PDA

View Full Version : Martial Arts for Roleplayers



Maerok
2010-04-04, 10:03 AM
So I've done a bit of attempted research on how each style of martial arts varies from one another, but my results have come up pretty short. I haven't followed any style but I'm sure plenty of people here would have some insight on the differences between each style.

What are the major strengths of different martial arts styles in comparison to one another?

Styles I can think of are:
Capoeira, Krav Maga, Muay Thai, Aikido, Taekwondo, Shotokan, Judo, Jeet Kune Do, Jiu Jitsu, and Karate. And then I guess there's traditional wrestling and things like kickboxing. (Equilibrium had Gun Kata which was pretty sweet.)

But there are tons more and everyone seems to have their own opinion on them. But for the folks at home, can anyone give an honest break-down of all these styles?

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-04, 10:08 AM
Read GURPS martial arts. Oh, wait, wrong system :smalltongue:.

But seriously, that book has an amazing amount of info on real martial arts styles.

kamikasei
2010-04-04, 10:20 AM
Well, if it's "for roleplayers" what do you actually want/need to know about them?

Maerok
2010-04-04, 10:39 AM
Well, why do you get several different styles of martial arts for a given country? If they were all the same, then they probably would have integrated better. Yet they've all seemed to maintain their identity and you have new one popping up in modern times. This seems to imply that there is something fundamentally different between the different styles.

So what are the strong points of different styles? Some of the old cultural ones seem a little eclectic/do-all in what they try to accomplish. But, for example, some might be better at grappling while others focus on striking, ground work, or for pure defense and escape. I'm sure that's not all it would be good for, as you'd want a well-rounded offensive/defensive system.

Having done fencing and some LARP combat, I can tell that the two are radically different in what they are trying to do. I think this is mostly a product of the established 'kill zones' in foil fencing vs. LARP that prevents me from using my fencing techniques to better effect. Whether in armed or unarmed combat, it seems like there are certain points that are stressed differently between different philosophies of combat. Kill vs. subdue, grappling range vs. striking range, and others are all things I would imagine are unique to each teaching of combat styles.

I wasn't aware that GURPS Martial Arts was any good. I'll have to check that out.

Amphetryon
2010-04-04, 10:44 AM
If you can find it, Palladium's Ninjas and Superspies has a fairly comprehensive listing of various martial arts styles. It naturally is a less than perfect representation, but approximates strengths and weaknesses of the styles it covers pretty well.

Swordgleam
2010-04-04, 12:49 PM
Wikipedia has fairly good martial arts info.

The only two on your list I've personally done are TKD and krav maga. TKD is all about high kicks and is generally considered not that great for actual combat. Krav maga is the opposite; it's completely practical and all about killing/disabling your opponent. It's one of the few martial arts that gives much consideration to taking on groups (as far as I know).

Capoeira is also known as "dance fighting" and is pretty cool. I have some friends who did it. I don't know how practical it is.

Jiu Jitsu is all about grappling. The guy who teaches me krav maga likes to end techniques with, "Then you get then on the ground and jiu jitsu them," since it's pretty hard to beat someone who's good at jiu jitsu once you're both on the ground.

There's a kind of interesting rock-paper-scissors thing with martial arts. My instructor is a "hard style" guy - you can hold a knife hilt to his throat and he'll force you across the room by leaning into it. But put him in a joint lock and there's not much he can do. Whereas the "soft style" guys are not so good at shrugging off damage, but can really screw up your joints and are flexible enough that it's pretty tough to screw up theirs.

Knaight
2010-04-04, 12:52 PM
Find GURPS martial arts, but there are also the Fudge Martial arts buried in Fudge 10th aniversary edition somewhere. I want to say 3 chapters from the back, the last chapter being a pseudo-chapter at best, but I don't remember exactly where they put Fudge Dogfighting (Planes, not canines).

On martial arts you missed, look up Savate. Nasty little thing that came from the streets of France. Its intended for use in actual fights, with some focus for being able to get away from them, and addresses both groups and weapons to some extent.

Mulletmanalive
2010-04-04, 12:56 PM
Blood and Fists by Green Ronin games is pretty passable, though i'm not aware of the accuracy on the non-chinese systems. The thing's based on d20 Modern's SRD.

Oddly, i've heard [in Japanese] Ju Justu and Judou used interchangibly.

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-04-04, 01:42 PM
Well, why do you get several different styles of martial arts for a given country? If they were all the same, then they probably would have integrated better. Yet they've all seemed to maintain their identity and you have new one popping up in modern times. This seems to imply that there is something fundamentally different between the different styles.

Why do you have Russian grips, Belgian grips, Italian, or French grips? They try to do different things: a Russian or Belgian grip gives you more force with the blade, whereas an Italian or French grip gives you greater finesse and precision (or length in the case of the French grip). In the same way, Shotokan (which is a form of Karate, to pick a nit) is a style in which the aim is to strike your opponent so as to disable their ability to fight. Aikido, on the other hand, aims to redirect the opponent to prevent their bringing harm.


So what are the strong points of different styles? Some of the old cultural ones seem a little eclectic/do-all in what they try to accomplish. But, for example, some might be better at grappling while others focus on striking, ground work, or for pure defense and escape. I'm sure that's not all it would be good for, as you'd want a well-rounded offensive/defensive system.

Some styles attempt to provide a 'well-rounded offensive/defensive system.' but that isn't always necessary for an effective martial art. Take, for example, a fencer who is very good at attacking your arm on a lunge, but who isn't a particularly good at parrying. This hypothetical individual might be very successful solely because of his ability to score points before he has to parry, so even though he's not very good on the defensive side of things, but he plays to his strengths, draws attacks, and scores points. Similarly, Shotokan karate (I'm a karateka, could you you tell?) doesn't provide much focus on groundwork, grappling, or joint locks. That said, in situations where I have been up against someone who practices those techniques, I've found that Shotokan's focus on striking is still applicable and effective. Similarly, sparring Aikidoka, it is necessary to adjust for their techniques, but it isn't necessary to shift from striking to grappling, say.


Having done fencing and some LARP combat, I can tell that the two are radically different in what they are trying to do. I think this is mostly a product of the established 'kill zones' in foil fencing vs. LARP that prevents me from using my fencing techniques to better effect. Whether in armed or unarmed combat, it seems like there are certain points that are stressed differently between different philosophies of combat. Kill vs. subdue, grappling range vs. striking range, and others are all things I would imagine are unique to each teaching of combat styles.

This is basically what I mean - in Foil, because of the limited target area, certain practices are prevalent that wouldn't work if those limits weren't in place. This is why I love fencing Foilists (I fence primarily Epee), they don't cover their legs, and I'm able to feint to their torso or arm and then strike their unprotected leg. Thus the difficulty applying Foil technique to LARP, it is too specialized.

WeeFreeMen
2010-04-04, 02:11 PM
I am a follower of Hapkido.
Mostly the art is defensive, involving very few actual "strikes"
It also revolves around grappling your enemy and pinning them in painful wrist locks, Shoulder pins/locks. However, sometimes tripping and throwing are used [rarely for the latter].

So in DnD terms, Id say. Improved Unarmed Strike -> Improved Grapple -> Crushing Mountain -> Pin -> Coup De Grace.

Maybe best exemplified as. Monk /SwordSage. Tiger, Sun, Iron? [Forget which one is for pinning and grappling vs. larger/stronger foes]

Thats the best I can do right now, as I have no books in front of me.
Best of luck.

Cicciograna
2010-04-04, 02:29 PM
To the list of Martial arts I'd add Judo and Sambo, two MA focused on grappling and projections. I read somewhere that Sambo was especially good at this, and on some occasion Sambokas joined Judo competiotions, utterly defeating any Judoka they fought: this pissed off Judo organizers, which explicitely excluded Sambo techniques from valid moves in official competitions.

Finally, enter Kajukenbo, a MA whose stated purpose is to kill the opponent (or at least damage him to the point that he's unable/unwilling to go on with the fight). It includes what many regard as "dirty tricks" such as fingers in the eyes, low shots or the creative use of environment (eg. chairs, tables, metal rods etc.) to disable the opponent.

randomhero00
2010-04-04, 02:35 PM
All arts have had a strong purpose in history. For instance, while its true that TKD is bad for modern day self defense one of its reasons for all those crazy high kicks were to attack cavalry.

Also keep in mind, virtually all martial arts (H2H that is) were a secondary or tertiary form of defense. Danzan Ryu Jujitsu for instance was primarily for attacking armed/armored opponents once your weapons were all gone. Hence its focus on throws, grapples, and breaks. Since you can't really punch someone in armor very effectively.

As to why they have remained separate, well, most arts carry with them a strong sense of pride. They were born of times of great difficulty, and saw them through it. There is also a fair amount of secretism (especially in the past) around each art. Once you've been initiated into the higher ranks you were pretty proud, and of course would want to continue your traditional teachings.

If you're looking for a realistic version to use in DnD...well you wouldn't go around unarmed/unarmored for one. Your MA would be your secondary form of defense and would rarely come into play. Its not that its unrealistic that people have had to fight unarmed in history, its that, given the opportunity a sword (or any weapon) is always better and any MAist worth their salt would use a weapon if his life depended on it.

Now of course there were also martial arts centered around using weapons, but you don't seem to be as interested in them.

Spiryt
2010-04-04, 02:35 PM
There's also boxing, which is probably the only art possible to "describe" somehow sensibly on forum, beacuse shortly, it's quite simple :smallamused:

Strenghts : The best (after few modifications possibly) strikes with your fists, hooks, jabs, powerful fist strikes, defense against fist.

Weakness: Doesn't inculde anything else at all.

Partysan
2010-04-04, 02:41 PM
Well, this is a topic I could talk about endlessly, but lets just give some short points:


Capoeira, Krav Maga, Muay Thai, Aikido, Taekwondo, Shotokan, Judo, Jeet Kune Do, Jiu Jitsu, and Karate. And then I guess there's traditional wrestling and things like kickboxing.

Capoeira is a lot about dancing and involves high and acrobatic kicks, making it very unpractical the way you normally see it. However it can be used in actual fights, since capoeiristas are usually good at feinting with kicks.

Krav Maga, though maybe a bit hyped, is very practical and useful (and dirty). It is a viable means of self defense, I wouldn't call it a martial art though. It's just: do whatever works to win, here's a list of things that aren't difficult to to do and tend to work, now practice hard and under stress so you can use it in a fight.

Muay Thai is very practical too, since it's a lot about body and basics, just like boxing and kickboxing. You are fast and tough, you strike and kick hard and can take a lot of punishment. It's a bit superior to normal boxing and kickboxing imo, since it involves ellbow attacks and generally more (dangerous) techniques are allowed.

Aikido nowadays is practiced more as an art of moving, there aren't really full contact sparrings in it. Also, a lot of techniques are practiced with a willing partner and in a way as not to injure them, further reducing actual combat efficience.
If practiced more as Aikijutsu, with real sparring and including striking defense and counters, it can be effective and actually quite brutal, since it destroys the joints of the opponent, but only using throws and joint locks will put you at a disadvantage compared to using them with strikes.

Taekwondo centers a lot on high kicks, making it less practical in actual fights, since those techniques are quite risky. However it teaches fast reflexes and body control, which are always useful.

Shotokan Karate is generally seen as a sports karate style, and thus less effective in real fights than some other karate styles. Still, Karate is not a bad style for actually fighting, you just have to practice it that way. Kyokushin for example is seen as more effective because of very hard full contact fights, but it does not involve strikes to the head.

Judo is a sports style, at least in the western world, and sports judo does not involve defense against strikes or kicks, since they are not allowed in competitions (as well as a lot judo techniques that have been banned from sports judo as to not injure the fighters in competition), making it not very useful in fights, besides teaching a very stabile body balance.
If practiced for self defense, it can be viable. However, similar to Aikido, it is more difficult to fight only with throws and joint locks than with strikes. Still, at very close distance it is very powerful.

JKD is not a style, if we call it a style Bruce would rotate in his grave. But in most cases it is effective, as long as you stick to the philosophy of practicing anything and only keeping what proves useful.

JiuJitsu can be either the brasilian style (BJJ) which is very effective at ground grappling but not much at anything else (and you don't want to do that on street stones) or something like germen JuJutsu which is basically a mixture of Judo and Aikido, but practiced full contact and involving strikes and, to a lesser extend, kicks. The latter is also useful in real fights, the former less so, since it specializes on ground fighting, and being on the ground is a very bad idea in most fighting situations.

Karate, well I talked about it in Shotokan, Kickboxing was in the Muay Thai section. Generally it can be said, that a style which is practiced full contact with sparring and involves at least strikes, since these are what you will meet in 90% of all cases when attacked, it can be useful in real fights. Also, strikes that concentrate on the basics of combat and on the body in most cases raise your combat efficiency faster.
Styles that kick high will often put the user at risk in a real fight. Low kicks are quite useful. Striking is the most prevalent way of attacking. Joint locks are great, but require you to get a hold of the opponent, which can be very difficult to do. Throws are brutal on hard ground, but need a hold and a shortened distance, requiring you to get through the strikes and kicks... Ground grappling is great if you are on the ground, but often the ground is very hard, there may be pointy and sharp things on it, and if there's one more opponent standing he'll kick and trample you to death.
Most wrestling based styles (Judo, Aikido, Wrestling) come from times where people wore armors, making strikes and kicks ineffective but throws and locks remained viable. Wrestling can also be combined well with armed fighting.

I see you did not include any Kung Fu styles - why's that?

So, this is what came to me spontaneously, maybe I'll write some more later, possibly about weapon styles.

tyckspoon
2010-04-04, 02:42 PM
If you're looking for a realistic version to use in DnD...

Don't bother, as D&D does not have the level of combat granularity needed to really differentiate martial arts styles. Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple cover something like 80% of them in the very broad categories of 'you know how to effectively strike without a weapon' and 'you know how to fight in a grapple'.

Gorilla2038
2010-04-04, 02:46 PM
To add on, Muay Thai is based on total offense, striking again and again till the enemy is the level of dead you want him to be.

Marital Arts are different because they each factor in one general thought process. For example, traditional boxing is the best pure upper body striking art. 6 months of boxing is about the equal of 2 years of similar training in say, Tae kwon do.

Theres also levels of effectiveness, as compared to people. If a person is 5'2, female(which suggests lower upper body strength), and 100 pounds, a martial art based on taking blows and counterstriking is going to get her killed, while a marital art such as Akido, which uses a low center of gravity and opponent redirection, would be perfect.

Likewise, someone who is 6'11 but rail thin is going to have a hard time with Akido, so something along the lines of boxing(cause he has massive reach) would be very helpful.

Also, the traditons of hard/soft have been mentioned. A hard style tends to be things such as Muay Thai, Krav Manga, or Shotakan. In general, these arts are based on killing or maiming an enemy. They are about maximized damage in a short period of time. Something like the recent Sherlock holmes movie for comparison.

Soft styles are about non-lethal combat(primarily), wrestling, or redirection. You dont have to kill your enemy, you can defeat him by joint locks, choke holds, etc. This normally takes a higher degree of skill, and has some ill effects on you if the dude is on something.

A hard style person(me) will argue that is it better to leaving an opponent bleeding and broken at your feet.

A soft style person will argue that there is very little need to hurt others permanently. Or something near that, im not very good at getting this point of view....

Martial arts also develop do to culture strains. Tae Kwon Do(IIRC) was developed on Okinawa during the Japanese occupation, as a way for peasants to learn to fight. Dance-fighting(Capoeira) shares a similar origin.

There is also spread and rebuilding of the system. For example, most 'karate' and 'Tae Kwon Do' classes in the united states are nothing but a cocky way to get the crap kicked out of yourself. These classes tend to teach weakened stances and flashy moves for economic reasons. As such, there show very little resemblance to the real marital arts there based on.

For example, i once watched a fight from a 2-year black belt TWD fighter versus a boxer. The black belt had about 30 months of training, 5 inches and nearly 40 pounds on the boxer. However, every attack the clack belt threw was a kick, and he had been taught to drop his hands from a guard postion to his sides(for a bit of extra power) when he threw kicks. The boxer would simply counterpunch, and the black belt was on his butt.

Other marital arts: jeet kun do, samba, BJJ, Shaolin, Southern Long Fist, Kyokushin, Arnis , Eskrima and a bunch more.

THe human weapon show was very helpful for picking RP marital arts, you get a decent grasp of the style and see all the cool stuff.

Partysan
2010-04-04, 02:53 PM
Tae Kwon Do(IIRC) was developed on Okinawa during the Japanese occupation, as a way for peasants to learn to fight. Dance-fighting(Capoeira) shares a similar origin.

As to politely correct you, Tae Kwon Do is korean. Karate is Okinawan and came from mixing chinese Kung Fu with old Okinawan MAs. It only was named Karate during the Japanese occupation.
Capoeira, AFAIK, evolved from african styles on the slave plantages in the southern USA and has been disguised as a dance. It mostly features kicks because the hands of slaves were often bound.

Paulus
2010-04-04, 02:57 PM
Well Jujitsu and Jiitsu and Judo are different things, just like their are different styles of Gung Fu, their origins are also historical and documented. Easy to google and even wiki.

As for myself I practice methodology and kata instead of actual styles. Karate, Jujitsu, Akedo, Kendo, Kempo, Judo, Tai Chi, Jeet Kun Do, Fencing, Wrestling, Guns, Knives: I've looked into and studied all of them, and it all boils down to practicality, Cup too full, and what suits you. You have to know your body first of all, you can shape your body to fit a style, but that would be counter productive. Instead mix and match to suit your personality and practical application.

For example, I prefer Judo, Jeet Kun Do, and Jijitsu's philosophy of fighting,whereas I follow Kung fun, Karate, pro-Wrestling, Street knife, and western gunmen ship for practical application IN a fight, and lastly I enjoy the exercise of Tai Chi, Jujitsu, Kung Fu and Fencing physically, spiritually, and mentally.

There is no "one fits all" though MMA would have you think that because it is by it's very name, Mixed Martial Arts, but it follows popular trend too. Therefore, again, it would be better to discover for yourself, bodily, by trying a bit from each until you find what you like. Preference my friend. It's all about safety and survival. Find your own style, become your own master.

unless I am totally misreading what your question is. In which case. Don't mind me.

SimperingToad
2010-04-04, 03:01 PM
Let's not forget good old-fashioned Kuoshu (kung fu). Many different styles (Praying Mantis, Drunken Fist, etc.... yes, it's real), but at least from what I've seen in the next classroom, no part is stressed over the other. Many strikes, kicks, blocks, joint locks, etc.

Myself, I'm practicing the internal arts. Tai Chi Chuan, contrary to what many believe, is a martial art. Any teacher that tells you it has no self-defense applications is either ill-informed, or lying. Every move is an expression of martial application. Like Aikido (and Hapkido it seems :smallsmile:), it is primarily defensive. One does not oppose force with force, but rather neutralize and redirect the force. Part of the way it works is to read an opponent (either by sight or touch if there is contact) and direct the energy coming at you somewhere else. Splitting is a major point we get drilled on. One limb is defending while the other is offending.

Unfortunately, due to ill-health, I can't do much in the self-defense portion. :smallfrown: I don't heal well any more.

Hsing-I and Bagua are other internal styles. The basic concepts are the same as Tai Chi, but the forms take different approaches. Hsing-I is more of a linear 'block-trap-trap-POP!' approach, while Bagua is a very circular and mobile form which is effective against multiple opponents. Jet Li uses both of these styles in "The One", which you see in the final fight against himself.

From what I recall about interviews with Bruce Lee, Jeet Kun Do is a combination of many different styles into a single concept. Pretty much a 'use what works' style. I would make that as a style which allows anything, but maybe not 'the best' in any one area since there is no specialty.

Partysan
2010-04-04, 03:08 PM
Internal arts are great, and Tai Chi Quan can be quite powerful, as long as you dare to practice it full speed after learning the slow forms.
I especially like XingYi. However the more internal and/or softer art tend to take a lot more time and training until they can be effectively utilized in fighting.

Anasazi
2010-04-04, 03:10 PM
Keep in mind, just as there are today offshoots of styles, there was the same way back when most of these arts where being formed, this is the primary reason for the similar style look but different effect. Each was adopted for a masters use and they furthers the style from there.

Since Muay Thai seems to be popular in this crowd, I thought I'd bring up Lerdrit, as its my preferred style, go read up on it, its one of the offshoots I was speaking about above.

JaronK
2010-04-04, 03:12 PM
First off, there are four primary martial art goals.

Self defense and street fighting, where someone really means to hurt you and you have to cause damage to them so they can't hurt you and then get away is the first one... this is what you should learn if you just want to protect yourself safely. Arts designed around this concept feature things like eye gouges, floating rib punches, and finger breaks, and intend to end fights VERY fast. Good examples of that would be Krav Maga and Kajukenbo. To be clear though, the best way to win in this situation is not to fight. If you want to learn to protect yourself, the first thing to learn is conflict management and de-escalation, not Krav Maga.

Sport fighting, where you have to battle one opponent under a set of rules on a mat. Your goal is to defeat your opponent without causing serious injury. Most martial arts are designed around this by necessity, as it's hard to practice if you keep eye gouging your opponents. It's easy to tell a sport martial art because they tell you to target things that wouldn't hurt your opponent, such as Tae Kwon Do teaching you to kick an inch from their head or Karate teaching you to target the high chest area. In this way sport arts tend to have problems with self defense as in a serious situation you're going to do what you're trained to do and not really hurt your opponent. With that said, they usually teach mental and physical discipline along with physical strength and control, which does provide a significant advantage. Capoeira, for example, isn't very good at all as a combat technique, but the fact that you can flip off your back and have incredible core strength is going to be an advantage no matter what.

Dominance Challenges is another common one. The school bully was doing those whether he realized it or not. Sometimes these happen at parties too. They're usually something like "[Insult]", "[Insult ignored in a fearful way or returned]", "[Insult and bumping or shoving of the chest]", "[some other response]" and finally a right hook towards the head. This is instinctual behavior and designed to prove dominance without causing serious damage. Street fighting martial arts work here but they can be pretty inappropriate (if the school bully shoves you and you break his arm and then take out one of his eyes, you're in serious trouble). Sport arts are actually quite good here as your opponent is using rules even if they don't realize it (when was the last time you heard of a bully eye gouging?). All you have to do is knock your opponent down with the wind knocked out of them and you're good to go.

And the final goal is fitness. All teach this to some degree, but some (like Capoeira or TKD) do it better than others. This is just good for bodily health and helps in general.


Capoeira,

A dance fighting style created by slaves so they could learn to fight without looking like they were learning to fight. In the original form it was reasonably effective and taught how to fight with the arms chained up (hence all the headstand kicks). Designed to be used with blades between your toes, among other things. In the current form it's taught entirely as a game and dance, and not as an effective combat style (pretty much anyone can wait till you're dancing sideways and throw a knee or something). Either way, it's incredibly good for fitness and health... it really gets you in shape.


Krav Maga

A very good street fighting/self defense style. If you need to disarm an opponent or disable them quickly, it's great. This along with Kajukenbo is probably the best self defense style. It's not that great for sport fighting because too many of the moves would be irrelevant (gun disarms) or illegal (arm breaks).


Muay Thai,

A reasonably solid sport fighting style. Features powerful kicks and decent close in attacks. Somewhat effective for close combat , but certainly not the best at it. Reasonably decent as a self defense/street fighting style (more so than most sport arts, mostly due to the use of knees and elbows), but not the best at that either.


Aikido,

Mostly sport martial art that teaches how to deflect (without usually seriously hurting) one opponent at a time. Mostly worthless in street fighting, but great in dominance challenges because you can look incredibly dangerous.


Taekwondo,

Sport martial art that's amazing at teaching balance and flexibility. It was my first martial art and I still use the skills taught... but it's not much for self defense. Then again, I wear steel toed boots. You can take the skills you learned in TKD and apply them to kicking people in the knee, and all of a sudden it's pretty damn decent.


Shotokan, and Karate

Sport martial art, much like TKD


Judo, Jiu Jitsu

Sport martial arts. Very good against a single opponent in an area where you can roll around on the ground without hurting yourself (such as a mat, but not an alleyway with broken bottles in it), worthless against multiple opponents. Not that good in dominance challenges either because you look like you've lost even when you're winning. Still, they're a lot of fun. The one self defense benefit is that a lot of people would attack you by taking you down with the one style they know, which is usually wrestling or football. Knowing how to then fight effectively once they've done the standard double leg take down/football tackle is awfully handy.


Jeet Kune Do,

Very hard to define because this basically means "the stuff Bruce Lee taught" except that Bruce Lee taught that you should learn lots of random stuff from other styles and put them together. As such, two different schools of this will teach dramatically different arts. With that said, these tend to be sport martial arts as very few of the teachers have street fight experience.


, . And then I guess there's traditional wrestling and things like kickboxing.

Wrestling is in the same category as Judo/Jujitsu. Kickboxing is in the same category as TKD.


(Equilibrium had Gun Kata which was pretty sweet.)

Just for show of course.

JaronK

taltamir
2010-04-04, 03:22 PM
So I've done a bit of attempted research on how each style of martial arts varies from one another, but my results have come up pretty short. I haven't followed any style but I'm sure plenty of people here would have some insight on the differences between each style.

What are the major strengths of different martial arts styles in comparison to one another?

Styles I can think of are:
Capoeira, Krav Maga, Muay Thai, Aikido, Taekwondo, Shotokan, Judo, Jeet Kune Do, Jiu Jitsu, and Karate. And then I guess there's traditional wrestling and things like kickboxing. (Equilibrium had Gun Kata which was pretty sweet.)

But there are tons more and everyone seems to have their own opinion on them. But for the folks at home, can anyone give an honest break-down of all these styles?

Capoeira - Martial art whose training was masked as dancing because it was outlawed... involves a lot of upside down kicking (you balance on your head then kick someone). Mediocre, pass.

Krav Maga - Hebrew for "Contact Combat", Most effective modern combat system developed for use by israeli armed forces, focuses on knife and gun combat, protecting civilians, fighting multiple opponents, and fighting from a disadvantage. Exported to the USA and is now used by american police and armed forces. Police takedown is a krav maga maneuver. There are no points, ceremony, ranks, meditation, etc... it borrows useful and effective moves from other martial arts and is rooted in physics. Best "real world use" combat system (martial art is really not an appropriate term for it)... Very similar (if not outright related) to the "martial arts" of various other military units around the world... best way to learn it in the USA is to enlist in the army, police, CIA, or FBI. Best way to learn it anywhere is to go to israel and join the Mosad.
Krav maga is the closest you will get to gun kata :P.

Muay Thai - Thai combat system based on using the knees and elbows to deliver massive and often lethal blows. An example technique would be to grab someones head, pull it down, and knee him in the face. Extremely brutal and effective in causing severe and lasting harm or even death. Problematic to use because for legal reasons you usually want to subdue an assailant, not kill him.

Aikido - Japanese grappling founded in 1969 which focuses on techniques that subdue the opponent without harming him due to the philosophy and religious beliefs of its founder. Expect a lot of overlap with similar martial arts... choosing which one of those to take depends on the quality of the teacher you find. Limited self defense use since many opponents today would be armed (see krav maga).

Taekwondo - national sport of south korea, korean kickboxing. It involves kicking and boxing as the name suggests. Most popular martial art in the world, lends itself well to 1v1 competition. Use vs real world assailant more limited then many other martial arts.

Shotokan Karate - Shotokan IS Karate... I love karate because its cool and lets you break bricks and stuff, also it is the first martial art I learned... but to be honest its one of the least useful martial arts... even against unarmed opponents kicks and punches are some of the least effective ways to fight... grappling is the most effective (as demonstrated via multi disciplinary combat competitions such as UFC).

Judo, Jujutsu, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu - Jujutsu is the martial art of samurai... it involves a bunch of useless stuff and assumptions relating to medieval combat. Including armor and swords. Rather a waste of time.
Judo is the offspring of that, invented in the 20th century it updates the combat of Jujutsu by discarding most of the samurai and armor and medieval weaponry stuff to focus on throws... making it highly effective. In a demonstration between jujutsu and judo to determine which will be taught to japanese police the judo practitioners absolutely demolished jujutsu practitioners.
Brazilian jiu-jitsu is an offshot of judo that focuses less on the throws themselves (although they are still included) and instead focuses on ground grappling, it begins with a judo throw to get the opponent on the ground, followed by highly effective grappling...
Judo and Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu can both be rather effective. but are again not very complete as they include little in the way of training against armed opponents.

Jeet Kune Do - loose style of combat founded by bruce lee. The philosophy is to have a "style without style"... that is, borrow what works from other martial arts. The quality will vary wildly depending on what your teacher follows, while bruce lee and his personal students were highly effective fighters it is hard to recommend it. If you follow the philosophy then you should study a variety of martial arts and do what works yourself, just as he did.

Traditional wrestling - surprisingly, while the least cool and most homo-erotic, wrestlers are proven highly effective in multi disciplinary combats such as the UFC. Wrestling is found in many specific martial arts (as I have mentioned above).

The biggest issue isn't choosing an art, its choosing a teacher. There are lots of McDojos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDojo
Regardless of the so called "martial art" it claims to teach a mcdojo would perform poorly. Many also encourage you to sign long term contracts ahead of time, but equipment only from them, have trainers with poor qualifications, and demand that you do NOT take training from any other teacher and in other martial arts... all of which is utter BS.

My recommendation is to start with krav maga, if you have the time and dedication to learn more, learn wrestling next followed by throws. Brazillian jujitsu and judo are good here. Finish it up with Muay Thai.
garnish with karate, boxing, or kickboxing to taste.

of the above, those I have not personally tried are:
Aikido, Taekwondo, Jeet Kune Do, Traditional wrestling.

drakir_nosslin
2010-04-04, 03:23 PM
Also, the traditons of hard/soft have been mentioned. A hard style tends to be things such as Muay Thai, Krav Manga, or Shotakan. In general, these arts are based on killing or maiming an enemy. They are about maximized damage in a short period of time. Something like the recent Sherlock holmes movie for comparison.

Soft styles are about non-lethal combat(primarily), wrestling, or redirection. You dont have to kill your enemy, you can defeat him by joint locks, choke holds, etc. This normally takes a higher degree of skill, and has some ill effects on you if the dude is on something.

A hard style person(me) will argue that is it better to leaving an opponent bleeding and broken at your feet.

A soft style person will argue that there is very little need to hurt others permanently. Or something near that, im not very good at getting this point of view....

As a practitioner of Jiu-jitsu I have to politely disagree. Hard styles are mainly focusing on kicks and punches, while soft styles are more into locks, throws and similar techniques. However, a practitioner of a 'soft' martial art can leave an opponent broken as easy, or perhaps easier, than one training a 'hard' style.

This is because while punches and kicks will hurt, they will rarely break bones, while a joint lock is designed to be able to bend an opponents joint in the wrong direction until it breaks. Remember that it originally was designed for combat against armored and armed opponents, as has been stated earlier. As such, punching and kicking was mostly ineffective, while breaking the lower part of your enemies arms in three-four places was nice enough, he wouldn't come after you with a sword any time soon.

As for choke holds, they are likewise designed to kill, and some will do so in mere seconds, and while throws are difficult to execute and not recommended in a fight, throwing an opponent onto his back on a street will finish most fights instantly.

Now, don't get me wrong, punching and kicking is really effective as well, but the 'soft' styles are not soft, the reason they are called so is, as far as I know, that they were regarded as soft compared to armed fighting which was the first choice and the deadliest in combat. Today, many think of competitive grappling when they hear of soft styles, and because it is not for real, people don't break bones in the ring, while a boxer or karate-ka hits as hard as he/she can in a competition. On the street otoh, there will be broken bones, no matter what style you practice, if you are skilled enough.

Paulus
2010-04-04, 03:32 PM
As a practitioner of Jiu-jitsu I have to politely disagree. Hard styles are mainly focusing on kicks and punches, while soft styles are more into locks, throws and similar techniques. However, a practitioner of a 'soft' martial art can leave an opponent broken as easy, or perhaps easier, than one training a 'hard' style.

This is because while punches and kicks will hurt, they will rarely break bones, while a joint lock is designed to be able to bend an opponents joint in the wrong direction until it breaks. Remember that it originally was designed for combat against armored and armed opponents, as has been stated earlier. As such, punching and kicking was mostly ineffective, while breaking the lower part of your enemies arms in three-four places was nice enough, he wouldn't come after you with a sword any time soon.

As for choke holds, they are likewise designed to kill, and some will do so in mere seconds, and while throws are difficult to execute and not recommended in a fight, throwing an opponent onto his back on a street will finish most fights instantly.

Now, don't get me wrong, punching and kicking is really effective as well, but the 'soft' styles are not soft, the reason they are called so is, as far as I know, that they were regarded as soft compared to armed fighting which was the first choice and the deadliest in combat. Today, many think of competitive grappling when they hear of soft styles, and because it is not for real, people don't break bones in the ring, while a boxer or karate-ka hits as hard as he/she can in a competition. On the street otoh, there will be broken bones, no matter what style you practice, if you are skilled enough.

To add to your cause my practicing brother, it also states an openness for weaponry, that which we know as improvised weapons, in that it gives you loose grounds on how to use weapons based on weight, edge, what not.

In other words, use anything and everything around you as a weapon if needed. Including your environment, Samurai were taught how to SWIM with all that armor on and do battle in water. Plus kill with an oar, broom, or stool, or bench. So yes, it isn't just a sport or historical long gone without use.

I use it for improvised weapons as well, because... honestly, how can you use a joint lock meant for a man on a rabid dog? you don't. You use your environment to get away or hinder it. Removed shirt and pants, wrap around arm and keep that mouth occupied if you must, better than your own flesh. Of course that is with the assumption you can't get away and have no other weapons etc. Just for example.

JaronK
2010-04-04, 03:34 PM
I have to agree with that one, soft does not mean "won't hurt your opponent." It means you use grappling, contact, and locks to defeat your opponent instead of focusing on strikes. Still, I'd rather suck up a karate kick than an arm bar if someone's actually trying to cause damage. Most hard styles try to cause shock and pain, while soft styles try to break stuff or restrict air/blood flow with the secondary effect that damaging bits of you hurts. Pain sucks. Broken elbows suck more.

But I still wouldn't use BJJ in a street fight. I don't want to roll around on the ground.

JaronK

Yukitsu
2010-04-04, 04:36 PM
In defense of hard styles, getting a succesful grapple and armbar isn't quite as easy as these people are making it out to be. I took my black belt in Shotokan, while a freind got his in Brazilian Jiu Jutsu, and in practice, I can wriggle out of every lock he can try before he can apply any pressure, and one of my jabs is enough to break one of his flow. While a straight punch or kick that I've learned isn't going to get me an immediate win like he can get, they do disorient people a lot more than a poorly done grapple, which gives me a chance to follow it up with something. He can't do that, because when he punches me in the face, I barely even notice it.

Edit: As well, prevailence of BJJ in things like the MMA and other international martial arts competitions heavily favour soft styles. You can do most of the locks etc. and have enough control that you won't cause any lasting damage (you can't break their limbs with an arm bar like in real life, but if you have them in the position, it usually doesn't matter), whereas a hard style relies on doing enough trauma at once to prevent them from moving. The "winners" of hard styles are mostly pretty dirty techniques. I was taught to counter grapples with things that are really illegal in the MMA or any other association, such as kicking them below the belt, gouging at their eyes, or my personal favourite, elbowing them in the back of the neck, which comes up rather often against grapplers actually. Adding these things back in means both can cripple, yes soft styles have more finisher moves, but it becomes really hard to succesfully use them.

JaronK
2010-04-04, 04:53 PM
In defense of hard styles, getting a succesful grapple and armbar isn't quite as easy as these people are making it out to be. I took my black belt in Shotokan, while a freind got his in Brazilian Jiu Jutsu, and in practice, I can wriggle out of every lock he can try before he can apply any pressure, and one of my jabs is enough to break one of his flow.

This is the exact problem with sport fighting... your friend was used to the rules of BJJ, which mostly assume no striking. He was not prepared to deal with your strikes. Obviously it would be far better if you could fight on the ground and if he could deal with strikes (or throw a few!).


Edit: As well, prevailence of BJJ in things like the MMA and other international martial arts competitions heavily favour soft styles. You can do most of the locks etc. and have enough control that you won't cause any lasting damage (you can't break their limbs with an arm bar like in real life, but if you have them in the position, it usually doesn't matter), whereas a hard style relies on doing enough trauma at once to prevent them from moving. The "winners" of hard styles are mostly pretty dirty techniques. I was taught to counter grapples with things that are really illegal in the MMA or any other association, such as kicking them below the belt, gouging at their eyes, or my personal favourite, elbowing them in the back of the neck, which comes up rather often against grapplers actually. Adding these things back in means both can cripple, yes soft styles have more finisher moves, but it becomes really hard to succesfully use them.

MMA is specifically using the concept of mixing grappling and striking, because both have weaknesses. By the way, kicking below the belt is totally legal in MMA, just not kicking the groin.

With that said, yes sport fighting has weaknesses in the areas where a move is banned. That doesn't mean the non sport version has the same weaknesses. I help teach a self defense course that's a lot more comprehensive than most, and we teach grappling along with more traditional self defense, but always with a mind towards dealing with elbows and such. And of course, my favorite counter to the double leg takedown is to drop your legs back while using an elbow to the back of the neck or spine (depending on the situation... no using kill shots against some random drunk guy!).

JaronK

Yukitsu
2010-04-04, 05:02 PM
This is the exact problem with sport fighting... your friend was used to the rules of BJJ, which mostly assume no striking. He was not prepared to deal with your strikes. Obviously it would be far better if you could fight on the ground and if he could deal with strikes (or throw a few!).


I can. It's the reason I know how to get out of his armbars, and even a policeman's hammerlock. We noted that my style is closer to self defense than most though.

PinkysBrain
2010-04-04, 05:07 PM
Self defense and street fighting, where someone really means to hurt you and you have to cause damage to them so they can't hurt you and then get away is the first one
I've always had my doubts about how +EV that approach is, especially if a group jumps you.

The problem is that after you gouched someones eye out, caved his throat in or kicked his shinbone in half if it was a fight you could walk away from after losing before (maybe with a concussion and some broken ribs, but still). It's not any more.

JaronK
2010-04-04, 05:10 PM
I can. It's the reason I know how to get out of his armbars, and even a policeman's hammerlock. We noted that my style is closer to self defense than most though.

In which case your style is probably more of a mixed art than a "hard" or striking art. Which is generally a good thing of course. Both "hard" and "soft" styles have distinct weaknesses, and putting them together really helps.

JaronK

Dusk Eclipse
2010-04-04, 05:11 PM
Might as well ask this in this thread.

I am a martial arts aficionado, I practiced karate when I was little (about 5 or 6 years old) and recently I practiced Kickboxing with some smitherens of Muay Thai and Sanda, but left because while I learned to fight somewhat decently, I didn't like how the teacher taught it.

So what do you recomend for a guy like me (I am 180 cm tall, I don0t know the conversion to feets, and weight about 79 kilos again don't know the conversion to pound) so based on that I guess a hard style would be the best option.

Yukitsu
2010-04-04, 05:11 PM
I've always had my doubts about how +EV that approach is, especially if a group jumps you.

The problem is that after you gouched someones eye out, caved his throat in or kicked his shinbone in half if it was a fight you could walk away from after losing before (maybe with a concussion and some broken ribs, but still). It's not any more.

Considering the news reports of the latest instances of gangs jumping various people have nearly all ended in death, permanent brain damage or permanent concussions, it doesn't seem to make a difference if you fight back or not as far as the intent of the situation goes.

@Jaron: No, it's a hard one. We were taught how to counter all of the soft arts, but didn't really ever learn how to do the locks and breaks.

PinkysBrain
2010-04-04, 05:16 PM
Considering the news reports of the latest instances of gangs jumping various people have nearly all ended in death, permanent brain damage or permanent concussions
Man, if that's in the local news frequently enough for you to maintain count you need to move :/

taltamir
2010-04-04, 05:23 PM
I've always had my doubts about how +EV that approach is, especially if a group jumps you.

The problem is that after you gouched someones eye out, caved his throat in or kicked his shinbone in half if it was a fight you could walk away from after losing before (maybe with a concussion and some broken ribs, but still). It's not any more.

use a gun.

JaronK
2010-04-04, 05:25 PM
Might as well ask this in this thread.

I am a martial arts aficionado, I practiced karate when I was little (about 5 or 6 years old) and recently I practiced Kickboxing with some smitherens of Muay Thai and Sanda, but left because while I learned to fight somewhat decently, I didn't like how the teacher taught it.

So what do you recomend for a guy like me (I am 180 cm tall, I don0t know the conversion to feets, and weight about 79 kilos again don't know the conversion to pound) so based on that I guess a hard style would be the best option.

That's 5'9", 170 lbs. And it depends on what you want to do. You want to stand up to bullies? Muay Thai is pretty darned good when combined with a touch of Brazillian Jujuitsu, just don't throw any back of the head elbows. That'll let you quickly hurt your opponent so he doesn't mess with you, and you're big enough to make sure you can get a small joint lock if you really need. You want to protect yourself from muggers? Krav Maga or Kajukembo (god, I can never spell that one) can help. You want to just get really in shape so the girls are impressed? Capoiera or Tae Kwon Do.

[quoteI've always had my doubts about how +EV that approach is, especially if a group jumps you.

The problem is that after you gouched someones eye out, caved his throat in or kicked his shinbone in half if it was a fight you could walk away from after losing before (maybe with a concussion and some broken ribs, but still). It's not any more. [/quote]

When I'm talking self defense, I mean one or two attackers (generally) or at least only a few attackers that really care (the others are just watching, as it's a group dominance thing). If it's a massive gang attack, you're screwed no matter how bad ass you think you are. Your best defense there is to make sure you're never in that situation.

With that said, self defense usually relies on doing damage fast and escaping, such as eye gouging with a neck hit and then running, or running past someone while throwing an elbow to the solar plexus or neck.

JaronK

Paulus
2010-04-04, 05:41 PM
When I'm talking self defense, I mean one or two attackers (generally) or at least only a few attackers that really care (the others are just watching, as it's a group dominance thing). If it's a massive gang attack, you're screwed no matter how bad ass you think you are. Your best defense there is to make sure you're never in that situation.

Which is why I include Gunmen ship and Street knife into my studies. A firearm or a knife can save your life against many attackers who threaten to end it. Sadly, if such is the case, simply saying you are screwed is not acceptable. Don't ever give up. Plan for this, because when it happens you must have a plan. Be prepared. Learn how to use a gun and a knife and how to avoid them if they are used against you.

I will not even begin to give general tips here because it really is that serious a thing that you should seek professional advice and learn ALL of it, not just tips. We are talking life and death here so treat such topics as such. Gun ranges and knife self defense classes are essential, but do not be pulled in by 'flashy knife' classes. They are impractical and will leave you gutted on the street or bleeding out after one stab. Many people, due to motion pictures, do not realize just how dangerous a two inch blade can be. By comparison the greek's knew if they got a blade four inches past the skin, the person was dead, no ifs ands or buts. The same seriousness to protecting your life from others should apply to others from you. Learn to use your weapons, don't play around.

Sorry if that was harsh but gun safety and blade safety are pet peeves of mine. Especially when people think it will never happen. ...all it takes is one slip, one bullet, and that will be the end of your story. If this doesn't frighten you into taking guns seriously as it should, you have much to learn. For blades as well. Weapons, including the human body, are not to be taken lightly. And nothing is more dangerous then ignorance when weapons are concerned.

Spiryt
2010-04-04, 05:41 PM
If I may interrupt:

180cm = 5 feet 11 inches

79 kilos = ~175 pounds

In Fedor we trust.

You can go on. :smallwink:

Yukitsu
2010-04-04, 05:44 PM
Which is why I include Gunmen ship and Street knife into my studies. A firearm or a knife can save your life against many attackers who threaten to end it. Sadly, if such is the case, simply saying you are screwed is not acceptable. Don't ever give up. Plan for this, because when it happens you must have a plan. Be prepared. Learn how to use a gun and a knife and how to avoid them if they are used against you.

I will not even begin to give general tips here because it really is that serious a thing that you should seek professional advice and learn ALL of it, not just tips. We are talking life and death here so treat such topics as such. Gun ranges and knife self defense classes are essential, but do not be pulled in by 'flashy knife' classes. They are impractical and will leave you gutted on the street or bleeding out after one stab. Many people, due to motion pictures, do not realize just how dangerous a two inch blade can be. By comparison the greek's knew if they got a blade four inches past the skin, the person was dead, no ifs ands or buts. The same seriousness to protecting your life from others should apply to others from you. Learn to use your weapons, don't play around.

Sorry if that was harsh but gun safety and blade safety are pet peeves of mine. Especially when people think it will never happen. ...all it takes is one slip, one bullet, and that will be the end of your story. If this doesn't frighten you into taking guns seriously as it should, you have much to learn. For blades as well. Weapons, including the human body, are not to be taken lightly. And nothing is more dangerous then ignorance when weapons are concerned.

Those tend to be rather inapplicable, as in most countries, carrying weapons on you is illegal. The general trend for being attacked by a gang is out and about, not at home, where you could concievably have a gun tucked away somewhere.

Knives less so. Most rowdy gangs have them as well.

Paulus
2010-04-04, 05:59 PM
Those tend to be rather inapplicable, as in most countries, carrying weapons on you is illegal. The general trend for being attacked by a gang is out and about, not at home, where you could concievably have a gun tucked away somewhere.

Knives less so. Most rowdy gangs have them as well.

I'd rather be arrested for shooting my attackers dead with an illegal gun then being stabbed to death in a dark alley. I can't do much about policy and weapon rights, but none of that should stop anyone from becoming educated in their use and possibly in their self protection. A can of bear spray can be just as effective, and or, so can a walking stick on places where you can not own a gun. Again, to save your life, do what ever is necessary. If the law will not, well, pretty tough to say "Oh well it's the law" when lying in a pool of ones own blood.

I truly feel for you, and strongly urge you to consider the weapon rights of your own lands, find what you can use and use it. Hence why I stick to any weapon anywhere use. You may not be able to carry a blade, or a gun, but a broken broom handle, a hub cap, or even a chain on your wallet is better then nothing when faced with defending your life from multiple attackers.

Again, use your own discretion, just make such such discretion is well informed.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-04-04, 06:00 PM
That's 5'9", 170 lbs. And it depends on what you want to do. You want to stand up to bullies? Muay Thai is pretty darned good when combined with a touch of Brazillian Jujuitsu, just don't throw any back of the head elbows. That'll let you quickly hurt your opponent so he doesn't mess with you, and you're big enough to make sure you can get a small joint lock if you really need. You want to protect yourself from muggers? Krav Maga or Kajukembo (god, I can never spell that one) can help. You want to just get really in shape so the girls are impressed? Capoiera or Tae Kwon Do.

JaronK

Considering that, I guess Muay Thai and capoeria are way to go.

I re-introduced me to martial arts and combat system after a particular nasty encounter in a paerty... and as for capoeria, I want to get in shape :smallbiggrin:

Maybe it is worth mentioning I have much more strenght in my legs, during practice combat when I practiced kickboxing, my oponents would ask me to tone down my kicks, while asking me to punch harder...

taltamir
2010-04-04, 06:06 PM
I'd rather be arrested for shooting my attackers dead with an illegal gun then being stabbed to death in a dark alley. I can't do much about policy and weapon rights, but none of that should stop anyone from becoming educated in their use and possibly in their self protection. A can of bear spray can be just as effective, and or, so can a walking stick on places where you can not own a gun. Again, to save your life, do what ever is necessary. If the law will not, well, pretty tough to say "Oh well it's the law" when lying in a pool of ones own blood.

I truly feel for you, and strongly urge you to consider the weapon rights of your own lands, find what you can use and use it. Hence why I stick to any weapon anywhere use. You may not be able to carry a blade, or a gun, but a broken broom handle, a hub cap, or even a chain on your wallet is better then nothing when faced with defending your life from multiple attackers.

Again, use your own discretion, just make such such discretion is well informed.

very well put.
In addition to pepper spray, you can also use a taser. (although some countries ban tasers and pepper sprays as well)

JaronK
2010-04-04, 06:11 PM
Considering that, I guess Muay Thai and capoeria are way to go.

I re-introduced me to martial arts and combat system after a particular nasty encounter in a paerty... and as for capoeria, I want to get in shape :smallbiggrin:

Maybe it is worth mentioning I have much more strenght in my legs, during practice combat when I practiced kickboxing, my oponents would ask me to tone down my kicks, while asking me to punch harder...

Both Capoiera and Muay Thai are big on kicks (and in the case of MT, knees) but Capoiera will make your arms extremely strong. Also, it'll make you a better dancer.

As for the other guy... carrying a gun around as a solution to group gang violence is usually a pretty bad solution. In areas where guns are even obtainable the gangs have them too, and they're more ready to use them than you are. Pulling a gun pretty much says "shoot me." Far better to avoid areas where this sort of thing might happen and make yourself not a target.

JaronK

JaronK

Iku Rex
2010-04-04, 06:22 PM
I took my black belt in Shotokan, while a freind got his in Brazilian Jiu Jutsu, and in practice, I can wriggle out of every lock he can try before he can apply any pressure, ...

I find that hard to believe.

If it's true I have to wonder who your friend got his "black belt" from...


I was taught to counter grapples with things that are really illegal in the MMA or any other association, such as kicking them below the belt, gouging at their eyes, or my personal favourite, elbowing them in the back of the neck, which comes up rather often against grapplers actually. Those techniques have been tested in vale tudo/MMA/challenge matches. They don't seem to help the striker noticeably.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-04, 06:31 PM
One thing, like other posters have said, escalation is very rarely the best course of action. If you pull a knife (or worse, a gun) there is a far smaller chance of you getting out of the situation alive. Even if a knife or gun can sometimes scare assailants off, it can also make them more aggressive. Most robberies turned homicides occur when the victim tries to confront the assailant with force. And while it is certainly a very good idea to know self defense techniques, introducing lethal force into the situation can quickly get you on the wrong side of the law.

Paulus
2010-04-04, 06:34 PM
Both Capoiera and Muay Thai are big on kicks (and in the case of MT, knees) but Capoiera will make your arms extremely strong. Also, it'll make you a better dancer.

As for the other guy... carrying a gun around as a solution to group gang violence is usually a pretty bad solution. In areas where guns are even obtainable the gangs have them too, and they're more ready to use them than you are. Pulling a gun pretty much says "shoot me." Far better to avoid areas where this sort of thing might happen and make yourself not a target.

JaronK

JaronK


Indeed. Except when those 'areas' you are suppose to avoid become your areas. Or those elements come into your areas. Gangs or attackers period aren't stopped by invisible boundaries nor should you feel safe in avoiding 'turf'. Any area can be a chance for attack, because you don't expect it makes it all the more likely you will die when it happens.

Pulling a gun by the way, for the informed student of using guns, means some one else is already trying to shoot you. Again, education. You should never have to pull your gun unless you intend to use it and therefore have to use it. The same goes for knives or really any weapon. again the point I must stress, with all weapons and self defense, is learning to use it. EDIT:And that means when to use it. The most dangerous weapon is ignorance, and vice versa the mind itself.

AslanCross
2010-04-04, 06:40 PM
I did some Kali back in college. Unlike the unarmed styles above, Kali starts out armed (sticks) and at higher levels has some elements of knife fighting. The techniques can work with pretty much any rigid improvised weapon, or if you're strong enough, you can go unarmed.

The sticks we use are made of either rattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattan) (which, due to its flexibility, has a kind of whiplash effect that's extremely painful for such a light material) or kamagong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabolo) (much harder and heavier wood; great for Kali sticks or even bokken).

Of course, when fighting with a stick, you're pretty much stuck with standing up and you use your weapon to keep some distance. You want to keep the other guy from grappling you.

Here's a sparring video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rckWVZl_GsA&feature=related) The guy in black's got it down. The guy in red lacks footwork.

taltamir
2010-04-04, 06:58 PM
Both Capoiera and Muay Thai are big on kicks (and in the case of MT, knees) but Capoiera will make your arms extremely strong. Also, it'll make you a better dancer.

As for the other guy... carrying a gun around as a solution to group gang violence is usually a pretty bad solution. In areas where guns are even obtainable the gangs have them too, and they're more ready to use them than you are. Pulling a gun pretty much says "shoot me." Far better to avoid areas where this sort of thing might happen and make yourself not a target.

this reminds me a PSA that said that if you are a woman and you carry a gun, attackers will "take your gun from you and use it to rape you".

pulling a gun is a great way to scare off a mugger without even having to fight. Even if he has a weapon of his own they don't want to risk their lives.
If a gang of armed assailants are attacking you then you are screwed either way.

Proven_Paradox
2010-04-04, 06:59 PM
I'm not a practitioner of any kind of martial art, but I did some research on Capoeira and Muay Thai for a couple of homebrew classes. [shameless plug]If you're interested in using my Capoeirista base class (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Capoeirista) or Muay Thai prestige class (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Master_of_the_Eight_Limbs), you're free to do so.[/shameless plug] I intend to get into boxing once I get to grad school this fall. (6'3", 390 lbs, a good deal of it muscle--I've had several people recommend it to me, apparently my build is well suited to it.)

As others have said, Capoeira is a style developed by slaves, disguised as a dance style and worship. The style itself is very mobile, fluid, flashy, and probably rather inefficient. Spectacular to watch, but in practice the high kicks it teaches would probably leave you really open to counter attack. The idea behind the flashiness is to keep your opponent off guard; you get a lot of feints and fake strikes; your attacks could come from any direction at any time, so your opponent isn't going to see it coming. It also has a strong spiritual side focusing on music (hence the class has a line of class features focused on singing). Traditional Capoeira matches included elaborately structured sets of music, mostly call-and-answer choruses by a lead singer and spectators, with hymn-like lyrics praising God and so on.

Muay Thai is all strikes, all the time. (The grappling focused class features in the PrC were mainly me trying to figure out something to fill out the class a bit: I had a couple of levels that I wasn't sure what to do with, so decided to give them some neat tricks to grapple.) The elbows and knees are the primary weapons, though there are standard punches and kicks in there too. A bit of research into the topic revealed this as a martial art focused on the "eight limbs:" two fists, two elbows, two knees, two feet. Basically, knock them out with hard blows from knees and elbows (hence a focus on stun attacks for the class).

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-04, 07:09 PM
Unarmed combat has one big advantage over all armed styles: you always have your hand and feet with you, no matter where you go. Of course, if there's a big stick nearby and the chance presents itself, pick it up!

I've done a bit of Krav-Maga, and now focus on Karate. Exact style is Goju-Ryu; as the name says, both hard and soft techniques are trained. It's very meat-and-potatoes form; my club mainly focuses on fitness and self-defense rather than sports aspect of the art.

Also, give hard techniques some love. They have one, big advantage over softer ones: reach. You can punch or kick someone from a surprising distance. In a threatening situation, kicking someone in the gut, turning tail and running before the opponent recollects himself is better than many other options.

Those who don't consider Krav-Maga martial art: wait a while longer and there will be fitness or sports versions of it. Practically all martial arts began as military or self defense forms, and focused on offing the opponent in whatever way was handy. These things have a tendecy to mellow out as they become more wide-spread and systematic. Look at Tai Chi!

PinkysBrain
2010-04-04, 07:10 PM
One thing, like other posters have said, escalation is very rarely the best course of action. If you pull a knife (or worse, a gun) there is a far smaller chance of you getting out of the situation alive.
If their friend goes down with blood streaming out of his eye or shin bone sticking out through his leg you might as well have pulled a knife AFAICS.

taltamir
2010-04-04, 07:12 PM
Unarmed combat has one big advantage over all armed styles: you always have your hand and feet with you, no matter where you go. Of course, if there's a big stick nearby and the chance presents itself, pick it up!

unless you are bound, or injured... if you have a broken leg or a bullet in your gut you might still shoot someone, but you are not going to pull any fancy martial arts.

also, you have 0 range.


If their friend goes down with blood streaming out of his eye or shin bone sticking out through his leg you might as well have pulled a knife AFAICS.

absolutely correct. Using martial arts isn't any less of an escalation... give them the money nicely, if they attack beg for mercy, if they persist pull a knife, gun, pepper spray, or kung fu... the result is the same no matter which of those you use.


Those who don't consider Krav-Maga martial art: wait a while longer and there will be fitness or sports versions of it. Practically all martial arts began as military or self defense forms, and focused on offing the opponent in whatever way was handy. These things have a tendecy to mellow out as they become more wide-spread and systematic. Look at Tai Chi!

When that happens, its no longer krav maga. in which case you should go and use whatever the military and police now use rather then a sport based on outdated combat techniques.

until then krav maga is military style combat training, invaluable.

Paulus
2010-04-04, 07:14 PM
unless you are bound, or injured... if you have a broken leg or a bullet in your gut you might still shoot someone, but you are not going to pull any fancy martial arts.

also, you have 0 range.



absolutely correct. Using martial arts isn't any less of an escalation...

Also, escalation matters little when the person is intent on killing you anyway. Intent matters. You must intend to stay alive. Information is key my friends, information is key.

taltamir
2010-04-04, 07:17 PM
Also, escalation matters little when the person is intent on killing you anyway. Intent matters. You must intend to stay alive. Information is key my friends, information is key.

correct... if someone asks for your wallet and you pull a knife, you have escalated. And its safer to just give him your wallet.

If a group of guys with white hoods, a burning cross, and a noose come knocking on your door you better pull that gun.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-04, 07:26 PM
until then krav maga is military style combat training, invaluable.
...and why is that mutually exclusive with being a martial art? Considering 'martial' is synonym for 'military', and 'art' for 'skill' or 'expertise', I don't know why people insist on the division. I'd argue 'martial arts' as a category includes practical and military applications of unarmed combat.

Knaight
2010-04-04, 07:29 PM
pulling a gun is a great way to scare off a mugger without even having to fight. Even if he has a weapon of his own they don't want to risk their lives.=

Bad idea. If you pull a gun, they are that much more likely too, unless you actually shoot. In general don't pull out weapons unless you intend to use them, and in most cases just give the mugger your money. Keep a secondary wallet around with less even, to avoid losing a bunch, but fighting probably isn't worth it.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-04, 07:34 PM
Best weapons are often ones that don't look like it untill you hit someone with them. Overcoats, scarfs, pencils and what not are surprisingly effective, legal to carry everywhere, and suprising use of an ordinary object can be as intimidating as pulling out a gun.

Grommen
2010-04-04, 08:00 PM
Hard Styles are, at least the style I study, are meant to break things. They punch, you block and break their wrist, or they kick you brake their foot. I've had my thumb broken 3 times so far just practicing in the Dojay. Now that is not saying that Soft styles are not effective. Most Kung-Fu styles have been around for centuries, so they must work. Effective and all that.

Just to clarify a bit. At least according to my traditions. Karate was born on the Island of Oakanawa, when it was captured by Japan. The word "Karate" is Japanese, and means "Open Hand". Their are Japanese and Korean styles of both. Politics of martial arts tend to split styles apart. What I study Tang Soo Do, is incredibly similar to Ty Kawan Do. Forms are different, but we practice the same rediculasy high kicks and spinning kicks.

However even though I study a traditional art, we don't stop their. We have adopted Kung-Fu, and grappling moves for a well rounded martial artist. With the rise of MMA and this hole grappling craze, were learning a lot of grappling, and ground defense.

Now as far as D&D goes, the monk and martial arts are incredibly vague. However remember that can be used to an advantage. When you boil it down, just about every art teaches a couple Joint Locks, some punches, and some kicks, sweeps ya da ya da. So the nice thing is that you don't need to know the strengths and weakness of each style. Just make it up yourself. Far as the game mechanics, Improved Grapple, Improved trip (should be called sweep), and a few others can be used to make a decent Martial Artist.

Maerok
2010-04-04, 08:13 PM
Human Weapon is a pretty neat show. I watched part of the Muay Thai episode because I'll be in Thailand this summer for quite a while.

As for not mentioning Kung Fu, I wasn't sure how 'technical' it was. I've heard that it is its own thing and also I've heard that it is a general term for a collection of MAs.

Okay. Well this is a lot of information and DnD itself, as stated, really doesn't do it all justice. I doubt these MAs as is would exist in Faerun, for instance, but each race is bound to have its own sets, especially based on the different physical builds of human vs. elf vs. dwarf, orc, etc.

Deity
2010-04-04, 08:45 PM
It bears mentioning that southern styles of Kung Fu (Hung Gar to be specific, and my art of choice) focuses very heavily on stability and strong stances, preventing you from being easily taken down, and working the body to withstand very heavy blows. Of course, just by the nature of this kind of training the offensive side of it involves brutal hits and grabs, designed to break bones, shatter skulls, and gouge out eyes (which is why you don't see it used in sport arenas).

As far as DnD goes, it seems like the perfect art for a dwarf or half-orc.

taltamir
2010-04-04, 08:47 PM
Bad idea. If you pull a gun, they are that much more likely too, unless you actually shoot. In general don't pull out weapons unless you intend to use them, and in most cases just give the mugger your money. Keep a secondary wallet around with less even, to avoid losing a bunch, but fighting probably isn't worth it.

I explicitly said so in an earlier post. I said you should just give them the money... but it being a better idea to just give him the money doesn't change the fact that if you pull a gun you are likely to scare him off without having to fire a shot. Also, key word LIKELY... that he could charge you instead or pull out his own weapon is a possibility.

As for them also pulling a gun... that makes no sense at all. If someone points a gun at you, you do not reach for a weapon, because he will see you doing so and shoot you. Besides all that, if someone is mugging you that means he is pointing a weapon at you by definition. If he had a gun he would be pointing a gun at you instead of keeping it in his back pocket while threatening you with a knife.

taltamir
2010-04-04, 08:48 PM
...and why is that mutually exclusive with being a martial art? Considering 'martial' is synonym for 'military', and 'art' for 'skill' or 'expertise'

by those definitions you are correct.

Worira
2010-04-04, 08:49 PM
It bears mentioning that southern styles of Kung Fu (Hung Gar to be specific, and my art of choice) focuses very heavily on stability and strong stances, preventing you from being easily taken down, and working the body to withstand very heavy blows. Of course, just by the nature of this kind of training the offensive side of it involves brutal hits and grabs, designed to break bones, shatter skulls, and gouge out eyes (which is why you don't see it used in sport arenas).

As far as DnD goes, it seems like the perfect art for a dwarf or half-orc.

It's remarkable how many arts are 2 de4dlee 4 teH str33t/ring.

Deity
2010-04-04, 08:52 PM
It's remarkable how many arts are 2 de4dlee 4 teH str33t/ring.

Not really actually. Most martial arts were originally designed for killing people, whereas in modern days they are for sport and self-defense nigh exclusively. If you used the techniques found in traditional martial arts forms the way they were meant to you would end up in jail for life.

TheThan
2010-04-04, 09:03 PM
If your looking for different books with martial arts in it there’s only a few out there. Oriental Adventures might be able to help, it’s a 3.0 book and it’s been a while since I pulled it out and looked at it. Dragon Magazine 319 has animal style kung fu. There’s also the drunken master from complete warrior and if memory servers there’s a bit more mechanics on martial arts (mostly weapons), there’s also a bunch of weapon style feats that give you different abilities.

Then there is the obvious, by that I mean Tomb of battle. Which not only gives melee a much-needed boost, it also can be easily re-flavored to suit your taste. The creators took their inspiration from wuxia films and anime, so that might be a big help to you.

That’s about all I can come up with for RPGs.

Now on to other stuff.

The reason why you find several distinct styles of martial arts in any single country (various forms of karate, judo, jui jitsu in Japan for instance) is because a lot of the creators were prideful enough to believe their form of martial art is the ultimate. Which has lead to this rather odd idea that the older a martial art is the better it is. Apparently pedigree matters. So amongst a lot of martial arts circles some newer styles, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Jeet Kun Do don’t have the age and pedigree (though both actually do with Bruce Lee and Helio Gracie behind their respective styles). There are also regional reasons, rivalries and a whole plethora of other reasons. Fortunately times are changing and the old prejudices are beginning to break down, especially with the popularity of mixed martial arts. This is actually kind of funny when you stop and think about it. The two oldest styles of martial arts in the world are boxing and wrestling, and neither of them gets the respect or attention they deserve (not to mention wrestling is practiced in nearly every country and region in one form or another.)

Tae kwon do is a very effective martial art, but most of what you see now a days is sport TKD, which is kind of silly, they drop their hands and rely on fancy spinning kicks to win matches. Its entertaining to watch, but its not the practical side of the style that can win real fights. The practical TKD is very solid, you keep a good defense and focus mostly on the basics of the art, few if any of those fancy flying kicks.

What makes the “style” of mixed martial arts so solid is its grounding in several strong martial arts, it borrows the striking from boxing and Muay Thai, and the grappling from BJJ and wrestling, then throws it all into a blender and creates the tasty smoothie that is MMA.

taltamir
2010-04-04, 09:16 PM
Not really actually. Most martial arts were originally designed for killing people, whereas in modern days they are for sport and self-defense nigh exclusively. If you used the techniques found in traditional martial arts forms the way they were meant to you would end up in jail for life.

unless you were taught them by the military for use in killing people and used them in the service of your country.
Although you are apt to end up in a POW camp...

Erts
2010-04-04, 09:32 PM
If I may bring this back to roleplaying games, I think that a traditional Thai Fighter would be a very interesting character.

Traditional Thai Fighters would kick and punch trees, to harden their bones and deaden the nerves. This is what gave rise to the metaphor "A Muay Thai shin kick is like being hit with a baseball bat."

Also, they used a unique kind of hand wrapping, rope wrapped around the fingers. The friction of the ropes would be able to shred skin. Sometimes, they were dipped in water to make them very hard as well.

With regards to actually learning an art, I'm like Jaron: Started with TKD.

I now do Muay Thai and Capoeira, to learn how to kick someones ass and look in great shape. I also have done wrestling, and plan to do BJJ in the future.

I would listen to what the more experienced playgrounders then me have to say on the subject.

Best of luck.

Yukitsu
2010-04-04, 10:31 PM
I find that hard to believe.

If it's true I have to wonder who your friend got his "black belt" from...

From someone who teaches a "ring" art, vs. someone who earned a "street" art. Even the intent of the styles differed. BJJ was designed to be a competition style, whereas karate was designed to defeat armed and armoured soldiers in battle. In particular, karate practitioners of the old style needed to know how to counter Judo or Aikido, because the samurai practiced Judo and Aikido. If they didn't, they'd be beaten, then killed.

As an aside, I've met some people who are in the military, and who had to learn that class of restraining. I can get out of their armlocks before they can apply pressure on the joint as well, so it's not as though what I learn is only practical against show styles.


Those techniques have been tested in vale tudo/MMA/challenge matches. They don't seem to help the striker noticeably.

They let someone gouge out an opponents eyes in MMA? Links please.

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-04-05, 01:48 AM
Those techniques have been tested in vale tudo/MMA/challenge matches. They don't seem to help the striker noticeably.

I would doubt that the intent of either participant in these vale tudo/MMA/challenge matches are to cause serious injury. This will typically hurt the 'striker' compared to a 'grappler' or however you would call them. Joint locks and grappling offer flexibility in the level of trauma inflicted while still being effective, which is why they fall lower on a police officer's use of force continuum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum) than bludgeoning you with a cosh. They can be just as effective in controlling a conflict as striking, without causing serious trauma.

That being said, in a situation where ending the conflict supersedes concerns for lasting or permanent injury in your opponent, striking is often much faster in eliminating an opponent's ability to fight than grappling with them or attempting joint locks. Some have said they'd rather take a 'Karate kick' (as opposed to a Savate kick or Muay Thai kick?) and 'suck it up' than 'have [their] elbow broken' (Note: I think I'm paraphrasing JaronK, but regardless of whom I'm paraphrasing, I mean no offense). My concern with this sentiment is the seeming lack of belief that a 'striker' kicking you could cause serious damage. Broken ribs are nothing to laugh at, nor are broken wrists, clavicles, hands, feet, jaws, etc., nor is a bruised diaphragm, concussion, or other such injury. All of these are possible (even plausible) results of an effective 'striker' striking an opponent. So if I am not concerned for your wellbeing (and if I'm fighting you, that's not impossible), I'm going to hit you in whatever way I can to most quickly end the fight. No, I'm not going to gouge your eyes out (I'd honestly think it too difficult in the heat of the moment, and more brutal than I'd like to be on top of it) or break your knee/elbow (unless you are armed and there are witnesses present) but I am going to smash your foot, hit you in the head, solarplexus, ribs, kidneys, wherever you present me a target really. And it is going to hurt.

I guess what I'm arguing comes down to intent and flexibility. A 'soft' style is more flexible in how injured it leaves the person it is applied to after preventing their continued opposition. A 'hard' style is pretty much one speed only. That speed works, but it's not necessarily something that transfers over well to the world of sport.

Oh, and one (well, two) small nitpick(s) - Shotokan Karate isn't one unified style, so to dismiss it entirely as a sport martial art, or simply to classify it as such, is inaccurate. And Karate means 'empty hand', as in unarmed, not 'open hand'.

JaronK
2010-04-05, 01:58 AM
Indeed. Except when those 'areas' you are suppose to avoid become your areas. Or those elements come into your areas. Gangs or attackers period aren't stopped by invisible boundaries nor should you feel safe in avoiding 'turf'. Any area can be a chance for attack, because you don't expect it makes it all the more likely you will die when it happens.

You can avoid confrontation in more ways than just avoiding some turf boundries. Without knowing the specific situation I can't comment on the exact methods to use, but suffice to say there are ways to avoid conflict the vast majority of the time. Remember, it doesn't benefit a ganger to randomly stab some guy on the street (except in the occasional initiation ritual, but that's very rare). You can avoid being a target.


Pulling a gun by the way, for the informed student of using guns, means some one else is already trying to shoot you.

Which brings home the point that pulling a gun to scare off a gang is a terrible idea. They weren't trying to shoot you... yet. Now they have to.


Again, education. You should never have to pull your gun unless you intend to use it and therefore have to use it. The same goes for knives or really any weapon.

This is true, but again, pulling a gun to scare someone off (as was suggested here) is a terrible plan. Plus, a lot of people get the idea in their head that pulling a gun means you suddenly win. Remember, in studies even cops (who one assumes are trained) miss something like 80% of the time at point blank range in confrontations. This has to do with a number of factors (adrenaline being a huge one) and that's even after assuming that once you draw the weapon you're prepared to fire (which many people aren't). Guns as self defense are a liability far more than an asset. Guns for hunting are fine, or for sport, and of course they're needed in war... but concealed carry to protect yourself on the street in a bad neighborhood is a really bad plan. Honestly running away or learning to avoid the situations or learning proper de-escalation is usually safer.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-04-05, 02:34 AM
Some have said they'd rather take a 'Karate kick' (as opposed to a Savate kick or Muay Thai kick?) and 'suck it up' than 'have [their] elbow broken' (Note: I think I'm paraphrasing JaronK, but regardless of whom I'm paraphrasing, I mean no offense). My concern with this sentiment is the seeming lack of belief that a 'striker' kicking you could cause serious damage. Broken ribs are nothing to laugh at, nor are broken wrists, clavicles, hands, feet, jaws, etc., nor is a bruised diaphragm, concussion, or other such injury.

It's an accurate paraphrase, and I stand by it. I'm quite familiar with how much damage a striker can cause. I started in striking in fact, and one of my housemates is an MMA fighter (I train with him, but I'm not at his level). I'd hate to take a full force kick from him. He's got plenty of Muay Thai training and he's over 200 pounds, and those legs come in like tree trunks. And yet other than a well placed head shot kick or a neck shot punch, he's unlikely to actually kill with one of those strikes... whereas something like a rear naked choke or other similar move would be lethal every time if that was the goal. Sure, a broken floating rib sucks, but in general strikes are more likely to cause pain, movement, and minor damage than to actually cause long term permanent injury or death.

With that said, in a self defense situation I'd go striking all the way if I felt I was in serious danger, mostly because it's quicker and it doesn't expose me to other dangers. Also I wear steel toed boots all the time and default to TKD just because that's what I started with, so that helps too.

JaronK

taltamir
2010-04-05, 03:20 AM
It's an accurate paraphrase, and I stand by it. I'm quite familiar with how much damage a striker can cause. I started in striking in fact, and one of my housemates is an MMA fighter (I train with him, but I'm not at his level). I'd hate to take a full force kick from him. He's got plenty of Muay Thai training and he's over 200 pounds, and those legs come in like tree trunks. And yet other than a well placed head shot kick or a neck shot punch, he's unlikely to actually kill with one of those strikes... whereas something like a rear naked choke or other similar move would be lethal every time if that was the goal. Sure, a broken floating rib sucks, but in general strikes are more likely to cause pain, movement, and minor damage than to actually cause long term permanent injury or death.K

he explicitly compared a broken elbow to a strike to the gut. A rear naked choke is equivalent to said "well placed head or nick shots".

I have read of people who died from internal bleeding due to a strike to the gut. a rib can break and puncture organs, organs can rupture, blood vessels hemorrhage and bleeding to death occurs.

However, it is unfair to compare a grappling based shattering of a knee to a strike to the gut. A striker could ALSO hit the knee and shatter it. Shattered knee is the same whether shattered by a strike or a hold.

JaronK
2010-04-05, 03:30 AM
he explicitly compared a broken elbow to a strike to the gut. A rear naked choke is equivalent to said "well placed head or nick shots".

Except that I've found the well placed head or neck shots to be FAR less likely than a rear naked choke in a grapple. Those tend to be lucky shots... easy to guard against for the most part, and not the main goal. Grapplers are aiming for the really nasty stuff from the get go... once they've got your back or mount or whatever you're in all kinds of serious danger. The point is that once the grappler has gotten into position, you're in a lot more trouble. Maybe it's that I'm so used to taking strikes, but I've found grapplers far more dangerous in terms of serious bodily harm.

JaronK

taltamir
2010-04-05, 03:32 AM
Except that I've found the well placed head or neck shots to be FAR less likely than a rear naked choke in a grapple. The point is that once the grappler has gotten into position, you're in a lot more trouble. Maybe it's that I'm so used to taking strikes, but I've found grapplers far more dangerous in terms of serious bodily harm.

JaronK

I agree that grapplers are more dangerous, heck I Said so in my first post in this thread. But a hard hit to the internal organs is nothing to scoff at and potentially very dangerous. I believe that was his point.

JaronK
2010-04-05, 03:35 AM
I agree that grapplers are more dangerous, heck I Said so in my first post in this thread. But a hard hit to the internal organs is nothing to scoff at and potentially very dangerous. I believe that was his point.

Oh, well that I don't disagree with. I was talking to the guy that said strikers dealt horrific real damage while the "soft" arts didn't really cause serious damage.

Strikers are still dangerous, I just think they're less likely to cause you serious physical harm. That doesn't mean I'd like to suck up a well placed Muay Thai knee to the gut/floating rib or something like that.

JaronK

Iku Rex
2010-04-05, 07:20 AM
From someone who teaches a "ring" art, vs. someone who earned a "street" art. Even the intent of the styles differed. BJJ was designed to be a competition style, whereas karate was designed to defeat armed and armoured soldiers in battle. BJJ was designed to be a no holds barred street fighting style. And the reason you've even heard of it is that the Gracies proved the superiority of their style against all comers.


The ‘Gracie Challenge’ matches were designed simply to show that many of the world’s martial artists were living in what the Gracies termed ‘a fantasy world' where they would practice moves in the air or against a pad, but be forbidden to practice against another human being because the moves were ‘too deadly.’ Carley Gracie, in talking about the practicality of the challenges, said:

I think the reason the challenge goes on [in America] is that some martial arts live in a fantasy world. Some people go to school for years and when they get attacked in the street or the ring, they don't know how to defend themselves. The challenges wake these people up to reality. (Paman)

In the context of the Gracie Challenge, often martial arts practitioners said something like, ‘Well, I could easily defend your attack with such-and-such eyeball gouge, or such-and-such throat crushing technique. But I don’t want to hurt you.’ To which the Gracies replied: 'Go ahead. We are interested in furthering our art. My family will understand if your technique takes out my brother’s eye/throat/etc.’ But during the actual matches when practitioners motivated by pride or greed would attempt the ‘forbidden deadly moves’ they found that their techniques were ineffective, and merely annoyed their opponents, rather than blinding or killing them.
-- http://jamesbarlow.com/Kickassination.htm


Yes, BJJ also used for competition, with fairly restrictive rules. Some train almost exlusively for that kind of fighting. But you're not claiming to be able to beat a BJJ black belt in a street fight. You're claiming he can't even beat you at his specialty - submission fighting in a controlled environment.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2cghe8m.jpg







I was taught to counter grapples with things that are really illegal in the MMA or any other association, such as kicking them below the belt, gouging at their eyes, or my personal favourite, elbowing them in the back of the neck, which comes up rather often against grapplers actually. Those techniques have been tested in vale tudo/MMA/challenge matches. They don't seem to help the striker noticeably.

They let someone gouge out an opponents eyes in MMA? Links please.You mentioned a number of techniques. I mentioned some of the places they've been tested. Interestingly you disregard everything but "eye gouging" and focus exclusively on the "MMA" in my answer.

But no, eye gouging isn't usually allowed in what we'd call MMA (UFC and similar orgs). Even the first, supposedly "no holds barred", UFC fights discouraged eye gouging with a fine. Elbow strikes and, in some events, groin strikes were fully legal tough. Grapplers still dominated.

Amphetryon
2010-04-05, 08:15 AM
In general, in the early UFC fights, grapplers dominated because the fighters were preselected, and because grapplers were trained to deal with strikers whereas strikers were not often trained to deal with grapplers. A grappler will usually have to deflect or otherwise avoid at least one shot in order to initiate a grapple, while a striker may not need to avoid any holds to continue striking except via movement. The cage environment, moreso than a ring or open area, limits defenses against a grapple somewhat. The use of a gi as an aid to chokes has also been pointed to as an advantage for the Gracies in the early matches. Once fighters in MMA started learning how to deal with grapplers with pioneers like Sakuraba, and once the gi was no longer acceptable ring attire, the Gracie's BJJ became a useful but beatable tool in the MMA arsenal. There are also, of course, the widely publicized positive tests for Nandrolone to cast doubt on the Gracie aura, but the Gracies still dispute those tests. Note also that strikers have traditionally fared better in virtually every MMA organization outside of UFC, which may indicate conditions within that environment are (or were) especially suited to BJJ and grappling.

The latest consensus MMA rankings on Yahoo! (http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AvDHvTEziMUes_xGVy58IKk9Eo14?slug=dd-mmaranks040110) include no fighters who are primarily submissions-based, with all 10 of them using mostly striking in their victories. At least in terms of the sport of fighting, it would appear the page has turned on the domination of the arena by grapplers.

ForzaFiori
2010-04-05, 08:31 AM
I agree that grapplers are more dangerous, heck I Said so in my first post in this thread. But a hard hit to the internal organs is nothing to scoff at and potentially very dangerous. I believe that was his point.

The thing about taking body shots from a striker is that most striking arts teach you how to handle taking them, both by tightening the muscles at impact, "rolling" with the hit, if it is an ab shot, breathing out as it hits can help somewhat.

In the same manner, a grappling art will teach you how to break holds. I would give examples, but I haven't trained in any yet, though friends have, and I have seen them do stuff while ground fighting that I didn't even think was possible.

In the end, it truly depends on your training. I would much rather have a person stand up and fight me, even if it means kicks and punches all over. With a stand up fight, I know how to best defend myself, and how best to get rid of my attacker. Someone trained in Judo would most likely say the exact opposite.

Iku Rex
2010-04-05, 08:53 AM
The latest consensus MMA rankings on Yahoo! (http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AvDHvTEziMUes_xGVy58IKk9Eo14?slug=dd-mmaranks040110) include no fighters who are primarily submissions-based, with all 10 of them using mostly striking in their victories. At least in terms of the sport of fighting, it would appear the page has turned on the domination of the arena by grapplers.From your list:

1. Anderson Silva. Black belt in judo and BJJ.
2. Georges St. Pierre. BJJ black belt. Very skilled wrestler.
3. Fedor Emelianenko. Sambo expert. (Similar to judo/BJJ.)
4. B.J. Penn. BJJ black belt.
5. Lyoto Machida. BJJ black belt.
6. Jose Aldo. BJJ black belt.
7. Mauricio Rua. BJJ black belt.
8. Gegard Mousasi. Skilled grappler. Sambo/judo? Several submission wins.
9. Dan Henderson. Wrestler.
10. Dominick Cruz. Wrestler.


Striking is all very well, but if you don't know how to grapple you don't belong in MMA. Every guy on your list is an excellent grappler.

Oslecamo
2010-04-05, 08:59 AM
Except that I've found the well placed head or neck shots to be FAR less likely than a rear naked choke in a grapple. Those tend to be lucky shots... easy to guard against for the most part, and not the main goal. Grapplers are aiming for the really nasty stuff from the get go... once they've got your back or mount or whatever you're in all kinds of serious danger. The point is that once the grappler has gotten into position, you're in a lot more trouble. Maybe it's that I'm so used to taking strikes, but I've found grapplers far more dangerous in terms of serious bodily harm.


Indeed, human limbs just aren't designed to deal damage effectively. Only on movies (or if facing someone with a lot less skill) you can knock down someone with a single unarmed blow. Grapples at least allow you to use your full body weight to your advantage.

However, the rules change drastically if the striker has any kind of weapon. Altough most martial arts were designed to allow you to defend from armed oponents, most experts agree that weapons give a big advantage, in particular if you know how to use it. Martial arts were designed as last ditch effort should you find yourself cornered and weaponless. A simple knive means your blows are now much more lethal, and a grapple may be quickly ended in a bloody way if there's a sharp blade between the fighters. Altough most grapple techquniques consider the possibility of disarming an oponent, is still much more dangerous to try to do it against someone with a pointy stick than someone with naked hands.

Amphetryon
2010-04-05, 09:04 AM
@ Iku: I absolutely agree that they are skilled wrestler/grapplers. My point is based in how they are achieving their current success in MMA; everyone on that list, according to Sherdog.com, has a majority of wins via strikes, rather than submissions. That indicates, at least on its face, that strikes are a more effective tool to win at MMA, provided you have the ability to deal with grappling somehow. It makes grappling a necessary tool - as my earlier post indicated - but not the primary weapon of choice.

The Big Dice
2010-04-05, 09:06 AM
I'm mildly surprised that Chinese martial arts haven't been touched on much in this thread. Then again, given the culture of people adapting, renaming and constantly evolving styles in the country that considers itself the cradle of martial arts, I'm not really that surprised.

The thing with any martial art, be it Fencing, medieval swordsmanship, BJJ, Wing Chun kung fu or whatever, is they are all developed to be a solution to fighting in certain circumstances. And the way they are taught now isn't usually the way they were taught when they were a relevant way to stay alive.

For a living example of that, check out Phillipino styles. Out there, street violence is a real issue, and people train with sticks and knives. But they don't go for twice weekly two hour sessions to earn belts. And they don't train for sport, they train to carve chunks out of each other.

Ultiamtely, though, there's no real way to answer the question UFC was originally et up to ask: what is the best style? There's too many variables, too many solutions to the same problems. Sure, a hard stylist can pummel you senseless, but I've seen a T'ai Chi Chuan demonstration where a 5 foot nothing guy of 70 put a 6 foot guy fifty years younger on his ass with what looked like a gentle push. And I've seen some truly inpressive destruction technique demonstrations. And the Quigong stuff I've seen Shaolin Monks do is truly awe inspiring.

The thing all martial arts do have in common is, by the time you've trained enough to be a lethal weapon, you probably won't want to hurt anyone unless you absolutely need to. It's something of a paradox, but I think the confidence that comes with knowing your own physical ability and having that outlet for aggression in a controlled environment has positive effects on the psychology of the martial artist.

When it comes to martial arts in roleplaying games, D&D probably isn't the best one to use if you want a realistic and stylistically varied take on them. Hard and soft applications (even though there's not really any styles that are all the way at one extreme or the other) can be covered with a few Feats. 2020 Cyberpunk has a fairly novel set of martial arts rules, where styles had key moves that gave specific bonuses, and of course there's GURPS Martial Arts.

If you want to recreate the mythical martial artist who can take on hordes single handedly and beat armed opponents with nothing but wits and bare hands, you could always check out Qin the Warring States. That's a heavily Wuxia inspired game.

Oslecamo
2010-04-05, 09:18 AM
The thing all martial arts do have in common is, by the time you've trained enough to be a lethal weapon, you probably won't want to hurt anyone unless you absolutely need to. It's something of a paradox, but I think the confidence that comes with knowing your own physical ability and having that outlet for aggression in a controlled environment has positive effects on the psychology of the martial artist.

Not really. If that was true, then all gangs would be composed of harmless dudes who couldn't hurt anyone, because everybody who realized they could hurt someone would choose not to.

For each dude who feels relaxed and fulfilled, there's other dude who wants to use his abilities to more "selfish" purposes. Bullies know they are stronger than average and use it for their advantage to get their way. I've met some of them who actualy practised martial arts to improve their bullying ability. Dangerous guys. Had to run quite a bit back then.

That's why I prefer to follow the motto that the best battle is the one that didn't need to be fought, aka stay the hell away from your local dark dangerous regions and seek safety in numbers.

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 09:36 AM
BJJ was designed to be a no holds barred street fighting style. And the reason you've even heard of it is that the Gracies proved the superiority of their style against all comers.

Yeah, as a ring form, not as a self defense martial art. As JaronK mentioned, those aren't the same sorts of things.


Yes, BJJ also used for competition, with fairly restrictive rules. Some train almost exlusively for that kind of fighting. But you're not claiming to be able to beat a BJJ black belt in a street fight. You're claiming he can't even beat you at his specialty - submission fighting in a controlled environment.

http://i33.tinypic.com/2cghe8m.jpg

When did I say that? I said I can avoid losing to his specialty. I still have to punch him in the throat to beat him. You seem to assume that the only way to win ever is grappling. That's simply not the case.


You mentioned a number of techniques. I mentioned some of the places they've been tested. Interestingly you disregard everything but "eye gouging" and focus exclusively on the "MMA" in my answer.

But no, eye gouging isn't usually allowed in what we'd call MMA (UFC and similar orgs). Even the first, supposedly "no holds barred", UFC fights discouraged eye gouging with a fine. Elbow strikes and, in some events, groin strikes were fully legal tough. Grapplers still dominated.

Elbow strikes should be fine in all cases. Elbow strikes done to the back of the neck at the spine dropped down on someone that is going for a double leg takedown never is, which is what I mentioned. I mentioned besides that, strikes to the throat and groin strikes. The only one you seem to be contending is shots to the groin, though in all cases that I've seen those, the one who was hit moved considerably slower for the next half minute or so.

TimeWizard
2010-04-05, 09:56 AM
Coming out of retirement for this...

Surprised not much was said about Boxing. We all know about it, the punch exclusive sport. Don't be sold on the idea that there's no "defense" in boxing, a balance of defense and offense is what makes an effective boxer (The same is true of all styles). Boxing is a highly practical means of combat, as there is no "fluff", and boxing gyms won't sell you on chep imitation. It has been my experience that most escalating fights (bar fights, parties, basically anywhere alcohol meets machismo) start with a punch. Being a boxer myself, you quickly learn that a liquored up John Wayne style haymaker is a bad idea- they leave you open, and have a huge windup and recovery phase. Don't be confused- boxing is a sport, there are rules. No one who takes a boxing lesson expects those to be followed out of the ring, that would be moronic. However, punching is by far easier and more common that kicking or wrestling, and people are inclined to do it naturally and without training. Knowing your way around punches and there defenses will pay off when the liquor and the testosterone meet.

A pet peeve of mine: "boxing is entirely upper body". Bull! join a boxing gym for two weeks and you'll learn to fear waking up in the morning... because you legs are sore as hell. Most striking combat styles emphasize the importance of using your legs for added power and speed. And to be technical, the majority of upper-body power comes from you back. After a year of boxing my bicepts and tricepts aren't especially note worthy but my back muscles are large, powerful, and well defined. Another peeve: Chest muscles. Bench pressing to increase punching power is only an effective idea if you punch with your chest muscles, like a big ol' John Wayne wide open slug to the head. That's Frat-Style, not Boxer-style.

As for my last bit: Grappling. What you see on UFC is (like boxing) a sport with rules and regulations, a padded floor and judges to stop a fight. If you a learning self-defense for the main goal of survivng an assault consider that most floors are hard and most assailants do not allow for tapping out. More practical than an arm bar is the takedown that brought you to the ground in the first place. Hitting your head on the pavement, tile, wood, what ever is much more likely to hurt and incapacitate that the hold you are about to start. Also be wary that spending time wrestling on the ground leaves you incredibly open for a second person to deliver lethal blows with foot or weapon. Friends of your assailant won't wait on the sidelines for you to finish breaking their buddies elbow.

In short, on "the street" Takedowns > submissions.

Iku Rex
2010-04-05, 09:59 AM
@ Iku: I absolutely agree that they are skilled wrestler/grapplers. My point is based in how they are achieving their current success in MMA; everyone on that list, according to Sherdog.com, has a majority of wins via strikes, rather than submissions.

That's not entirely true - Fedor (http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Fedor-Emelianenko-1500) Emelianenko for one has more submission wins than (T)KOs. But in general you're right.


That indicates, at least on its face, that strikes are a more effective tool to win at MMA, provided you have the ability to deal with grappling somehow. It makes grappling a necessary tool - as my earlier post indicated - but not the primary weapon of choice.I'm not sure if you're drawing the right conclusion from the data.

The lesson to be taken not that "strikes are more effective" in general. In order to be a successful modern MMA fighter you pretty much have to be a competent grappler. In order to become a competent grappler you need many hours of practice, time not spent learning how to strike. The very best are so talented, or have spent so much time training, that they can be expert grapplers and expert strikers. Obviously they focus on the area in which they have the advantage in a fight. The reason they have that advantage is that while good grappling is mandatory, good striking isn't.

The Big Dice
2010-04-05, 10:08 AM
Not really. If that was true, then all gangs would be composed of harmless dudes who couldn't hurt anyone, because everybody who realized they could hurt someone would choose not to.

For each dude who feels relaxed and fulfilled, there's other dude who wants to use his abilities to more "selfish" purposes. Bullies know they are stronger than average and use it for their advantage to get their way. I've met some of them who actualy practised martial arts to improve their bullying ability. Dangerous guys. Had to run quite a bit back then.

That's why I prefer to follow the motto that the best battle is the one that didn't need to be fought, aka stay the hell away from your local dark dangerous regions and seek safety in numbers.

That's why I said "probably won't want to." There are people out there who simply want to throw their weight around. But the thing with bullies is, for every one that learns some martial arts (often boxing, I noticed when they were a problem for me) there's five that a swift kick in the nads puts them off causing trouble with you.

sombrastewart
2010-04-05, 10:24 AM
To the OP: FWIW, I'm an 18 year practicing martial artist across five styles and wrote my undergraduate thesis on the subject. If you want message me, I'll try and tell you whatever I can to be helpful.

Second, wow, aside from the one poster, you can tell most folks in this thread have never done capoeira. Yes, training by slaves, disguised as a dance so they wouldn't be killed and very nice to watch, but guys, if you think that things done in exhibition are always meant to be practical, I've got a bridge to sell you. Big, flashy exhibitions are great and they're fun, but they aren't a good representative of the style as a whole.

The high flying stuff you see capoeistas do isn't because it's the core techniques or because they're the important parts of the style. You do those because they're fun and look good and you want to impress people. My mestre told me, point blank, that capoeira for real fights is incredibly different. You don't even bust out the base movement in that kind of situation. Capoeira, for real application, is based on the idea of misdirection, trickery and hitting where someone isn't defending or expecting. A good capoeista is also always trying to watch and be aware of the other person, so as to defend or move.

The idea that the style is meant to be done with the razorblades taped to the feet or some such is about as true as any other style always using weapons (things like kali stick fighting being the exception).

I'll get off my soapbox now, but seriously, if you want to know about capoeira, ask a capoeista.

Amphetryon
2010-04-05, 10:28 AM
@ Iku: From all the matches I've seen (admittedly not every one of them), Fedor is what I'd call a 'reactionary grappler' in MMA matches. I've not seen a match where he actively seeks a grappling position. His sambo and judo skills are obviously extraordinary, but he gets his submission wins when his opponent goes to grapple him and he then grabs hold. Otherwise, he appears perfectly content to punch and kick them into hamburger. :smalltongue:

As far as how to read the data, I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree there. Your interpretation has merit, and is assuredly influenced by your preferred techniques. The data also supports the position I've put forth, that modern MMA incorporates BJJ theory but is a more striker-oriented combat sport, particularly outside of UFC. No doubt my own biases influence how I read the data, and which sources I trust most in confirming that reading.

Iku Rex
2010-04-05, 10:51 AM
Yeah, as a ring form, not as a self defense martial art. What's the difference again?

Elbow strikes done to the back of the neck at the spine dropped down on someone that is going for a double leg takedown never is, which is what I mentioned. Like I said, this has been allowed and tested. It was allowed in early UFCs, in Gracie challenge matches, and, I believe, old school vale tudo and in the newer Rio Heroes. (Not to mention stuff like Felony Fights.)

Guess what? Not a win button.


You're claiming he can't even beat you at his specialty - submission fighting in a controlled environment. When did I say that? You said - and I quote "I can wriggle out of every lock he can try before he can apply any pressure". If he can't put a submission on you, he can't beat you.


You seem to assume that the only way to win ever is grappling. That's simply not the case.Having watched MMA for many years I certainly don't assume that. I'm objecting to your far-fetched stories of outgrappling a BJJ black belt (and yes, avoiding all submissions is "outgrappling) and your cliche claims of how this or that illegal technique would easily allow a striker to win a "real" fight.


I mentioned besides that, strikes to the throat and groin strikes. The only one you seem to be contending is shots to the groin, though in all cases that I've seen those, the one who was hit moved considerably slower for the next half minute or so.You mentioned kicking below the belt, yes.

Again, these kind of techniques have been allowed.

Of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective, in the sense that it hurts an opponent. But that's not what we're talking about. Your contention is that allowing it will seriously improve the chances of a striker, which is by no means a given.

Paulus
2010-04-05, 11:01 AM
You can avoid confrontation in more ways than just avoiding some turf boundries. Without knowing the specific situation I can't comment on the exact methods to use, but suffice to say there are ways to avoid conflict the vast majority of the time. Remember, it doesn't benefit a ganger to randomly stab some guy on the street (except in the occasional initiation ritual, but that's very rare). You can avoid being a target.
Indeed. Except when those 'areas' you are suppose to avoid become your areas. Or those elements come into your areas. Gangs or attackers period aren't stopped by invisible boundaries nor should you feel safe in avoiding 'turf'. Any area can be a chance for attack, because you don't expect it makes it all the more likely you will die when it happens.



Which brings home the point that pulling a gun to scare off a gang is a terrible idea. They weren't trying to shoot you... yet. Now they have to.
This is true, but again, pulling a gun to scare someone off (as was suggested here) is a terrible plan. Plus, a lot of people get the idea in their head that pulling a gun means you suddenly win. Remember, in studies even cops (who one assumes are trained) miss something like 80% of the time at point blank range in confrontations. This has to do with a number of factors (adrenaline being a huge one) and that's even after assuming that once you draw the weapon you're prepared to fire (which many people aren't). Guns as self defense are a liability far more than an asset. Guns for hunting are fine, or for sport, and of course they're needed in war... but concealed carry to protect yourself on the street in a bad neighborhood is a really bad plan. Honestly running away or learning to avoid the situations or learning proper de-escalation is usually safer.

JaronK

I think you’re agreeing with me here but I can’t be sure so I’ll reiterate what I said. Pulling a gun on someone, for someone who knows had trained with one and thus been educated thus knows how and when to use it thus knows why and the how for and everything there is to know about the weapon of their choice, means explicitly that they draw it for a reason, meaning they would already know drawing a gun to ‘scare’ someone off is folly because as I said, they would only draw a gun to use it, that means site to kill, that means ending an attack on you, that means murdering someone in self defense, that means Death to Them Most Utterly. So again. the point I am stressing is not where or not one should pull a gun, but knowing when and how and simply knowing period is the point. Knowledge. Learning. Information. This is why it is key. Otherwise you do silly things like pull a gun on a hobo and get arrested for threatening with a lethal weapon. Which is against the law. A weapon law. Which anyone should be aware of. If they use a weapon. Have I made myself clear?

None of this intended to be mean, it was me trying to make perfectly clear my stance on weapons as you seemed to be confused, and or, agreeing with me but not. In any case, yes. You and everyone else who has said you don’t pull a weapon unless faced with a weapon is correct. But then I am stating quite purely that the more important point is to learn by learning your weapon laws and what not for your area. Because then you, nor I, nor anyway would have to tell someone this because they would already know. So. Go and know. Hope this helps.

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 11:10 AM
What's the difference again?
Like I said, this has been allowed and tested. It was allowed in early UFCs, in Gracie challenge matches, and, I believe, old school vale tudo and in the newer Rio Heroes. (Not to mention stuff like Felony Fights.)

Guess what? Not a win button.

I would like links to fights where that occurred. It's a potentially debilitating strike if things go wrong (or right, depending), and not in the temporary way.

And the difference is the objective in one being winning the match, the other is to debillitate the other then run away like a scared pansy.


You said - and I quote "I can wriggle out of every lock he can try before he can apply any pressure". If he can't put a submission on you, he can't beat you.

That doesn't mean I'm "beating him at his own game." It means I'm not losing his game, and can win mine. Do you know the best way out of an armbar or lock? Hit them before they finish it. Am I grappling? No, I'm striking. I just have to know when he's going for a grab that I can't evade.


Having watched MMA for many years I certainly don't assume that. I'm objecting to your far-fetched stories of outgrappling a BJJ black belt (and yes, avoiding all submissions is "outgrappling) and your cliche claims of how this or that illegal technique would easily allow a striker to win a "real" fight.

You mentioned kicking below the belt, yes.

Again, these kind of techniques have been allowed.

Again, I'd like a link to these claimed matches where a grappler was hit in any of those manners, and won. The matches in which I've seen groin shots, the person hit has always lost, grappler or striker.

Plus, don't they wear cups in MMA?


Of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective, in the sense that it hurts an opponent. But that's not what we're talking about. Your contention is that allowing it will seriously improve the chances of a striker, which is by no means a given.

I don't care about it hurting. People in any of these matches can push through a ton of pain and keep going. I'm pointing out that when it happens that they are hit in these points, they move slower, their vision blurs, they lose support and power going to their own attacks. Doesn't necessarily mean they will lose from strikes, but it does mean they won't be able to grapple or strike as easily, which is enough to lose a match.

Iku Rex
2010-04-05, 12:10 PM
I would like links to fights where that occurred. It's a potentially debilitating strike if things go wrong (or right, depending), and not in the temporary way.You still don't get it. The question is not if it can be effective if done perfectly. The question is if trying to do it perfectly is cost-effective in a fight, and if so if it favors the striker significantly.

Experience says "no". Since we know for a fact that it has been allowed on many occasions, the burden is on you to prove that it was tried and it worked, making the striker the winner, not on me to post all the examples of it not succeeding or fighters knowing better than attempting it.



And the difference is the objective in one being winning the match, the other is to debillitate the other then run away like a scared pansy. Any debilitating move that can be practiced safely can be included in a "ring form". If you haven't practiced it you probably shouldn't be wasting your time on it in a dangerous situation. You're better off doing something you've tried and succeeded at hundreds of times before against a resisting opponent.



That doesn't mean I'm "beating him at his own game." It means I'm not losing his game, and can win mine. I didn't say you were "beating him at his own game" but I'll go with that. Avoiding submissions is a vital part of BJJ. If you can do it better than BJJ black belts you are without a doubt beating them at their own game.



Do you know the best way out of an armbar or lock? Hit them before they finish it. Am I grappling? No, I'm striking. I just have to know when he's going for a grab that I can't evade. I won't pretend to be a martial arts expert, but like I said I've watched a lot of MMA. That is not the way avoid an armbar. If you're about to be armbarred chances are slim that you'll be able to do any real damage with strikes. A distraction? Perhaps. Standard defense? No.


Again, I'd like a link to these claimed matches where a grappler was hit in any of those manners, and won. The matches in which I've seen groin shots, the person hit has always lost, grappler or striker. Then you haven't seen a lot of fights. One example OTTOMH: http://www.kaneva.com/asset/assetDetails.aspx?assetId=8059&communityId=0 .

But again, you're trying to change the topic. Like I already told you, the question is not if, say, a kick to the groin can do damage (aka "hurt someone"). Of course it can. The question is if allowing it it will seriously improve the chances of a striker, which is by no means a given.



Plus, don't they wear cups in MMA?In the major orgs, yes.


I don't care about it hurting.You don't care about "substantial or material harm (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurt)"? How strange.


People in any of these matches can push through a ton of pain and keep going. I'm pointing out that when it happens that they are hit in these points, they move slower, their vision blurs, they lose support and power going to their own attacks. Doesn't necessarily mean they will lose from strikes, but it does mean they won't be able to grapple or strike as easily, which is enough to lose a match.Of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective, in the sense that it hurts an opponent. But that's not what we're talking about. Your contention is that allowing it will seriously improve the chances of a striker, which is by no means a given.

Oslecamo
2010-04-05, 12:41 PM
Geting the impression this thread isn't exactly on the best of courses...

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 01:14 PM
You still don't get it. The question is not if it can be effective if done perfectly. The question is if trying to do it perfectly is cost-effective in a fight, and if so if it favors the striker significantly.

Ideally, you don't want to permanently disable anyone, even in a self defense situation. It's still a plus if you are literally fighting for your life. However, any blow along the spine with your elbow will allow for enough leeway to walk away.


Experience says "no". Since we know for a fact that it has been allowed on many occasions, the burden is on you to prove that it was tried and it worked, making the striker the winner, not on me to post all the examples of it not succeeding or fighters knowing better than attempting it.

Well, I can point out that any elbow strikes to the head and neck is illegal in the UFC and in Vale Tudo, which means finding examples of someone doing so and winning is rather difficult. When was it made illegal? It's been illegal for longer than I've watched it.


Any debilitating move that can be practiced safely can be included in a "ring form". If you haven't practiced it you probably shouldn't be wasting your time on it in a dangerous situation. You're better off doing something you've tried and succeeded at hundreds of times before against a resisting opponent.

One of the things they teach you in a self defense class, is how to gouge at someone with a set of keys. They get you to practice the motion with full extension on a dummy, and get you to do the full set of motions on a live partner sans keys. This is not taught in my style of martial arts, but is taught in major self defense courses. Would you say that this is useful in the ring, or useless on the streets?

Inversely, as others have pointed out, that BJJ ground based grapple set is nearly useless in a street situation, as when you are on the ground like that, you are pretty much setting yourself up to be stomped on, if you are in a fight with anything other than a single person.


I didn't say you were "beating him at his own game" but I'll go with that. Avoiding submissions is a vital part of BJJ. If you can do it better at BJJ black belts you are without a doubt beating them at their own game.


Originally Posted by Iku Rex
You're claiming he can't even beat you at his specialty - submission fighting in a controlled environment.

Yes, you essentially did say I was beating him at his own game. Also, as others have pointed out, MMA matches lately have ended with strikes, probably because all of them were taught how to counter most grabs. As I've said, I've been taught how to counter them, even though I can't use them.


I won't pretend to be a martial arts expert, but like I said I've watched a lot of MMA. That is not the way avoid an armbar. If you're about to be armbarred chances are slim that you'll be able to do any real damage with strikes. A distraction? Perhaps. Standard defense? No.

A distraction is the best way to get out. You can't just flail out and hit anything, that would be inane. Anything that stuns or disorients is enough to get a bend in your arm, and to prevent him from locking it.


Then you haven't seen a lot of fights. One example OTTOMH: http://www.kaneva.com/asset/assetDetails.aspx?assetId=8059&communityId=0 .

But again, you're trying to change the topic. Like I already told you, the question is not if, say, a kick to the groin can do damage (aka "hurt someone"). Of course it can. The question is if allowing it it will seriously improve the chances of a striker, which is by no means a given.

In the major orgs, yes.

The answer to cups again demonstrates why this isn't true in real fights, and why I shouldn't care about MMA examples.


You don't care about "substantial or material harm (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurt)"? How strange.

Nope. That's not what I fight to do. I just need to hit anything that will prevent them from chasing after me, or to give me a 10 second head start. If I wanted to win a match, I guess my priorities would change, but I'd still rather disorient and stun an opponent.


Of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective, in the sense that it hurts an opponent. But that's not what we're talking about. Your contention is that allowing it will seriously improve the chances of a striker, which is by no means a given.

OK, so you can think that getting hit in the groin, gouged in the eyes, elbowed in the back of the neck or head, or hit in the throat doesn't affect your ability to fight at your full capacity, and I'll continue to believe that getting hit in any of those places is very debillitating, to the point that you are at a major disadvantage. Agree to disagree or something.

Taelas
2010-04-05, 01:18 PM
Of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective, in the sense that it hurts an opponent. But that's not what we're talking about. Your contention is that allowing it will seriously improve the chances of a striker, which is by no means a given.

You have clearly never been kicked in the groin.

Take it from someone who has: It seriously improves the chances of the striker.

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 01:24 PM
You have clearly never been kicked in the groin.

Take it from someone who has: It seriously improves the chances of the striker.

Well, in his basis they all wear cups, so it really isn't going to do much of anything in what interests him. That's fair enough, though it isn't all that representative of any street combat.

Taelas
2010-04-05, 01:26 PM
Well, in his basis they all wear cups, so it really isn't going to do much of anything in what interests him. That's fair enough, though it isn't all that representative of any street combat.

Meh. True enough I suppose.

Iku Rex
2010-04-05, 02:14 PM
Well, I can point out that any elbow strikes to the head and neck is illegal in the UFC and in Vale Tudo,What vale tudo (literally: "anything goes") rules are that?

One example from an article (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14173-rio-heroes-legit-or-human-coc k-fighting) [remove space in word for male chicken to see page]on Rio Heroes :


Then there is Rio Heroes. If you were so inclined, you would call it a more pure version of the MMA fighting that most of us know. It is much more similar to Vale Tudo rules, which find themselves somewhere between where the UFC was and is now. The basic rules of vale tudo are no biting, no eye gouging, no time limits, no gloves required, groin shots, head butts, soccer kicking (or stomping) a downed opponent, strikes behind the head or spine are all legal.



When was it made illegal? It's been illegal for longer than I've watched it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Fighting_Championship#Controversy_and_ref orm

Groin strikes were made illegal in UFC 14.
Strikes to the back of the head/neck were made illegal in UFC 15.



Inversely, as others have pointed out, that BJJ ground based grapple set is nearly useless in a street situation, as when you are on the ground like that, you are pretty much setting yourself up to be stomped on, if you are in a fight with anything other than a single person.If you're in a fight with more than one person you're most likely screwed either way. But if it does happen, you desperately want grappling training so you won't get easily wrestled to the ground, pinned and stomped on.

Furthermore, self defense isn't just about the mighty hero defending himself against a horde of mooks. You're not always outnumbered. But the way I figure it, if a fighter/style can't defeat a single opponent under controlled circumstances he's not going to do very well if he's suddenly jumped by several opponents.


Yes, you essentially did say I was beating him at his own game. And upon request I quoted you saying the same thing! Again: "I can wriggle out of every lock he can try before he can apply any pressure."


Do you deny that this means that he can't beat you? :smallsigh:



Also, as others have pointed out, MMA matches lately have ended with strikes, probably because all of them were taught how to counter most grabs. As I've said, I've been taught how to counter them, even though I can't use them. And if you look at the list I posted the top fighters haven't just "been taught how to counter" grappling. It's not that easy. They are all (or pretty much all) expert grapplers in their own right.



OK, so you can think that getting hit in the groin, gouged in the eyes, elbowed in the back of the neck or head, or hit in the throat doesn't affect your ability to fight at your full capacity, and I'll continue to believe that getting hit in any of those places is very debillitating, to the point that you are at a major disadvantage. Agree to disagree or something.You just quoted me saying "of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective". And then you continue by saying that I don't think it can affect your ability to fight.

In the future, if you're going to make claims about what "I think" you may want to avoid quoting me saying the exact opposite right above it. It makes you hard to take seriously.

And for the Nth time, the question is not if, say, eye gouging can "affect your ability to fight". The question is if an eye gouging attempt is more likely to accomplish that than alternative options, and if so, if strikers (or "self defense" martial artists, if that's the issue) will benefit significantly from having the option.

***


Well, in his basis they all wear cups, so it really isn't going to do much of anything in what interests him. I am making no such assumption, and the cups they wear in MMA are not terribly effective against groin strikes.

Iku Rex
2010-04-05, 02:17 PM
You have clearly never been kicked in the groin.

Take it from someone who has: It seriously improves the chances of the striker.Why is that?

JaronK
2010-04-05, 02:17 PM
Coming out of retirement for this...

Surprised not much was said about Boxing. We all know about it, the punch exclusive sport. Don't be sold on the idea that there's no "defense" in boxing, a balance of defense and offense is what makes an effective boxer (The same is true of all styles). Boxing is a highly practical means of combat, as there is no "fluff", and boxing gyms won't sell you on chep imitation.

Boxing requires boxing gloves. Boxing defense is built around wearing those big gloves, and the offense requires it too... a lot of those punches are worthless without gloves (they break your hand). If you don't have those gloves on, your hands are WAY too close to your body.

Now of course you can learn to adapt it. Figure out what punches still work without gloves, and get those hands forward. I wouldn't even dream of trying to street fight a professional boxer. But still, we do have to be clear about that.


It has been my experience that most escalating fights (bar fights, parties, basically anywhere alcohol meets machismo) start with a punch. Being a boxer myself, you quickly learn that a liquored up John Wayne style haymaker is a bad idea- they leave you open, and have a huge windup and recovery phase.

It's a right hook to the chin by the way... even lefties throw a right hook. Seems to be instinctual. That only happens when one person is demonstrating dominance (usually) but it does seem to be the human version of rams running into each other or turtles trying to show who can stretch their necks higher. In self defense, I like to make absolutely sure someone's first move deals with it (I like a straight right to the gut while dropping the head and torso and raising the left elbow to deflect the punch... works pretty well if you assume it's coming and completely spoils that punch while hitting hard even if that's not what they were doing).

The other very common opening attack is a football style tackle (or double leg takedown, if you're wrestling). There's a bunch of counters to that too.


Don't be confused- boxing is a sport, there are rules. No one who takes a boxing lesson expects those to be followed out of the ring, that would be moronic. However, punching is by far easier and more common that kicking or wrestling, and people are inclined to do it naturally and without training. Knowing your way around punches and there defenses will pay off when the liquor and the testosterone meet.

Very true. It's a great cardio workout too, and it does give you those awesome muscles that impress all the ladies. I'd prefer to have more kicks just because those are a lot better when someone has a knife (trying to grab a knife is damn scary and you don't want your wrists getting in there) but punching is more instinctual. Also, most people are stunned when they get punched in the face because they're just not used to it. Boxers have been punched in the face a lot, so they recover very fast from that.


In short, on "the street" Takedowns > submissions.

The big thing I like about grappling for self defense is that in a rape situation, the guy's going to try to effectively submit her by putting her in a situation where she can't get out. Note that this is TOTALLY different from the guy/guy dominance challenge. There are no haymakers, and he's going to hit fast. That's when I want the girl to know the nastiest grappling she can learn... finger breaks to counter chokes, other various small joint locks, and so on... combined with eye gouges, foot stops, and neck punches. She also needs to know how to instinctually tuck her head when that standard football tackle/double leg takedown hits (though preferably she resists it, and we teach how to do that too).

JaronK

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-05, 02:21 PM
You have clearly never been kicked in the groin.

Take it from someone who has: It seriously improves the chances of the striker.

You have clearly never seen shaolin monks being kicked in the groin.

Take it from someone who has: They don't even flinch. :smalltongue:

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 02:33 PM
You have clearly never seen shaolin monks being kicked in the groin.

Take it from someone who has: They don't even flinch. :smalltongue:

If you get in a street fight with a shaolin monk, someone is doing something very wrong. :smalltongue:

Curmudgeon
2010-04-05, 02:37 PM
Do you really want martial arts? Or do you want to win? Martial arts are all "tamed" fighting techniques, such that they can be used repeatedly in practice, rather than killing opponents. A punch to the throat is almost invariably a win, but that's because it's usually fatal. So they don't spend a lot of time practicing the most effective (winning) techniques in martial arts classes; that's just too dangerous. In addition to removing lethal techniques, the various arts have additional weaknesses because of competition rules. If you're attacked by a boxer you should kick them in the knee and run, because they have no training for that; you shouldn't try to punch them in the throat, because that's something they have trained for.

As other posters have mentioned, various fighting styles originated because of local conditions. Tae Kwon Do was a way for peasants to knock opponents off mules, to literally level the field. Shotokan karate, about the hardest of the hard styles, originated when carrying any halfway decent weapon was an immediate death sentence. Its goal was to let an unarmed peasant take on an armored (laminated wood) Samurai with a single blow before they could bring their sword around. Punching through armor and disabling/killing someone with that single blow is pretty much the definition of "hard". But both the Samurai and the Shotokan peasant are helpless against someone staying back and attacking with an effective ranged weapon -- which were also strongly controlled by legal availability at the time.

Because they're only situationally effective, you should think of unarmed combat as a close-quarters option, which needs to be combined with other techniques better suited to other conditions. Think of Indiana Jones drawing his revolver to shoot the swordsman. :smallwink:

Gorilla2038
2010-04-05, 02:44 PM
Im going to throw my mistake up for the first page: soft styles tend not to 'hurt'. I meant that: a soft style opponent tends to injure an opponent, rather than a hard style who will hurt an opponent. So soft-broken bones, hard-broken ribs, nose, and the easy stuff

The Glyphstone
2010-04-05, 02:51 PM
If you get in a street fight with a shaolin monk, someone is doing something very wrong. :smalltongue:

/Thread. That is all.

Beowulf DW
2010-04-05, 03:02 PM
Well, why do you get several different styles of martial arts for a given country? If they were all the same, then they probably would have integrated better. Yet they've all seemed to maintain their identity and you have new one popping up in modern times. This seems to imply that there is something fundamentally different between the different styles.

So what are the strong points of different styles? Some of the old cultural ones seem a little eclectic/do-all in what they try to accomplish. But, for example, some might be better at grappling while others focus on striking, ground work, or for pure defense and escape. I'm sure that's not all it would be good for, as you'd want a well-rounded offensive/defensive system.

Martial arts as we know them today evolved from the experiences of different warriors. When a series of wars or battles was over, the surviving warriors would consider what they had done that allowed them to survive and/or win. They would compile and codify their techniques and strategies into systems, or they would be sought out by others who wanted to learn from them. Thus, schools and styles of martial arts began to form. Each style was built from different experiences to deal with different situations that warriors encountered in their regions. Additionally each successive war tested the different styles. The styles that were still effective lived on, while the styles that had become outdated were destroyed.

Until recently, the various "schools" of martial arts were very exclusive. Masters often only taught members of their clan or tribe, occaisionally making exceptions for promising students. Even today, some of the older schools require recommendations from respected masters before they accept a student.

The older styles often encompass many different methods of combat, because ancient warriors had to adapt to a mutlitude of different situations, and they had to use many different kinds of weapons.

The more popular martial arts that exist today like Tang Soo Do, Aikido, MMA are actually compiled from many different older styles, although they are usually rooted around one or two traditions to which they trace their lineage.

I think that should answer some of your questions. Basically, there are many different styles because there are many different people. Older styles did not join with each other mostly because they were very exculsive, very proud, and often had difficulty in contacting other styles in a fashion that would encourage integration.

Worira
2010-04-05, 03:05 PM
If you're using kicks as a primary knife defence, you need either a better teacher or a suicide hotline.

I'm not even going to respond to kicking people off mules.

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-04-05, 03:41 PM
If you get in a street fight with a shaolin monk, someone is doing something very wrong. :smalltongue:

If you get in a street fight with a Shaolin Monk, you're both likely doing something very wrong. On the one hand, you're going up against a Shaolin Monk, on the other, he's likely violating the precepts against violence of his order. Not necessarily, I know, but likely.

If I could ask an open question: what is a good way to defend against a knife? Both a grappler and a striker are in trouble up against one, as it takes very little to do serious harm with a blade. The grappler is at risk because they are necessarily closer to the knife, and probably for more time, while the striker is at risk because in order to hit them he has to put his arm/leg/elbow/striking appendage in range of the knife for them to work. I know how I've responded to knives, and know that they only worked because I was fast, decisive, and more than a bit lucky, so these instances wouldn't be strong examples. On top of that, I've had the good fortune not to be on the receiving end of a knife attack with enough frequency to draw any general conclusions.

Paulus
2010-04-05, 04:02 PM
If you get in a street fight with a Shaolin Monk, you're both likely doing something very wrong. On the one hand, you're going up against a Shaolin Monk, on the other, he's likely violating the precepts against violence of his order. Not necessarily, I know, but likely.

If I could ask an open question: what is a good way to defend against a knife? Both a grappler and a striker are in trouble up against one, as it takes very little to do serious harm with a blade. The grappler is at risk because they are necessarily closer to the knife, and probably for more time, while the striker is at risk because in order to hit them he has to put his arm/leg/elbow/striking appendage in range of the knife for them to work. I know how I've responded to knives, and know that they only worked because I was fast, decisive, and more than a bit lucky, so these instances wouldn't be strong examples. On top of that, I've had the good fortune not to be on the receiving end of a knife attack with enough frequency to draw any general conclusions.

Suppose I'll answer this since I seem to be the most vocal of the weapon crowd. In my studies of knife technique the more flashy slashy staby arts are simply intimidation and show. None of them, nor any martial art for that matter are very apt at handling a true knife attack. I would suggest googling "Prison yard rush" and "knife defense" for your own research.

What it boils down to is basically no one is going to come at you with a knife forward, though this is what happens in movies all the time. why? because as you see in the movie the person being attacked can grab the hand, kick it, or block easily. That is about their only saving grace, whereas in real life, the knife is hidden and protected by the attacker (who knows his buisness) and you are first blinded, or grabbed by their free hand, and once so entangled, stabbed to death. Even one to two can lead to bleeding out and death.

Therefore, the main defense against knife attacks is never being in one, a firearm, escape, or removing the knife. I list them in that order because most people who can't avoid should really have a weapon on hand to defend themselves from weapons, and escape is some times not an option if you can not avoid. Escape should be the option most definitely and that which you should return to if faced with a knife attack.

Again, the best defense is to remove the knife from the picture via, drawing your own fire arm. Or lastly to disable the target or using some form of improvised weaponry to take the knife stab instead of yourself, and thereby entangle the blade so you may escape. This means, thick over coat, clothing, shield of wood, or spear for distance. Broken broom handle, that sort of thing. But again, you can not let your attacker grab the weapon or object to move it out of the way and then stab you -which is what most determined attackers will do- you must engage the blade with something other then your body.

Without such options as guns, or deflecting, entangling items, and I stress- only as a last resort- Kicks are most effective because they give you distance and are least likely to be stabbed or grabbed then arm motions which have shorter reach. Balance is a factor and missing is a factor, but it is all I can tell you if you truly wish to survive.

again however my meager advise should serve to do one thing and one thing only, prompt you to get educated about such things if you really would like to take self defense seriously and live. Because you will NOT most likely come up against martial artist trying to rob you. You will instead be more likely to find a deranged person seeking money for drugs trying to rob you, and that means a weapon and worse... desperation.

So. again. become educated, if you are encounter dangerous threats and likely to encounter a knife. Learn about them. their use. and defense against them. A cloud of bear spray is very effective in keeping a bear away, and the same goes for a man with a knife for example. I would also suggest you use this same thirst for survival to look at other examples of being confronted with weapons. Guns, wild animals, wild humans, chemical attacks. It matters not what you study, but that you have in mind TOO study a defense and survival against such things.

Let me know if I need to clarify anything I've said by the by, I would like to think I said enough but can never tell if I've gotten my point across...

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 04:03 PM
What vale tudo (literally: "anything goes") rules are that?

One example from an article (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14173-rio-heroes-legit-or-human-coc k-fighting) [remove space in word for male chicken to see page]on Rio Heroes :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Fighting_Championship#Controversy_and_ref orm

Groin strikes were made illegal in UFC 14.
Strikes to the back of the head/neck were made illegal in UFC 15.

I don't care about groin strikes, I've done practice against people wearing them, where we'd test it by kicking them there as hard as we could, they don't slow you down all too much. However, when you look at back of head and neck strikes, you need to look up downward elbow strikes, which are seperately illegal.

Also, I've not actually seen any rules about throat shots, including the new rules. Are those illegal?


If you're in a fight with more than one person you're most likely screwed either way. But if it does happen, you desperately want grappling training so you won't get easily wrestled to the ground, pinned and stomped on.

So long as you know enough to get away, you have enough, but getting away from multiple assailants is actually possible. If you can daze or startle one, you can run away, which is winning. More than 3, maybe more than 4 in some really odd corridors, yeah, doomed. Dead end? No more than 2. But again, if you see just one guy, you can pretty much always just run away. Why fight?


Furthermore, self defense isn't just about the mighty hero defending himself against a horde of mooks. You're not always outnumbered. But the way I figure it, if a fighter/style can't defeat a single opponent under controlled circumstances he's not going to do very well if he's suddenly jumped by several opponents.

I rely too much on dirty tricks that are illegal to really know if I'd do well in an official tournement. I do know that I do well in 1 vs. 2-3 though, mostly because I fight dirty.


And upon request I quoted you saying the same thing! Again: "I can wriggle out of every lock he can try before he can apply any pressure."

Do you deny that this means that he can't beat you? :smallsigh:

No, I don't deny that he can't beat me. He hasn't, and often by a large margin of him not winning. Maybe when he's been in it longer, he will. Can I beat him at his own game? No, I don't know any grappling techniques.


And if you look at the list I posted the top fighters haven't just "been taught how to counter" grappling. It's not that easy. They are all (or pretty much all) expert grapplers in their own right.

Yes, except the counters are becoming more important than the techniques. They are different concepts. I've sparred against plenty of people who were great at blocking, but terrible at striking, and vice versa. I can learn plenty of one, and a minimal amount of the other. I think most grapplers would agree that they have in fact learned a lot of blocks to deflect or redirect strikes, but they don't have a firm grasp of actually striking.


You just quoted me saying "of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective". And then you continue by saying that I don't think it can affect your ability to fight.

In the future, if you're going to make claims about what "I think" you may want to avoid quoting me saying the exact opposite right above it. It makes you hard to take seriously.

And for the Nth time, the question is not if, say, eye gouging can "affect your ability to fight". The question is if an eye gouging attempt is more likely to accomplish that than alternative options, and if so, if strikers (or "self defense" martial artists, if that's the issue) will benefit significantly from having the option.

So what you're saying is, then, though have not explicitly articulated, is that strikers can use strikes to counter grapples (something you explicitly denied as being effective earlier) and that the ones that are still legal are just as good as the ones that are banned. I can see where you're coming from in that regard, but in my experience, even if I have another legal option, I may not be in a very good position to attack it strongly. A soft spot, such as the groin, throat, etc. doesn't require as much force or rotation.


I am making no such assumption, and the cups they wear in MMA are not terribly effective against groin strikes.

If it's a standard type, it's plenty effective. It goes down from immediately debillitating to only incredibly painful.

DarkEternal
2010-04-05, 04:24 PM
If you get in a street fight with a Shaolin Monk, you're both likely doing something very wrong. On the one hand, you're going up against a Shaolin Monk, on the other, he's likely violating the precepts against violence of his order. Not necessarily, I know, but likely.

If I could ask an open question: what is a good way to defend against a knife? Both a grappler and a striker are in trouble up against one, as it takes very little to do serious harm with a blade. The grappler is at risk because they are necessarily closer to the knife, and probably for more time, while the striker is at risk because in order to hit them he has to put his arm/leg/elbow/striking appendage in range of the knife for them to work. I know how I've responded to knives, and know that they only worked because I was fast, decisive, and more than a bit lucky, so these instances wouldn't be strong examples. On top of that, I've had the good fortune not to be on the receiving end of a knife attack with enough frequency to draw any general conclusions.

We've been doing knife defenses for some time now in Krav-Maga. The thing is, in ninety percent of the cases, the knife attack will come in a downward stabbing arc(like you read when people are attacked on the streets, they are usually stabbed in the shoulder, neck, head, upper arms) unless it is premeditated. In that case, the knife will be held on the palm of the hand and thrust inside of your gut or something, or sliced in an arc. However, like I said, in most scenarios it will be a half circle downward motion intent to stab you over and over again. And the best defense against it? Just put your hand out. Really. It's a basis in Krav-Maga, imagine doing a salute with your hand to the flag or something, now at the same angle, move the upper part of your hand outward from you.

If you put your weight on your feet(If the enemy is right handed, which again, usually they are, you will be blocking with your left hand, so the weight will be on your left foot) and lean into him after defending, you smash his face in. That's of course just the start. After that, you can move out of his range and kicking him in the groin(which again, quite a lot of moves in Krav Maga lead to).

HenryHankovitch
2010-04-05, 04:27 PM
If I could ask an open question: what is a good way to defend against a knife?
A spear. Or a gun. Or an airstrike.

There's a reason that nobody, EVER, whose life or livelihood has depended on his ability to fight other people or creatures, has gone around with the strategy of "Imma gonna punch/kick/strangle 'em to death."

Except for maybe the Crocodile Hunter. And we saw how that turned out.

Hoo, boy. Now I've actually responded to this thread, I might as well answer the OP's question.

In a nutshell, the reasons why we have wildly disparate "styles" like kung fu, taekwondo, et cetera, are a combination of the following:

1) geographical isolation,
2) disuse as an actual training regimen for fighting, and
3) conversion to some other purpose, such as sports, physical-fitness, performance

Here's the issue, in a nutshell: thinking of martial arts as a set of mutually-exclusive "styles" is wrongheaded, the result of nearly a century of movies and comic books and video games. A martial art is not--should not be--a "catalog" of tricks and maneuvers. It is better thought of as a training regimen; a method. The difference between a person who is really, really good at unarmed fighting, and a normal chump, is not that the one guy happens to know the Fivefold Palm Hidden Punchen Technique. It's because one person has spent a lot of time learning to fight, and practicing to fight, and maintining his abilities, and the other has not.

Look at it this way: the difference between a champion boxer and an amateur boxer is not that the champ knows a bunch of punches that the amateur never learned because he didn't achieve his Black Glovebelt. It's because the champion boxer runs every day, and does situps every day, and does bag drills every day, and spars with other boxers every day, and has a trainer critiquing his performance ever day, and so on and so on.

So, back to the point. The fundamental nature of fighting methods, whether you're talking about fighting with swords or with guided missiles, is that technique and tactics tend to homogenize among the groups that use them against each other, rather than splitting off into drastically different styles. It's a pragmatic matter: you're going to use what works best; and you also need to use what defends best against what the other guy is using. Technology changes, and new innovations appear; but these changes tend to be incremental, and useful changes tend to quickly permeate all the combatants. You can see the same sort of thing with sports like UFC. It's not that one "style" was just so good that everyone now uses it to the exclusion of all others; nor are there a bunch of wildly different methods in use, Tekken-style. Instead, you see a bunch of fighters who, for all their individual talents and preferences and strengths, tend to fight in a very similar fashion using largely the same sets of techniques and strategies. And it makes sense--it's not like there's any reason why beating up a Chinese guy should require some drastically different set of movements or physical capabilities than beating up a French guy. A punch is a punch; a hip throw is a hip throw.

What we commonly mention as martial arts "styles" today are almost invariably the result of the three factors I mentioned earlier. Taekwondo isn't taught the way it's taught because ancient Korean guys needed to do high flying kicks to knock people off of horses. It exists as it does because the postwar Korean governmented wanted a nationalistic hand-to-hand fighting system that wasn't full of Japanese terms; and because said system was adapted for teaching to Westerners as a sport and physical-fitness regime, as well as an Olympic competition. Again, the "style" is actually a training regimen: the taekwondo you would get taught in Korean army boot camp is different from the taekwondo you would be taught in an Olympic training school, which is different from the taewkwondo that gets taught to eight-year-olds at the YMCA.

So, as for the original point? Don't sweat it. In roleplaying terms, borrow from martial arts for flavor. Getting into arguments over whose kung-fu is best is a waste of effort. And--depending on the RPG you're playing--it's worthless anyway. In D&D terms, the "unarmed combat" that a monk player-class would use would have to be wildly different than what we actually have. They live in a world of rings of protection, and pants that shoot fire, and such; and where your Level 1 Monk is as likely to have to fight wolves, zombies, or giant centipedes as he is to have to fight another guy with a stick.

How does one put a chokehold on a beholder, anyway?

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 04:27 PM
I was taught the above + wrapping my arm with my jacket if I have the chance, to give you something to lessen defensive wounds.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-05, 04:29 PM
How does one put a chokehold on a beholder, anyway?

Very carefully?

DarkEternal
2010-04-05, 04:30 PM
A spear. Or a gun. Or an airstrike.

There's a reason that nobody, EVER, whose life or livelihood has depended on his ability to fight other people or creatures, has gone around with the strategy of "Imma gonna punch/kick/strangle 'em to death."

Except for maybe the Crocodile Hunter. And we saw how that turned out.

Hoo, boy. Now I've actually responded to this thread, I might as well answer the OP's question.

In a nutshell, the reasons why we have wildly disparate "styles" like kung fu, taekwondo, et cetera, are a combination of the following:

1) geographical isolation,
2) disuse as an actual training regimen for fighting, and
3) conversion to some other purpose, such as sports, physical-fitness, performance

Here's the issue, in a nutshell: thinking of martial arts as a set of mutually-exclusive "styles" is wrongheaded, the result of nearly a century of movies and comic books and video games. A martial art is not--should not be--a "catalog" of tricks and maneuvers. It is better thought of as a training regimen; a method. The difference between a person who is really, really good at unarmed fighting, and a normal chump, is not that the one guy happens to know the Fivefold Palm Hidden Punchen Technique. It's because one person has spent a lot of time learning to fight, and practicing to fight, and maintining his abilities, and the other has not.

Look at it this way: the difference between a champion boxer and an amateur boxer is not that the champ knows a bunch of punches that the amateur never learned because he didn't achieve his Black Glovebelt. It's because the champion boxer runs every day, and does situps every day, and does bag drills every day, and spars with other boxers every day, and has a trainer critiquing his performance ever day, and so on and so on.

So, back to the point. The fundamental nature of fighting methods, whether you're talking about fighting with swords or with guided missiles, is that technique and tactics tend to homogenize among the groups that use them against each other, rather than splitting off into drastically different styles. It's a pragmatic matter: you're going to use what works best; and you also need to use what defends best against what the other guy is using. Technology changes, and new innovations appear; but these changes tend to be incremental, and useful changes tend to quickly permeate all the combatants. You can see the same sort of thing with sports like UFC. It's not that one "style" was just so good that everyone now uses it to the exclusion of all others; nor are there a bunch of wildly different methods in use, Tekken-style. Instead, you see a bunch of fighters who, for all their individual talents and preferences and strengths, tend to fight in a very similar fashion using largely the same sets of techniques and strategies. And it makes sense--it's not like there's any reason why beating up a Chinese guy should require some drastically different set of movements or physical capabilities than beating up a French guy. A punch is a punch; a hip throw is a hip throw.

What we commonly mention as martial arts "styles" today are almost invariably the result of the three factors I mentioned earlier. Taekwondo isn't taught the way it's taught because ancient Korean guys needed to do high flying kicks to knock people off of horses. It exists as it does because the postwar Korean governmented wanted a nationalistic hand-to-hand fighting system that wasn't full of Japanese terms; and because said system was adapted for teaching to Westerners as a sport and physical-fitness regime, as well as an Olympic competition. Again, the "style" is actually a training regimen: the taekwondo you would get taught in Korean army boot camp is different from the taekwondo you would be taught in an Olympic training school, which is different from the taewkwondo that gets taught to eight-year-olds at the YMCA.

So, as for the original point? Don't sweat it. In roleplaying terms, borrow from martial arts for flavor. Getting into arguments over whose kung-fu is best is a waste of effort. And--depending on the RPG you're playing--it's worthless anyway. In D&D terms, the "unarmed combat" that a monk player-class would use would have to be wildly different than what we actually have. They live in a world of rings of protection, and pants that shoot fire, and such; and where your Level 1 Monk is as likely to have to fight wolves, zombies, or giant centipedes as he is to have to fight another guy with a stick.

How does one put a chokehold on a beholder, anyway?

Black glovebelt is my new favorite term ever.

Worira
2010-04-05, 04:52 PM
We've been doing knife defenses for some time now in Krav-Maga. The thing is, in ninety percent of the cases, the knife attack will come in a downward stabbing arc(like you read when people are attacked on the streets, they are usually stabbed in the shoulder, neck, head, upper arms) unless it is premeditated. In that case, the knife will be held on the palm of the hand and thrust inside of your gut or something, or sliced in an arc. However, like I said, in most scenarios it will be a half circle downward motion intent to stab you over and over again. And the best defense against it? Just put your hand out. Really. It's a basis in Krav-Maga, imagine doing a salute with your hand to the flag or something, now at the same angle, move the upper part of your hand outward from you.

If you put your weight on your feet(If the enemy is right handed, which again, usually they are, you will be blocking with your left hand, so the weight will be on your left foot) and lean into him after defending, you smash his face in. That's of course just the start. After that, you can move out of his range and kicking him in the groin(which again, quite a lot of moves in Krav Maga lead to).

Sorry, did I miss the part where you disarm them, or did you skip that step? Because that started as a reasonable defence, then veered into "Please stab me repeatedly" territory.

DarkEternal
2010-04-05, 05:07 PM
Yeah, when you put the weight on your foot and smash your fist into his face would do a lot in the process of disarming them. The Krav Maga instructor told us that a lot of "traditional" martial arts have the problem of having a defense followed by an offense. Here, you join the two. You defend, and attack at the same moment. After that, he will be phased most likely, enough for you to either connect with a good groin kick(which will be more then enough in the "disarming" territory in most cases), and if not, you sidestep like I said and twist his arm with your free hands. Now, how you do that is a bit more advanced and my english knowledge is a bit limited to explain, but basically it goes by twisting the wrist in the opposite side, which will at best provide enough pain for the dagger to fall out, or at worst break his sodding arm, or using his hand alone to stab himself over and over again.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-05, 05:10 PM
Just to go off at a tangent: not all knife defenses include disarming the opponent - several blocks I learned in Krav-Maga were actually based on preventing the attacker to let go of his weapon in the first place, using the knife and the arm holding it as leverage to put them into an unbalanced position, and then driving their own weapon through their heart while their own hand is still wrapped around the handle. It's surprisingly easy, though needlessly convoluted in civilian use - civilians don't usually wear armor on their chest.



There's a reason that nobody, EVER, whose life or livelihood has depended on his ability to fight other people or creatures, has gone around with the strategy of "Imma gonna punch/kick/strangle 'em to death."
Rebuttal! If this was the case, why is unarmed combat so prevalent it taught even in modern armies? :smallwink:

I know what you're getting at - unarmed combat is rarely the best choice, and if there's a big stick nearby, it's best to use it. However, because people tend to always have their hands and feet with them, learning how to use them as natural weapons has often been a smart choice, and still is.

Paulus
2010-04-05, 05:17 PM
We've been doing knife defenses for some time now in Krav-Maga. The thing is, in ninety percent of the cases, the knife attack will come in a downward stabbing arc(like you read when people are attacked on the streets, they are usually stabbed in the shoulder, neck, head, upper arms) unless it is premeditated. In that case, the knife will be held on the palm of the hand and thrust inside of your gut or something, or sliced in an arc. However, like I said, in most scenarios it will be a half circle downward motion intent to stab you over and over again. And the best defense against it? Just put your hand out. Really.

Only for those who watch to many movies and think that is how you are suppose to attack with a knife. In which case you are in luck because they will be giving you their knife hand and weapon! Hooray! Just make sure that when you throw your arm up not to let them stab the knife into it... because you will then bleed out and die.
Or they simply bullrush you, grab you as you are hitting them, and stab you once in which case they then back away and let you bleed out and die.
Or bull rush you as you kick at them, grab you, stab you and let you bleed out and die.
Or let you grab them in a grapple, pull the knife you didn't see, stab you, and let you bleed out and die.

Do you wish to bet your life on whether or not they may or may not have a knife, may or may not miss your blocking arm, or may or may not simply bum rush you off balance and stab you? because one stab is all it takes to go from trying to defend yourself to trying to not die so quickly.

I am being harsh here because again, to think you can simply block a knife move which will somehow come at you 90% of the time shows a lack of respect and knowledge for how deadly even a small blade can be and how moves affect this perception. I'm not going to challenge the poster on where he got his information, but I am pointing out the discrepancy here. Especially to prevent the layman from thinking "oh, that's all I need to do." because again and again I stress eduction, don't take my word for it, don't take his word for it, learn for yourself. research! because your life may depend on it sometime. Possibly. And as they say, better safe then stabbed bleeding out and dying.

DarkEternal
2010-04-05, 05:35 PM
Only for those who watch to many movies and think that is how you are suppose to attack with a knife. In which case you are in luck because they will be giving you their knife hand and weapon! Hooray! Just make sure that when you throw your arm up not to let them stab the knife into it... because you will then bleed out and die.
Or they simply bullrush you, grab you as you are hitting them, and stab you once in which case they then back away and let you bleed out and die.
Or bull rush you as you kick at them, grab you, stab you and let you bleed out and die.
Or let you grab them in a grapple, pull the knife you didn't see, stab you, and let you bleed out and die.

Do you wish to bet your life on whether or not they may or may not have a knife, may or may not miss your blocking arm, or may or may not simply bum rush you off balance and stab you? because one stab is all it takes to go from trying to defend yourself to trying to not die so quickly.

I am being harsh here because again, to think you can simply block a knife move which will somehow come at you 90% of the time shows a lack of respect and knowledge for how deadly even a small blade can be and how moves affect this perception. I'm not going to challenge the poster on where he got his information, but I am pointing out the discrepancy here. Especially to prevent the layman from thinking "oh, that's all I need to do." because again and again I stress eduction, don't take my word for it, don't take his word for it, learn for yourself. research! because your life may depend on it sometime. Possibly. And as they say, better safe then stabbed bleeding out and dying.

Look, I'm just repeating what our instructor told us, and he was in special ops, not to mention that he's got the credentials, that in ninety percent of the cases, in an act of passion/adrenaline, the person with the knife will attack as I said above. OF COURSE there are exceptions, because fighting is not a scripted thing. The best thing you could do is run the hell away, or somehow calm the person down but sometimes that is not the option you have at your disposal, and I'd rather have some sort of a chance of defending against a knife, then just stand there and let it be stabbed into my fleshy parts over and over again.

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 05:37 PM
Well, considering the person you're responding to advocates carrying guns in public as the only effective means of deterrence, I doubt that argument is sufficient in his opinion.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-05, 05:39 PM
Not suprisingly, my Krav-Maga teacher said pretty much the same things about knife attacks: most will come from your left, in a downward arc, or as an upward stab. He also said that if your opponents looks like he knows how to do something else with a knife, turn tail and run as fast as you can.

Worira
2010-04-05, 05:42 PM
What do you think the odds of defeating an attacker armed with a knife using your bare hands is, Yukitsu? How about without being cut badly enough to require a trip to the emergency room?

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 05:47 PM
What do you think the odds of defeating an attacker armed with a knife using your bare hands is, Yukitsu? How about without being cut badly enough to require a trip to the emergency room?

If I'm accosted in a normal situation? My backpack weighs in at 45 pounds, and has hard objects in it. Heave that as hard as I can and booking it has a pretty good chance of getting me out of it pretty much fine. If forced into a real knife fight, odds are really bad of avoiding any injury. I wear a heavy leather jacket, which works a bit in my favour at preventing most serious injuries, but even at best, I'd likely need stitches. However, I'd rather try and get stitches on my arms than end up dead, so no point in not trying what I've learned if I can't run or talk my way out of it.

Paulus
2010-04-05, 05:49 PM
Well, considering the person you're responding to advocates carrying guns in public as the only effective means of deterrence, I doubt that argument is sufficient in his opinion.

I do not think is fair. I have advocated advanced defense techniques, chemical, physical, but above all mental I would not go so far as to say only effective means, just the most. As again. They are the height of civilian defense technology at this time. Firearms are remarkable self defense because they take less time to learn to use, and anyone can use them with the proper training. They also offer the broadest range of defense, martials arts do not work against bears, a wolf pack, nor other people with guns very well. But as I have said repeatedly. No matter what weapon you choose to use, human, firearm, blade, or object- the point is to learn all you can about it, understand it, and use it well. Education is the most important factor here, not weapon choice. because no everyone has the same choice.

@DarkEternal: again I am not challenging your instructor nor where he got his information, merely pointing out problems with what you said. Mainly to reinforce the whole 'don't take is or my word for it' and to reinforce the fear and respect that should come with it, as I know you have it yourself yet did not - in my opinion- emphasize in your own post.

Offering a person a martial are maneuver which you yourself have been taught by a master and thus drilled upon proper us seems irresponsible to me not to make clear that you have done so. Even if I seem asinine in repeating it, I at least wish to make it clear as well as remind people for the need of education which you yourself already know as you are receiving it.

I do not enjoy the necessity in downplaying your advice, nor in any case implying it is incorrect, but I must simply because it is incomplete as far as I am concerned. This is not a personal attack, merely an addition to your own information and a disclaimer to those who would browse this thread and collect tips for knife defense to apply in real life in this manner.

I can already see people practicing a flag salute and thinking that may be enough to save them. I would prevent their education from stopping there even if I must seem harsh in doing so. ...I do not take life and death light. Nor imply that you are or do. None the less, think what you will, but please be safe.

DarkEternal
2010-04-05, 05:55 PM
If people try to defend from knife attacks(or any attacks) by reading a post on the internet, and not even watching a video if they do not train, then they probably are too stupid to practice anyway. I in no way or form encourage anyone to ever try to get into this sort of a situation. I, myself would give the money if that is what the person with the knife is after in a heartbeat because I like my life a bit too much. So, to say once again, DO NOT try these things in life, hell do not try them even if you are properly trained by people who lived through all of that.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-05, 06:00 PM
You genuinely just claim that you can walk around your neighborhood with a concealed weapon capable of stopping a bear? :smallconfused:

If ravening wolf-packs are a common problem in your 'hood, then I think you've gone beyond the point where it's pretty much irrelevant what you use to defend yourself, because you really should just move.


:smallwink:

Paulus
2010-04-05, 06:03 PM
You genuinely just claim that you can walk around your neighborhood with a concealed weapon capable of stopping a bear? :smallconfused:

If ravening wolf-packs are a common problem in your 'hood, then I think you've gone beyond the point where it's pretty much irrelevant what you use to defend yourself, because you really should just move.


:smallwink:

Indeed I do, especially since we have black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and the occasional drunken lout coming through here. And I do not wish to move because I love my home and know enough about self defense to be safe here, and to protect my animals while at it. Besides, everyone had to live somewhere. I'd rather have the knowledge to be safe no matter where I am, what I have on me, or what happens to me.

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 06:07 PM
Ah, out in the countryside. Yeah, that makes taking the law and self defense into your own hands more sensible. However, us urbanites aren't allowed to do as such, and it's generally frowned upon to have those sorts of things on us at any given time. We have much better police response times around here, so we don't have to worry so much, and the worst we get is the occassional rabbit.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-05, 06:09 PM
There's a bit of a difference between seeing the occaisional Coyote rummaging in your bins or chasing your Chickens, and being attacked by a whole pack of Ravenous Wolves, mind. :smallwink:

Seriously(-er) though, given that most calibers of handgun can't even be trusted to stop a guy on drugs (or with a bit of combat training, etc) in one go, most of the time, what kind of hand-cannon do you keep stuffed down your shorts that you're sure it'll stop a Bear?

(Admittedly, we're apparently only talking Black Bears rather than, say, Kodiak, but still...)

comicshorse
2010-04-05, 06:11 PM
what kind of hand-cannon do you keep stuffed down your shorts

What a feed line:smallsmile:

Paulus
2010-04-05, 06:15 PM
Ah, out in the countryside. Yeah, that makes taking the law and self defense into your own hands more sensible. However, us urbanites aren't allowed to do as such, and it's generally frowned upon to have those sorts of things on us at any given time. We have much better police response times around here, so we don't have to worry so much, and the worst we get is the occassional rabbit.


Protecting yourself from anything and everything that may threaten your life no matter where you are, and arming yourself with knowledge to do it, makes sense too.

Urbanites, depending on where you are, ARE allowed to carry such things for just such reason. Frowned upon perhaps by law enforcement - who do not know whether or not you are a criminal element and also know that most who carry firearms don't always learn to use them since there is a culture of owning guns as being 'cool'- and no matter how good police response times may be, your own response times are far faster. You are there and you are the one in need of help. But none the less, learning whether or not what you can do, carry, and such, is the point of my post. I'd rather have it and not need it and then need it and not have it. Especially because it is my life which we speak of.

And as I understand it in urban areas, gangs, criminals, and such are far worse then any wildlife we may have out here. Above all, be safe.

EDIT:

There's a bit of a difference between seeing the occaisional Coyote rummaging in your bins or chasing your Chickens, and being attacked by a whole pack of Ravenous Wolves, mind. :smallwink:

In texas and new mexico, not to mention mexico itself, Coyotes are far larger then here in most of america. There are also instances of packs larger then four to five coming up to houses and looking indoors for pets. This can easily extend to small children. I would not wish to face a pack of such animals after my child, with my bare hands. Not to mention a rabid individuals which could easily just decided to enter your home. Coyotes are notorious for enter human places even in broad daylight, even with people around, and seeking food and this is not even under the effect of rabies. And believe me, they WILL attack if they wish. A single bite, just to get that burger out of your hand, is more then I ever wish to have occur.

I don't know if you've been play bitten by dogs, but even that can hurt, and an animal that is trying to harm you can do some serious serious damage. You would not believe the pressure even small jaws can afflict. Nor the damage and pain.



Seriously(-er) though, given that most calibers of handgun can't even be trusted to stop a guy on drugs (or with a bit of combat training, etc) in one go, most of the time, what kind of hand-cannon do you keep stuffed down your shorts that you're sure it'll stop a Bear?

(Admittedly, we're apparently only talking Black Bears rather than, say, Kodiak, but still...)

I won't get into an indepth discussion about firearms here, simply because the thread wasn't meant for it and I do feel we are getting off topic enough as it is, however I will say that I would rather be attacked by a bear with a gun -of any calibur- in my hands as opposed to nothing at all if I am indeed being attacked by a bear.

JaronK
2010-04-05, 06:18 PM
Not suprisingly, my Krav-Maga teacher said pretty much the same things about knife attacks: most will come from your left, in a downward arc, or as an upward stab. He also said that if your opponents looks like he knows how to do something else with a knife, turn tail and run as fast as you can.

Again, humans have an attack as instinctual as a ram charging another ram or a turtle stretching their neck. When proving dominance, we attack with a right hook (or haymaker if you prefer). This translates with knives just as easy. Someone trying to threaten, subdue, or scare you with a knife is going to make that same attack, except the nature of knives means the attack comes from higher up. It's basically a monkey hitting you with a rock.

There's no gaurentee that's what's going to hit you, but your teacher is right... that's pretty darn common. He's also right about what happens if they're holding it for anything else... then they're really trying to kill you, and they're suddenly a MUCH bigger threat. At that point unless you've got a better weapon (like a big pipe or something) you really should be getting the hell out of there.

JaronK

Yukitsu
2010-04-05, 06:40 PM
Protecting yourself from anything and everything that may threaten your life no matter where you are, and arming yourself with knowledge to do it, makes sense too.

Urbanites, depending on where you are, ARE allowed to carry such things for just such reason. Frowned upon perhaps by law enforcement - who do not know whether or not you are a criminal element and also know that most who carry firearms don't always learn to use them since there is a culture of owning guns as being 'cool'- and no matter how good police response times may be, your own response times are far faster. You are there and you are the one in need of help. But none the less, learning whether or not what you can do, carry, and such, is the point of my post. I'd rather have it and not need it and then need it and not have it. Especially because it is my life which we speak of.

I'm not saying that the police are a problem if you're carrying a gun per se. However, if you're carrying one legally, many establishments in big cities will deny you service. If you're concealing the weapon without a permit, then you are going to have problems with the police, and frankly, I prefer it when no one is allowed concealed carry, rather than everyone being openly armed.


And as I understand it in urban areas, gangs, criminals, and such are far worse then any wildlife we may have out here. Above all, be safe.

It's about similar. There are more instances of violence in the cities, but not as much so per capita. It also varies a lot by city. In Calgary, where I live, most violent crimes are against gang members, rather than random people. I don't count those, as I'm not likely to be victimized in those attacks.

Paulus
2010-04-05, 06:46 PM
I'm not saying that the police are a problem if you're carrying a gun per se. However, if you're carrying one legally, many establishments in big cities will deny you service. If you're concealing the weapon without a permit, then you are going to have problems with the police, and frankly, I prefer it when no one is allowed concealed carry, rather than everyone being openly armed.

Also, establishments denying you service is just another little obstacle, in which, other forms of self defense would apply. Even a role of quarters in your pocket is better then nothing! Naturally you will have problems if you do not follow the law. Education education education! I would actually prefer if everybody was openly armed and educated to the use of such weapons, there would be far less crime as studies have shown and far less victims. But before this turns into a gun control debate. That's all I have to say on that matter.


It's about similar. There are more instances of violence in the cities, but not as much so per capita. It also varies a lot by city. In Calgary, where I live, most violent crimes are against gang members, rather than random people. I don't count those, as I'm not likely to be victimized in those attacks.

I highly encourage you should. Because people are people no matter how we statistical-ize them. Someone you know might be one of those statistics, someone you love. And if you are properly educated, you can encourage them to be, and THEY can be just as safe and a positive statistic! Beside... you never know when that will spill onto you.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-05, 07:20 PM
You know, for a moment there I misread your post as advising you to take a roll of quarters to anyone who denied you access to their establishment. Think that means my brain is done for the day. :smallsmile:

Maerok
2010-04-05, 07:29 PM
Again, humans have an attack as instinctual as a ram charging another ram or a turtle stretching their neck. When proving dominance, we attack with a right hook (or haymaker if you prefer). This translates with knives just as easy. Someone trying to threaten, subdue, or scare you with a knife is going to make that same attack, except the nature of knives means the attack comes from higher up. It's basically a monkey hitting you with a rock.

Coming from the right hook thing, is there a distinction in handness in martial arts?

For fencing, whether you are left and right handed is rather important as most right handed fencers aren't familiar with going up against a left handed opponent. On the other hand, lefties face righties a lot but still don't have a lot of practice against other lefties. Handness is a pretty big issue because it flips the plane of your motions and that really toys with muscle memory when you constantly practice them with right handed people.

DSCrankshaw
2010-04-05, 07:54 PM
If you're interested in European martial arts, there are a few groups dedicated to recreating Medieval fighting techniques recovered from the various fighting manuals from the period. There's actually a large variety of these, much of it designed around fighting in armor, and aside from swords, pole-arms, and other weapons, there's a lot on grappling and throws in the manuals.

It's rather fascinating, but probably a bit outside of what you're looking for.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-05, 07:59 PM
Coming from the right hook thing, is there a distinction in handness in martial arts?

For fencing, whether you are left and right handed is rather important as most right handed fencers aren't familiar with going up against a left handed opponent. On the other hand, lefties face righties a lot but still don't have a lot of practice against other lefties. Handness is a pretty big issue because it flips the plane of your motions and that really toys with muscle memory when you constantly practice them with right handed people.

Hmm. About seven-ten percent of people are lefties, and 90% of people attack downwards from the right with a knife... Left handed people are teh deadliest enemies!

Exarch
2010-04-05, 08:01 PM
You know, for a moment there I misread your post as advising you to take a roll of quarters to anyone who denied you access to their establishment. Think that means my brain is done for the day. :smallsmile:

If someone denies you because you're exercising your legal right to carry a concealed or unconcealed firearm when you're not making a menace of yourself, they kind of deserve it. :smallbiggrin:

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-05, 08:07 PM
If someone denies you because you're exercising your legal right to carry a concealed or unconcealed firearm when you're not making a menace of yourself, they kind of deserve it. :smallbiggrin:

:smallconfused: How is it at all bad to refuse someone entry to a store because of policy? It's private property, they can do what they want. That's like saying "They're denying my legal right to go shirt and shoeless!" Even if they were the owner to the store, some people find it unsettling to have customers who are packing heat. Just like you might be unsettled if someone came into your store holding a sharpened katana.

sombrastewart
2010-04-05, 08:15 PM
Well, they aren't private property, necessarily, since they've been opened to the public. And the shirts/shoes thing is more for the health of other people.

'Course, I've had a bad day and may have some things switched around.

For whatever it's worth, with all the training I've been through and all the practice and techniques... I'd still rather have a gun.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-05, 08:18 PM
Well, they aren't private property, necessarily, since they've been opened to the public. And the shirts/shoes thing is more for the health of other people.

'Course, I've had a bad day and may have some things switched around.

For whatever it's worth, with all the training I've been through and all the practice and techniques... I'd still rather have a gun.

Just because the public can come inside doesn't mean it's not private property. And I believe guns can be detrimental to people's health. :smallwink:

Exarch
2010-04-05, 08:30 PM
:smallconfused: How is it at all bad to refuse someone entry to a store because of policy? It's private property, they can do what they want. That's like saying "They're denying my legal right to go shirt and shoeless!" Even if they were the owner to the store, some people find it unsettling to have customers who are packing heat. Just like you might be unsettled if someone came into your store holding a sharpened katana.

There's a difference between walking in with a weapon out and a weapon holstered/sheathed. Heck, the point of concealed carry is so that people don't know you're carrying a weapon. Also, and I know it's anecdotal...but my father teachers a concealed carry course and he, and many of his graduates, say they're more leery of everything when they carry a weapon. They have a much higher responsibility placed on them because their actions are scrutinized by the law.

Store owners should be happy to have customers who follow the laws and go through the effort to gain the ability to carry a concealed weapon. I know store owners in Utah, hell even schools, are fine with concealed carry.

Edit: It is true, the store owner can deny service to concealed carriers. Though if it's that store's prerogative to deny service upstanding citizens, people can take their business elsewhere.

Taelas
2010-04-05, 08:30 PM
Why is that?

Keep in mind that unlike a lot of you here, I have never trained in any martial art, and the most "fighting" I have ever done was in high school, and then it was not particularly serious... except that one time I got kicked in the groin. (That was actually in grade school. Yes... children can be vicious.)

I'm sure you can train yourself to a point where groin attacks are not as effective (avoiding them, enduring them, whatever) but against the average person on the street, a groin strike or kick is gonna put them down if it connects, at least to the point where you can either finish them off or run away.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-05, 08:36 PM
There's a difference between walking in with a weapon out and a weapon holstered/sheathed. Heck, the point of concealed carry is so that people don't know you're carrying a weapon. Also, and I know it's anecdotal...but my father teachers a concealed carry course and he, and many of his graduates, say they're more leery of everything when they carry a weapon. They have a much higher responsibility placed on them because their actions are scrutinized by the law.

Store owners should be happy to have customers who follow the laws and go through the effort to gain the ability to carry a concealed weapon. I know store owners in Utah, hell even schools, are fine with concealed carry.

Edit: It is true, the store owner can deny service to concealed carriers. Though if it's that store's prerogative to deny service upstanding citizens, people can take their business elsewhere.

I was talking more about carry a weapon in plain sight, since people with concealed carry permits generally do have some form of training and education in the use (or lack thereof) of firearms.

Exarch
2010-04-05, 08:59 PM
I was talking more about carry a weapon in plain sight, since people with concealed carry permits generally do have some form of training and education in the use (or lack thereof) of firearms.

I suppose that carry in plain sight is a might bit different, but most states that allow that sort of carry are Texas or are sparsely populated and mostly rural. In most of those cases, most everyone will know each other. Or you're in Texas, so it's a different culture. Although Texas may have changed their laws since I lived there a couple years ago, who knows.

Exarch
2010-04-05, 09:13 PM
Ahem, to get back onto topic a little bit... I dated a Thai girl for awhile, and her uncle was a practitioner of Muay Thai and instructor, I was lucky enough to be given some lessons when he was around. I'm curious why the Thai clinch has never been brought up. It's not a true grapple, I suppose, but you can hold your opponent where you want them and god forbid they don't try to resist you and I've found it applicable once or twice in a real fight. Also, low kicks to the legs were also emphasized, though that's more the sporting element I think. The foot stomps on the other hand are wonderful to use in a clinch as well. Or am I off my base and just got lucky with the clinch?

Maerok
2010-04-05, 09:17 PM
I'm sure you can train yourself to a point where groin attacks are not as effective (avoiding them, enduring them, whatever) but against the average person on the street, a groin strike or kick is gonna put them down if it connects, at least to the point where you can either finish them off or run away.

I'm surprised Improved Groin Kick has never come up in a supplement. It might not be (as) effective versus armored opponents but it should take a rogue or caster down. At least half of them, that is (it would be far more effective versus PCs on average than NPCs).

Zephyros
2010-04-05, 09:55 PM
On the length of blades as efficient weapons:

I've witnessed a fight between drunks where one of the participants used one of the smallest scalpels -about 1 inch long (studying dentistry btw those scalpels are easily attainable). That guy is now in prison (life sentence).

On the amount of knowledge about fighting and killing etc:

Guys! :smallfrown:
I've seen a fair amount of bad things happening to people. Even being an Okinawa Karate yondan black belt, I keep reminding myself an old saying of my birthplace: "The killer's and the runner's mothers never cried". I'd rather be the runner.

White_North
2010-04-05, 11:05 PM
martials arts do not work against bears,

I beg your pardon

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b297/Bubbleuk/BearvTakamura1.jpg

In all seriousness now. I've read the whole glorious derailing of this thread and have only one thing to add: if someone pulls a knife, you either run or stay as far away from him as possible. The best defense against a knife that I can think of right now would be to outbox and just jab the guy's face and throat. Only quick, defensive, controlled, fast-as-possible strikes. You force him on the defensive, stay away from him and only use attacks you can control and that you can retract before he can attack himself. Powerful attacks will only open you up and trying to grapple a knife-wielding opponent will only end up in you losing. Either you'll be so focused on the knife he'll choke you or knock you out or you'll be so focused on the grappling that he'll stab you. As to my credentials, I've practiced Tae-Kwon-Do, Longfist Kung Fu and boxing over 6 years.

SilentNight
2010-04-06, 12:37 AM
To the OP: FWIW, I'm an 18 year practicing martial artist across five styles and wrote my undergraduate thesis on the subject. If you want message me, I'll try and tell you whatever I can to be helpful.

Second, wow, aside from the one poster, you can tell most folks in this thread have never done capoeira. Yes, training by slaves, disguised as a dance so they wouldn't be killed and very nice to watch, but guys, if you think that things done in exhibition are always meant to be practical, I've got a bridge to sell you. Big, flashy exhibitions are great and they're fun, but they aren't a good representative of the style as a whole.

The high flying stuff you see capoeistas do isn't because it's the core techniques or because they're the important parts of the style. You do those because they're fun and look good and you want to impress people. My mestre told me, point blank, that capoeira for real fights is incredibly different. You don't even bust out the base movement in that kind of situation. Capoeira, for real application, is based on the idea of misdirection, trickery and hitting where someone isn't defending or expecting. A good capoeista is also always trying to watch and be aware of the other person, so as to defend or move.

The idea that the style is meant to be done with the razorblades taped to the feet or some such is about as true as any other style always using weapons (things like kali stick fighting being the exception).

I'll get off my soapbox now, but seriously, if you want to know about capoeira, ask a capoeista.
Seconded. Exhibitional capoeira is flashy because it's fun and impressive, no one in their right mind would try to do a handstand (batanera) in a real-life fight. That said, even exhibitional capoeira is dangerous given the amount of momentum involved. At fast tempos, if you mess up and fail to avoid a kick, you can easily break something or get concussed. Although with the more traditional capoeira angola it's less of a risk what with the slower pace.

As far as its origins, I've recently picked up capoeira angola as a hobby and the man I learn from, I don't believe he's considered a mestre, says the whole bound hands=kick focused style thing is debatable. Although yes it was practiced by slaves and yes it was illegal for a long time in South American countries, leading to the dance disguise, a slave with bound hands can't do much work. From what I've heard the style more draws much more from its African roots. In most African cultures, the hands are the tools of creation, while the feet are for destruction, which I believe is why capoeira contains no hand strikes whatsoever, only kicks, headbutts and on occasion elbow blows.

Also, a quick note, capoeira does not exclusively focus on high kicks, I myself prefer ground-level sweeps as the people I spar with generally can't avoid them and they work great for feints.

I could say more but I think that's enough for now. Just my two-cents, g'night and good luck.

satorian
2010-04-06, 12:41 AM
I'm having real trouble following this thread. OP asked about martial arts in RPGs, 3.5 in particular, I think. Clearly THAT was derailed. Beyond that, though, there is a whole lot of "my righteous fist can beat up your righteous fist" that I don't really get.

OK whatever. I'm glad to have learned wrestling, kung fu, boxing, aikido, tai chi, and a smattering of other stuff. It has been good fun, and I feel nice teaching my girlfriend a few things to do if she can absolutely not run (and she ran the 800 meter competitively). And I'm sure a lot of you guys have had a great time learning what you've learned, too. Right on!

At the end of the day, the only words I've read that make any sense are of the "run first" and "deescalate" variety. Mostly deescalate. I've lived in exclusively "tough" cities my whole life, and in several countries, and never in a "good" neighborhood. I have been threatened, but never in my 34 years attacked. Never even mugged. Twice I have been threatened. twice. Really, y'all, it just doesn't happen that much. I really think that if you have been in streetfights, you have in some way not done all you could to bring the level of tension down.

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-06, 07:41 AM
I'm surprised Improved Groin Kick has never come up in a supplement. It might not be (as) effective versus armored opponents but it should take a rogue or caster down. At least half of them, that is (it would be far more effective versus PCs on average than NPCs).
Whatch think Stunning Fist is?

sombrastewart
2010-04-06, 08:58 AM
Seconded. Exhibitional capoeira is flashy because it's fun and impressive, no one in their right mind would try to do a handstand (batanera) in a real-life fight. That said, even exhibitional capoeira is dangerous given the amount of momentum involved. At fast tempos, if you mess up and fail to avoid a kick, you can easily break something or get concussed. Although with the more traditional capoeira angola it's less of a risk what with the slower pace.

As far as its origins, I've recently picked up capoeira angola as a hobby and the man I learn from, I don't believe he's considered a mestre, says the whole bound hands=kick focused style thing is debatable. Although yes it was practiced by slaves and yes it was illegal for a long time in South American countries, leading to the dance disguise, a slave with bound hands can't do much work. From what I've heard the style more draws much more from its African roots. In most African cultures, the hands are the tools of creation, while the feet are for destruction, which I believe is why capoeira contains no hand strikes whatsoever, only kicks, headbutts and on occasion elbow blows.

Also, a quick note, capoeira does not exclusively focus on high kicks, I myself prefer ground-level sweeps as the people I spar with generally can't avoid them and they work great for feints.

I could say more but I think that's enough for now. Just my two-cents, g'night and good luck.

Ah, hello, brother! And the debate on the origins of capoeira rage on. :)

I'm a regional practioner, and we do have hand strikes and such, but those are considered to be extremely nasty and you don't throw those in practice, unless you're actually wanting to fight. Even in exhibition stuff, I've seen someone get utterly blasted. I don't know if you've ever heard of Mestre Kanguru, but the dude is intimidating. I saw a guy jump in the roda with him, be very, very aggressive and take a meia lua de compasso to the face.

TheThan
2010-04-06, 02:33 PM
on the topic of martial arts and bears, Sonny chiba has something to say (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R535r-VrAEU) about that.

Iku Rex
2010-04-06, 04:54 PM
I don't care about groin strikes, I've done practice against people wearing them, where we'd test it by kicking them there as hard as we could, they don't slow you down all too much. I guess you just don't know how to kick very hard. I've seen plenty of (accidental) groin strikes in MMA, and while some fighters can carry on well enough, they can also be devastating. (Example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CKbxvSkmjw). Not terribly interesting, just a MMA match cut short by a groin strike.)

One could say that MMA fighters have an incentive to ham it up a little, but I have no doubt that a groin strike can influence a MMA fight.


However, when you look at back of head and neck strikes, you need to look up downward elbow strikes, which are seperately illegal. It's another rule introduced by state athletic commissions. Which probably means around UFC 14-15 at the earliest. It certainly wasn't part of the rules in the beginning.



Also, I've not actually seen any rules about throat shots, including the new rules. Are those illegal?Yes. Foul 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Fighting_Championship#Fouls).

(Pride FC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_Fighting_Championships#Fouls) on the other hand doesn't seem to have had any such rule - there are no universal international rules for MMA.)


No, I don't deny that he can't beat me. He hasn't, and often by a large margin of him not winning. Maybe when he's been in it longer, he will. Can I beat him at his own game? No, I don't know any grappling techniques. Like I just said when I was explaining how you were beating him at his own game:

"Avoiding submissions is a vital part of BJJ. If you can do it better than BJJ black belts you are without a doubt beating them at their own game." If you can avoid submissions, you know grappling techniques.

If you insist that "beating them at their own game" means winning by submission, then no, you haven't claimed to be able to do that. Nor have I said otherwise.



You just quoted me saying "of course a kick to the groin or throat can be effective". And then you continue by saying that I don't think it can affect your ability to fight.

In the future, if you're going to make claims about what "I think" you may want to avoid quoting me saying the exact opposite right above it. It makes you hard to take seriously.

And for the Nth time, the question is not if, say, eye gouging can "affect your ability to fight". The question is if an eye gouging attempt is more likely to accomplish that than alternative options, and if so, if strikers (or "self defense" martial artists, if that's the issue) will benefit significantly from having the option.
So what you're saying is, then, though have not explicitly articulated, is that strikers can use strikes to counter grapples. How on earth did you get that as "what I'm saying" from the above quote?!


(something you explicitly denied as being effective earlier) .
I hesitate to even speculate on what you're basing this claim on, but could it be our little armbar discussion? Where I pointed out that while strikes could potentially be a useful distraction, they are by no means a reliable defense against armbars?

If we expand that to submissions in general, then sure, striking is still not a reliable submission defense. But it can be "effective" in the sense that it can provide a distraction, and for some submissions you may even be able to do damage.


and that the ones that are still legal are just as good as the ones that are banned. Yes.

But what if they're not? Like I just told you, the question then becomes if strikers (or "self defense" martial artists, if that's the issue) will benefit significantly from having the option.

Say we allow eye-gouging/poking in MMA. Further assume that this will commonly be a cost-effective attack. That is, it's often better to attack an eye than to try something else.

Which fighter benefits more from this change? Neither of the two people involved have, presumably, ripped out or ruined a lot of eyes in their time. However, a "sports" striker like a Muay Thai fighter, will have spent a lot of time hitting and being hit. He has practiced connecting with a resisting opponents face with his hand. He has practiced not getting hit by the same general move. I say it's likely that the fighter who's best at hitting his opponent's face quickly and accurately will also be best at eye-poking.

If we introduce grappling it gets even worse. Eyes aren't that fragile. To do some serious gouging you want to be able to control your opponent's head and body. Grapplers specialize in that sort of thing. They know the techniques, they have the muscles and endurance for it. They also specialize in not letting an opponent do the same to them. So, advantage grappler.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I'll finish with a couple of videos. I've been hesitant to post them earlier since I don't know exactly what the rules were, but I think (?) they were genuine "no holds barred" fights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlleDPgmDVM
(I think I see an eye-gouging attempt at 0:29.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjK0g-cDJI4
(Kung Fu guy tries downward elbow strikes to the back as he's taken down at 0:27. Does nothing noticeable. The Gracie attacks the back/spine with his elbow at 1:42, and with his heel at 1:47. Does nothing noticeable.)

Kiero
2010-04-06, 06:34 PM
Capoeira, AFAIK, evolved from african styles on the slave plantages in the southern USA and has been disguised as a dance. It mostly features kicks because the hands of slaves were often bound.

Capoeira comes from Brazil, thus the Portuguese spelling and names of everything throughout. It's descended, as tradition would have us believe, from angolo, an African martial art from Angola.

SilentNight
2010-04-06, 08:35 PM
Ah, hello, brother! And the debate on the origins of capoeira rage on. :)

I'm a regional practioner, and we do have hand strikes and such, but those are considered to be extremely nasty and you don't throw those in practice, unless you're actually wanting to fight. Even in exhibition stuff, I've seen someone get utterly blasted. I don't know if you've ever heard of Mestre Kanguru, but the dude is intimidating. I saw a guy jump in the roda with him, be very, very aggressive and take a meia lua de compasso to the face.

Can't say I have, my school just started offering free classes on Friday afternoons, during my free period fortunately, so I've been enjoying it immensely. I actually haven't been exposed to capoeira culture much at all. I've heard there's a roving roda somewhere in my area on the weekends but I've yet to track it down. I haven't seen anyone injured yet either, aside from myself. I've got a weak shoulder that likes to pop out rather painfully whenever I do something too awkward like flipping out of an au cabeça. So generally I try to keep my head off the ground, do a lot of continuation kicks, chapa into meia lua, that sort of stuff. That aside though I love the style, good exercise, good fun and good for your dancing apparently.