Icetuete Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 I dont get why some martial arts are considered to be better for self defence than others. ok - to a certain extense it might be better to know a good grappling technique or to hit specific point in ur opponents body to make it more painful. but if u know how to kick or to punch well, no matter whether u r a taekwondoin, karateka or whatever u have an advantage over most either half-drunk or no brain just brawn brute force guys. sure - ur opponent might be a martial artist as well and perhaps better than u r. but dont martial arts teach to not use what u've learned to begin a street fight? these fights are more often causes by the not so well teached people. ur answers and opinions are appreciated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryLove Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Some martial arts are considered better for self defence because they are more effective. https://www.clearsilat.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icetuete Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 inhowfar? more effectiv in beating the hell out of the guy trying ro rape/rob/piss you of or whatever? that would be what i was talking about. this does not make a good self defence MA. except in case u run more save with'em. that would make a real difference. nevertheless, any martial artist, no matter what style, has a big advantage in such fight i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirves Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 (edited) Face the fact: some techniques, methods, tactics and strategies are better than others. Big deal. Not all arts are alike, some have developed more efficient methods than others. It is like military armies. Some countries have better trained and better equipped armies than others. No big deal. And some armies are better on land and others on sea. Not to mention the ones who rule the sky. Same with martial arts, some are best on the ground, some best when you're standing. Some are best when in the ring. Some when armed. And so on. One art gives you the tools to kill ASAP. Another art gives you the tools to control an agressive person without harming him. And so on. The problem is: everyone seems to be looking for the best. Best at what? There are thousands of styles and arts. Their effectiveness ranges from poor to great. And that depends on what you are using them for. Problem is, nobody can give you an objective view. The best you can do is research and trial. Or if you don't care if it's "the best you can find" then pick one you are comfortable with and don't listen to what other people say. And yes. Just about any fighting training helps you when a drunk is trying to shoot his haymaker into your mouth. But most of the people who say "karate is no good" or "tae kwon do is no good" or "judo is no good" are the people who claim that you must also be able to defend against a sober MMA expert. Everyone suit yourself, if you are afraid that you are attacked by a sober MMA expert then train for that goal. If you are afraid that you are attacked by a drunk bastard, then train for that. You can't train for all possible scenarios, no matter what you train, five sober robbers with firearms will make all your empty hand skills moot. Do what you like and that way you'll stick to it. That's what counts. Edited June 10, 2003 by Kirves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karate_woman Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 inhowfar? more effectiv in beating the hell out of the guy trying ro rape/rob/* you of or whatever? that would be what i was talking about. this does not make a good self defence MA. except in case u run more save with'em. that would make a real difference. nevertheless, any martial artist, no matter what style, has a big advantage in such fight i think. I guess it depends on your definition of a martial artist in that case. For example, I feel T'ai Chi is a martial art. I've taken some yang style T'ai Chi and was shown the meaning behind the moves (at least the first level stuff). However, I've met Taoist T'ai Chi people who swore up and down that T'ai Chi is NOT a martial art. They did the moves (that had rather obvious MA application to the trained eye) but NEVER learned the MA applications. Are they martial artists because they take T'ai Chi - a recognized martial art ? If so, are they able to defend themselves? That is a rather extreme, though true, example to prove my point, but the fact is some martial arts clubs DON'T teach self defense. I think whether a martial artist (of any style) can defend themselves depends on the club, the practitioner's skill and attitude, and the skill level and attitude of the attacker. Just because a person hasn't had martial arts training doesn't mean they are untrained or unexperienced; they could have fought numerous times in the past - you just don't know. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. -Lao-Tse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G95champ Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Disagree The one thing they have over you is the lack of pain and emotion. Its hard to hurt a drunk or dope head. At the same time they don't care where you are and who else may get hurt because of their actions. Being a MAist of any kind we are expected to use certing amounts of control and only do as much harm as needed. So in some reguards our hands are tied. Trust me the courts will not support you if you use to much force on a drunk. (General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sens55 Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 My take is that while all martial arts are supposedly "martial" some are more direct than others. Some have many other elements thrown in, while some are strictly "combat" oriented. Some can have sport, spiritual or some other focus as well. Also, many of the arts have the lethality of their techniques "hidden", only to be unlocked after many years of study. As an example, Tai Chi is ostensibly a martial art. However, it would take years (maybe decades) to learn the art to a point of being efficient in defense if attacked. However, when I was in the Army, we were taught certain forms of hand-to-hand training. We didn't have the luxory of years of training to become proficient. We had a few weeks of intensive training followed by semi-regular intensive training during my career. We were not training to become "experts", we were learning a handful of very fundamental, direct and lethal techniques that we could use without hesitation, since hesitation is the kiss of death. That is not to say that those that focus solely on "combat" are "better". They just get to that point quicker. However, many of the other arts, once they get there may actually provide the artist with more answers to any given situation, thereby increasing chances of success. Of course, not everyone (including many instructors) are interested in the self-defense aspect. Again, with profienciency what they teach may be "crossed over", but it takes longer to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirves Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Disagree Great. But who are you disagreeing with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirves Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 As an example, Tai Chi is ostensibly a martial art. However, it would take years (maybe decades) to learn the art to a point of being efficient in defense if attacked. Depends. Where are you studying Taichi and how? If you study it full contact, it won't take that long. If you are studying it doing solo form on the backyard lawn every sunrise, it may take a decade or two. I agree with the rest of your post though. Just like you said, some arts teach more effective tactics, some not. Some teach stuff that take more time to perfect than some. One has to make the judgement for his/her own needs when beginning training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icetuete Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 Kirves hit my point rather well in his first post. nonetheless: i think even a TKDin that trains for tournaments has certain advantages in such a situation, though, very often bashed in this forum. maybe a self-defence-only wing chun student/blackbelt or whatever is far better suited for this kind of fight, but knowing how to kick well (like our tournament TKD fighter) can not be wrong, e.g. in comparison to the "average" person that gets into trouble with a robber/raper/drunk. dont u agree? u of course dont know who ur opponent is, but i assume that no blackbelt would use his skills to start such a fight. though, under certain circumstances, once every 1000years, when sun and moon are in the same line it might happen to be, that u come in this situation, that a black belt (either drunk or not) thinks it is a good idea to start a fight with u, i would not train a martial art that prepares me for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts