etc...does that mean someone who trains in another stlye cant win? No the fighter determines alot but generally something like MT has dominate success. I tend to disagree. The type of event you are in is more important than the style. EX Ali could whip anyone in a boxing ring but would not do to well in the UFC. On the other hand R. Gracie won all sorts of UFC but would get killed in a boxing ring. Certin arts do better in certin events but that does not mean one art is more effective than another. Just my 2 cents. (General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory."
Karateka_latino Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Its just my humble opinion that Brazilian Jiu jitsu, Krav Maga and Kali should be on a higher position in that Rank. At least, they ARE in MY Rank.
TJS Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Depends on who they were looking at. Kung Fu - Bruce Lee Karate - Chuck Norris etc... Fighter makes the art the art don't make the fighter. No some styes are simply more effective than others, Percentage wise certain Stlyes dominate standup fighting...Muay Thai, Kyokoshin, San da etc...does that mean someone who trains in another stlye cant win? No the fighter determines alot but generally something like MT has dominate success. I tend to disagree. The type of event you are in is more important than the style. EX Ali could whip anyone in a boxing ring but would not do to well in the UFC. On the other hand R. Gracie won all sorts of UFC but would get killed in a boxing ring. Certin arts do better in certin events but that does not mean one art is more effective than another. Just my 2 cents. OK take a boxer and BJJ guys..put them under boxing rules and the boxer will win..put them under BJJ grappling rules and the BJJ guy will win so what you do is put them in a NHB match....to see who will win.. certain arts do well when facing the same stlye...Although boxers, wrestlers, BJJ, MT have all been able to change into effective fighters in NHB fighting some stlyes have not. people dont like to admit some stlyes are simply more effective... EX: you take 100 tope notch MT fighter and put them up against 100 TKD fighter i would say 98% of the time a MT guy would win....In the end a stlye can only give ou the tools and it's up to the person..some stlyes just simply do a better job of it.
SBN Doug Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 OK take a boxer and BJJ guys..put them under boxing rules and the boxer will win..put them under BJJ grappling rules and the BJJ guy will win so what you do is put them in a NHB match....to see who will win.. certain arts do well when facing the same stlye...Although boxers, wrestlers, BJJ, MT have all been able to change into effective fighters in NHB fighting some stlyes have not. people dont like to admit some stlyes are simply more effective... EX: you take 100 tope notch MT fighter and put them up against 100 TKD fighter i would say 98% of the time a MT guy would win....In the end a stlye can only give ou the tools and it's up to the person..some stlyes just simply do a better job of it. Actually, that doesn't even quite make a good comparison. You suggest a NHB match, but where? In the "Octagon"? Those guys are walking in with nothing but a pair of speedos on sometimes. I don't see that kind of ensemble out on the streets of N.E. in the middle of winter. Therefore you've taken away my ability to grab him by the cloths, pull off my belt as a weapon, get kicked by a pair of steel toed boots, etc. Personally, I train for defense on the street, not for competition. Therefore, even the so called NHB matches have too many holds barred to accurately measure one art's effectiveness against another. That's not to say they are not great fighters, just that a NHB match is not really a NHB match. Kuk Sool Won - 4th danEvil triumphs when good men do nothing.
JerryLove Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 (edited) I agree with TJS, some systems (and schools within systems) are more effective than others. Of course "effective" will always be subjectively tied to situation. Geometry is more useful at pool than boxing, and weightlifting more usful at boxing than pool. Similarly, BJJ will not serve you well in a WTF competition, not TJD at a wrestling match. "Fighting" is a situation. It's a dynamic and varied situation, but it is one where some arts and schools are better suited than others. While I would not presume to go into the dangerous waters of trying to oder which arts, to say "they are all the same" is foolish. Edited February 12, 2003 by JerryLove https://www.clearsilat.com
monkeygirl Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Hrm...this is starting to turn into an "art vs. art" thread. Try to keep the discussion civil 1st dan & Asst. Instructor TKD 2000-2003No matter the tune...if you can rock it, rock it hard.
hobbitbob Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 My two cents worth: I thought that the Krav Maga was mostly just good Karate-do technique. AS Far as Ninjutsu, Hatsumi is the real thing, and the comment made by the Englishman "The flashy stuff isn't what works, it's what you don't see.." was one of the best statements during the entire hour. I thought the kids during the Goju-Ryu segment were cute, especially the little guy swinging the nunchaku as big as he was! As far as the Shaolin Kung Fu, was it Kung Fu, or Wushu? There have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm!
Pacificshore Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Well, since there have been many documentaries on the martial arts and their roots traced back to China, I say they should have one that focuses on the one that was developed in the US. That would be KENPO/KEMPO as it was developed in Hawaii. Sure it's roots came from China, but talk about the pioneers in Hawaii. James Mitose, William Chow, the 5 founders of Kajukenbo, etc. That's my 2 cents on the subject. Di'DaDeeeee!!!Mind of Mencia
JerryLove Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Monkeygirl, I don't see where the discussion is uncivil. Hobitbob, I cannot agree regarding the ninjitsu displayed. What was tehe to not see about two armed attackers standing and patiently waiting for the "ninja" to get around to responding? Further, to take Ninjitsu as displayed, as an exercise in history is interesting. To take use of sand at teh bottom of a sword hilt as defence is not. May I recommend to them they try an investment in quick-draw holsters, pepper-spray (works far better than sand) and defense examples against something other than Ronin. Finally, all Wushu is Kung-Fu (though not all Kung-fu is Wushu); so I do not see what distinction you are making. https://www.clearsilat.com
hobbitbob Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 My Kung-fu or Wushu question relates tot eh martial art of Kung fu, as opposed to the post revolution acrobatics called Wushu. Was the segment with the "monk" the former or the latter? To my knowledge, the Shaolin temple is no longer a "temple," but a gymnasium for training wushu (acrobatics.). There have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm!
Recommended Posts