Thread: Tell me about your martial art

All techniques are applicable. The human body has the same weaknesses as it did 'traditionally'.

I study traditional TKD, that does not mean I will necessarily lose or win against someone studying JKD (a more 'modern' style).
You cannot compare martial arts, but you can compare fighters.

Originally Posted by ClouD

All techniques are applicable. The human body has the same weaknesses as it did 'traditionally'.

I study traditional TKD, that does not mean I will necessarily lose or win against someone studying JKD (a more 'modern' style).
You cannot compare martial arts, but you can compare fighters.

Sure all techniques are applicable. But some are just a lot better than others. You would have to agree on that right? The human body has the same weaknesses as it did traditionally, and with the evolution of martial arts we are now better at identifying and exposing those weaknesses.

One way that martial arts have been compared is by practitioners of each style opposing each other in practical situations. Usually the more effective style wins. And if for example, the worlds top 20 martial artists utilise and train in particular styles, it can be deduced that the techniques contained in those styles would tend to be more effective than others.

If for example, Tae Kwon Do kicking techniques were more effective than Muay Thai kicking techniques, then martial artists would also train in TKD to learn those techniques so they can gain an edge over there opponent. However, there are no fighters in standup fighting leagues or tournaments who have successfully used TKD techniques to dominate an opponent. This would indicate that TKD techniques are not as effective as other striking styles.

I think all martial arts can be used effectively. Some are more for defense, in which case you are training/practicing to handle an untrained attacker. Others are designed to take on well trained fighters, and so the techniques are different. Obviously certain martial arts will be better against trained fighters than others.

Interestingly, in the UFC is known for it's "cookie-cutter" styles. Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, BJJ. Finally someone with a different background is fighting, his style is Karate, Sumo, and BJJ. Makes for a pretty boring fight sometimes, but he's never lost. I would eventually like to see some other styles get mixed in...Like Kungfu, or even Tai Chi.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Interestingly, in the UFC is known for it's "cookie-cutter" styles. Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, BJJ. Finally someone with a different background is fighting, his style is Karate, Sumo, and BJJ. Makes for a pretty boring fight sometimes, but he's never lost. I would eventually like to see some other styles get mixed in...Like Kungfu, or even Tai Chi.

That is great the evolution of martial arts. In the beginning of the UFC, all styles were used. However, BJJ was seen as the most effective style because it dominated all other opponents, so martial artists began training in BJJ. It was found BJJ could then be nullified by fighters with good wrestling as they could prevent the fight going to the ground. So the sport evolved further and fighters began training in wrestling. It was realised that boxing muay thai were the most effective stand up styles so they became prominent.

It became apparent that to be effective many of these styles and techniques had to be trained in to be a well rounded martial artist. For example you can't utilise stand up striking such as kickboxing effectively without good wrestling. And you can't utilise wrestling on the ground without BJJ knowledge, and BJJ can't be utilised without wrestling to take the fighter down.

As you said, martial arts has evolved further now with Lyoto Machida. As all good fighters now do, Machida trains in kickboxing, wrestling, boxing, and BJJ/submission grappling extensively. But he also trains in karate.

Utilising his wrestling and BJJ he could keep the fight standing, and his unique karate stance allowed him to evade punches more effectively and spring forward in attack. Because this karate technique was seen as effective, it's now also being adopted by other fighters such as Vitor Belfort who combines it with his many other techniques.

We saw further evolution last Saturday night when Mauricio Rua, for the first time showed how Machida's karate stance could be beaten. Shogun exposed it's weaknesses through his viscious thai style leg and body kicks and kept his boxing to a minimum.

This is how practical martial arts work and evolve.

Kungfu would be used in the UFC right now if it's practitioners showed it to be effective. It actually was used in the early UFC's by Kungfu specialists but these martial artists rarely ever won a fight, so the other more dominant styles were utilised instead.

Here is an interesting video with a very good breakdown of a top Kungfu stylist fighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6Pv...eature=related

Originally Posted by Meepo

They are "traditional" because they didn't work in practical situations so they got dropped from modern martial arts. It's just the natural evolution of martial arts.

For me the world traditional brings mind mainly training methods, not the actual techniques. All the modern techniques are found in some form in traditional styles too. Of course new techniques have been researched, but the basic principle and form is found in old styles too. There is difference in training though, with both good and bad. The traditional styles suffer if they refuse to modernize their training methods. Also, modern style should, and most have, learn from traditional styles and stole training methods from them. Just because it is old, doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Just because it is modern doesn't mean it works either. Take Taido for example. They advertise as modern fighting style, but that has to be the most ridicilous invention ever and abomination in martial arts. It is not even fighting.

Originally Posted by Meepo

The traditional techniques that do work are usually referred to as modern and are incorporated by martial artists who earn their living from fighting and want to be the best.

That is just perspective that has been twisted. Truthfully speaking, there are really nothing more than techniques. All that human body can do is a technique. Yet, I could say that hardening your bones can be considered traditional plus most of the weapon techniques. Also, there is another twisted view here : nobody works legally as street fighter.. Sure, the ring is good for testing techniques. I know, I basically live there. But it has nothing to do with real, self-defence fight. Most of the self-defence techniques are fueled by surprise which is hard to found in the ring when both are very alert.

If one does only MMA and ring, he cannot understand that concept. I fight in ring, but the aim of my training is to achieve a state where I am able to fight succesfully in any situation. In other words, self-defence. That is why I am heavily influenced by realistic fighting systems i.e krav maga, defendo, many of the police and military systems.

Originally Posted by Meepo

If you really want to see how effective your martial arts are, have a fight against another legitimate trained fighter, as many have done. The early UFC's which had no rules (besides no eye gouging) had many style vs style fights and the stuff that didn't work got dropped.

As I said before, I do. If you want to really test what you have done, work in a security business and face such situations almost daily. Or go fight in the streets. As a side note, in a legal use of force, you just cannot always knock people cold or shatter their legs with low kicks. You have to utilize other methods to subdue them. They work as well. I have succeeded using some of them in the ring too, mainly because they don't train such things.

Originally Posted by Meepo

If you want a great martial arts video watch the documentary called Gracies in Action. It contains footage, some of which is decades old, of no rules fighting with many different martial artists of different styles fighting each other.

Yes, I am familiar with all Gracie videos. BJJ has my respect, since it revolutionarized the importance of ground combat in global martial art scene and basically gave birth to modern MMA. Still, I study other methods for ground than pure BJJ. There is a reason for it. It is not enough for good, realistic ground fighting. You don't want to stay in there, you want to get hell out of there, before you got knife in your stomach or concussion from the kick of his buddy. Also, BJJ is sport. It is a fun sport, don't get me wrong. Challenging and good, but it is not realistic. You cannot wrestle like that if you can do anything i.e punch and kick or bite.


In the end I can only say that yet again it is not style versus style. It is a combatant, a human, against another. If you think UFC or basic NHB ring, you have to know how to box, you have to know how to grapple and do ground. After you know those you can freely use any style as long as you keep in mind how most of the trainers train. I have used sidekicks and snap front kicks many times in ring. People are not used to them, since they are not utilized in the ring. Still, they are the best straight kicks there are. It doesn't have to be always the roundhouse kick. I have also used haito and shuto in the ring, succesfully. For those who do not know, they are "traditional" karate strikes, which are delivered with the edge of hand in a circular strike fashion.

It's all about how you train people.

I would like to train well enough to show that TKD can be a very effective art in the MMA scene, it is one of my goals and I think it is starting to work nicely. watching the lyoto-shogun fight, I found my self yelling at lyoto to just use a front leg front kick on shogun's ribs. they were so open for it, and they hurt like a bitch, believe me. Contributing to the evolution of martial arts is, in my opinion, the greatest service a martial artist can provide.

Originally Posted by Meepo

Kungfu would be used in the UFC right now if it's practitioners showed it to be effective. It actually was used in the early UFC's by Kungfu specialists but these martial artists rarely ever won a fight, so the other more dominant styles were utilised instead.

Here is an interesting video with a very good breakdown of a top Kungfu stylist fighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6Pv...eature=related

Yes but like you said with Machida, things are coming back around. If someone primarily trained Kungfu along with every other important discipline in MMA he could offer something very different for the MMA scene.

Cung Le is a San shou practitioner as well as TKD. San shou is a type of kungfu as far as I know (I may be wrong). He did pretty well, going 8-0 finishing his career with a win over Frank Shamrock, not an amazing fighter, but he has a very distinguished career.

Parkour (freerunning) for some time.Although not a Martial(fighting) Art, it does demand as much of your body and mind, practice and patience. Actually I've done it since like 12 but never know it was a practice until it got popular a few years back. Now I don't go more that a day or two without doing it.

I don't understand why people have a hard time trusting MMA. If you take real classes, it is made for combat because it's a mix of wrestling, boxing, muy thai (spelling?), jiu-jitsu etc. Now, if somebody wants to mug your or whatever, it may not be the best form of self-defense. However, for standard fights/bullying (the reason my parents got me involved) it's an effective form of self-defense. It teaches you how to make effective punches (boxing), and take your opponent to the ground under your control.

Now, with that said, I haven't taken it for very long, and we had to cancel for a while due to the cost.
If I had to choose based on combat effectiveness, I would take Aikido, followed by Krav Maga or possibly Systema (both used in Special Forces around the world, although very, very strenuous, one of the reasons I would take Aikido first).

I have seen Aikido in action, and it's a very powerful tool. In fact, before we realized there was an MMA/ Jiu-Jitsu gym closer (the Aikido Dojo was nearly an hour away) I was going to be training in that.

Aikido has good techniques that can be used to self-defence, yet it is rarely trained as such. Usually aikido trainers aim to achieve more abstract goals like tranquility or seek spiritual goals. Aikijutsu,however, is surprisingly brutal method and is well versed for all kind of combat.

About MMA scene, I don't have any crudge against it, because I am MMA fighter myself. Only problem with it is that the mindframe it gives is not suited for self-defence. Sure, the techniques and the skill level allows you to basically beat up anybody in the street, but it gives you no realistic view or training how a fight in a real world situation is build and how rapidly it can change. There is no ring there, there is not only one opponent. In the ring you might want to attempt for a takedown if your ground skills are superb. In real situation no one should ever want to go down to the ground. Just for the example.