Best Martial Arts style for me? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Brickwall

2008-06-08, 11:17 PM

My advice would be to forget about style and just find a martial arts club where you like the people.

This one.

Seriously? Size matters not. One of my favorite instructors was maybe 5'5". He could kick all kinds of ass. One of my other favorites was barely any taller, and he could match with another skilled artist we called "Big Nick" (Easily 6'4", probably a good deal taller). And with martial arts, I had no trouble with tall guys either. You get to weapons? Yeah, reach is a factor, until you learn the tricks to deal with it. Skill is all of it. Body type, strength, such things do not matter. Every style has ways to play to just about every strength, and cover up just about any weakness, and turn just about any strength into a weakness, and just about any weakness into a strength. It. Doesn't. Matter. Seriously, go up to any good instructor of any martial art, and ask him what you should do about [insert relevant physical trait here]. He will have a solution.

Though I should warn you: don't take a sports club martial art if you intend to learn a functional martial art. They focus on totally different aspects of fighting. Tae Kwon Do is frequently taught this way, as are many forms of karate and kung fu. Get a good look at how they do things. If they have a lot of tournament equipment (colorful padding, usually), you may wish to look elsewhere. Unless you want to do it as a sport. That's really fine, but I assumed that since you were particularly looking at martial arts, this was not so.

Falconer

2008-06-08, 11:24 PM

I wasn't aware martial arts allowed you to perform physically impossible tasks. :smalltongue:

Clearly you are in need of educating, then. I suggest watching roughly 12 hours of old kung-fu movies, 4 hours of anime involving ninjas, and wikipedia-ing the words "Chuck Norris". :smalltongue:

Bag_of_Holding

2008-06-08, 11:38 PM

Well, I'd personally recommend Tai Chi. I know it's really, really slow, but it's very helpful in understanding the fundamental concept of balance (of body and mind) and the natural flow of force (as in physical force exerted by movement of body; not one of those Qi stuff).

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-08, 11:48 PM

I personally got my black-belt in TaeKwon-Do last year from a national organization (the USTF if anyone is interested) I have also taken some other martial arts in my years. I have found TKD has some very nice attributes because it is developed from a number of other martial arts. It still has the art to it that a lot of Mixed Martial Arts loose. I have also taken a couple of forums of karate and a couple of other martial arts too. I found that for a first martial art TaeKwon-Do was nice, also the fact that it is not overly focused on just how to fight, they also discuss when to.
If you want a non-useful but a fun martial art you would be good at, check out fencing, specifically epee. being tall and thin is a huge advantage.

Thanatos 51-50

2008-06-09, 12:26 AM

krav maga. break someone's arm off and poke them in the eye with it. /thread.

If you're into a no-frills, kick-the-crap-out-of-or-kill-the-other-guy Art, then this, my, friend is your choice. It literally means "Contact Combat", and its reason for being is to take care of the other guy.
My word of adivce is: "Whichever Art feels right". The most valuble fighting lesson I've gotten is "If it feels wrong, you're doing it wrong" (I was trained by my father).

Solo

2008-06-09, 12:31 AM

it is not overly focused on just how to fight, they also discuss when to.

When the other guy's asking for it.

Dallas-Dakota

2008-06-09, 12:44 AM

When the other guy's asking for it.
And this you see, is wrong.

You have already won the fight, if you avoided it.

Only fight when it is neccisary.

Solo

2008-06-09, 12:47 AM

And this you see, is wrong.
You have chosen the path of defeat.

You have already won the fight, if you avoided it.
*Rolls eyes*
Don't go all eastern philosophy on me. I have a +10 racial bonus on all such checks.
The main problem here is that your short statement cannot hope to address a complex situation. You cannot avoid all fights. Therefore, you can't just go around saying "You've won if you've avoided" because sometimes you lose if you avoid.

Only fight when it is neccisary.
Is it not sometimes necessary to give someone what they ask for.
That being said, i have gotten into a fight or two with someone who had "asked for it" and no, it was not strictly necessary to do so, but I feel like I did the right thing, and I am happy iwth the outcomes.

Vavaara

2008-06-09, 12:54 AM

Savate = French Kickboxing.

AUTO-PWN

Solo

2008-06-09, 12:58 AM

Savate = French Kickboxing.

AUTO-PWN

No further questions, your honor.

Thanatos 51-50

2008-06-09, 01:14 AM

When the other guy's asking for it.

I'm inclined to call you out on this, Solo.
And to go all my-personal-philosophy on you.

To fight in anger is folly. To lean into the attack, the mark of a fool.
If a confrontation can be avoided, victory comes to the man who does, indeed, do so.
Killing (and fighting) hould be a matter of survival. When the other guy is seriously trying to kill you, you kill him first.
The proper time to fight is when such a confrontation cannot be avoided. The proper time to go hand-to-hand is when your gun is empty.

Outside of that, combat is for practice and excercise. We call that "sparring".

Solo

2008-06-09, 01:38 AM

I'm inclined to call you out on this, Solo.
And to go all my-personal-philosophy on you.

I believe in fighting when necessary. Of course, my definition of necessary seems to be a little different.

To fight in anger is folly.
Everyone fights in anger. Even in a purely defensive scenario when you have done nothing wrong, you will probably be disinclined to give the person attacking you milk and cookies.

If a confrontation can be avoided, victory comes to the man who does, indeed, do so.
As I said, I have gotten into fights which could have been avoided, but I felt that enganing in conflict would have brought more benifits than winning through avoidance.

And looking back on things, I don't regret it.

Killing (and fighting) hould be a matter of survival. When the other guy is seriously trying to kill you, you kill him first.
Off topic. No one has dicussed killing people yet.

And as nice and idealistic as your philosophy is, you should probably keep in mind that all philosophies break down to some degree upon contact with the real world.

poleboy

2008-06-09, 01:39 AM

CrazedGoblin

2008-06-09, 02:19 AM

Hello Playground Goers,
I remember once upon a time seeing a very animated debate on various fighting styles, and figured this would be as good a place as any to ask about which style would best suit me...

I'm looking for some kind of style that relies on self control, but also utilizing speed. I'm quick and tall, but amazingly scrawny (I weigh 120lbs and I'm 6'1")

Anything that would be good to look at at?

although i only did it for about a year and do not know alot about it look into Wing Chun, i found it quite fun, seems to fit yose criteria.

randman22222

2008-06-09, 05:23 AM

Self control + your build = Ninjutsu is best.

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-09, 05:35 AM

It all depends on what you want out of martial arts. There are 9 or 10 categories I can think of. Pick a couple of criteria, because you can't have them all, self defense does not equal attempting to kill someone as quickly as possible. and your not going to be defending yourself with a bo staff almost ever (I've only heard about someone using a makeshift quarterstaff once, (pool cue))
1. Weapons, there are some Karate and of course Fencing for this
2. Grappling, Judo is the classic although there are other good ones too, Do not take TaeKwon-Do here (we assume you did something horribly wrong if it goes to grapple)
3. Kicks w/ some hand technique, TaeKwon-Do is by far the best here IMO
4. Hand technique w/ some kicks, some styles of Karate, and a number of others
4. Combat, Krav Magaw is the classic, although Mui Tai also is good.
6. Self Defense, TKD is good, but so are a bunch of others, (TKD has no strict curriculum so we steal shamelessly from other martial arts)
7. Control, Tai Chi is good but so are a lot of others, someone suggested Xing Yi.
8. Competition (specifically mixed martial arts competitions), Perhaps a kickboxing style of some sort, someone said Savate. Mixed Martial Arts are good too.
9. Demonstrations, Capoiera is a must, I like TaeKwon-Do, and Mui Tai for this, DO NOT DO FENCING HERE (it takes a long time to appreciate it)

Also, Solo, just FYI you are the reason that people are forced to learn self defense. This is the reason that people in martial arts teach when and why to use techniques not just the technique itself. To quote a mantra I learned:
It is better to run than hurt
It is better to hurt than maim
It is better to maim than kill
It is better to kill than be killed

And, If you do take a martial art and ever plan to use it in a fight, remember, you have to be prepared to kill someone, I have almost done this a number of times accidently, but it is no less real to me. Even in sparring you can get seriously injured (I had someone almost blow my knee sideways at one point).
So be sure you want to learn a martial art and don't jump around, stick with them for a while. If you decide you want to take a different one, ask your instructors and take a second one in addition to the first, don't replace it, because then you loose all the work you've put into it.

Edit: Just forgot to add this
All martial arts need self control, most also use lots of speed. The weaker an individual attack the faster they have to be, so TKD does very fast stuff, but so does fencing, plus loads of others. The harder hitting ones, Mui Tai and Judo are much slower because they can be, instead they throw more power into one technique and the main error is overcommitment to one attack.

valadil

2008-06-09, 10:14 AM

I agree with everyone who says you should go with one that looks like a good group of people socially, but I'd like to add that you should take your size into account.

I spent a semester in a club doing Kokondo. It was advertised as martial arts for people who enjoy using physics. Seemed like a good fit. Turns out that they meant that you can use physics to take advantage of someone bigger than you. I'm 6'4" and 300 pounds. I was straight up too big to do half the maneuvers they were teaching. Granted I made an excellent training dummy for the 5'0" folks who were learning to defend themselves, but I got very little out of the club.

Most dojos will let you sit in on a lesson to see if you like it. I recommend doing so. One lesson should be all you need to see if it is a good fit for you physically.

Out of curiosity has anyone here tried Muay Tai? There's a very legit dojo that specializes in it just down the street from me. I'm curious, but worried it'll be a little too hardcore.

Solo

2008-06-09, 10:47 AM

Also, Solo, just FYI you are the reason that people are forced to learn self defense.

Are you not judging without knowing facts? That is the path of defeat.

However, I forgive you. It would have been too troublesome for you to have researched the circumstances in which I fought and have come to a more accurate conclusion.

To save time in the future, then, I shall tell you of my actions. Perhaps after knowing the facts, you can judge for yourself whether my deeds are "the reason people are forced to learn self defense".

First time I can remember getting into a fight when unecessary was winter, in Beijing, while I was attending elementry school there. Two kids from my class were in the playground after school, and neither liked me. They started pelting me with snowballs, and I was not under the impression that the (rather one sided) snowball fight was in good fun, so I took a large chunk of snow and hit one of the kids with it, then proceeded to get into a fistfight with him.

Not necessary, perhaps, as I could have just walked away (and if they followed me, I could have just run away. Hopefully faster than them) but I think it was more adventageous to me to have fought, as I stopped them from harrassing me and reeduced the chances of them doing it to me again.

Second time was a year or two later, in America. Some kid in my class was bullying me for half the school year, threatening me with physical harm (once pointed a handgun at me from his house: at my age, I couldn't tell if it was real or not, but it looked real from 30 feet away and made some rather metallic sounds.), and stole something of mine and threw it away into some woods. I never recovered the object, and the school couldn't do anything aobut it because it was off campus, but I felt that, again, it would have been more adventagious for me to fight him because he was clearly behving in an intolerable fashion. Plus, I was rather disinclined to let him have his way with the harrassment, threats of bodily harm, and theft, etc.

So one day, after getting off the bus, I swung at him with a backpack full of heavy books, dropped it, and got into a wrestling match with him until an adult passing by stopped us.

He was quite a bit beefier, taller, and tougher than me, and was rumored to be a wrestler. However, it seems that his reputation was worse than his actual capabilities, because I was doing fine for myself until separated*.

Once again, it put a stop to my problems, though the fight wasn't really 'necessary'. I could have just kept ignoring him and reporting to the teachers things they wouldn't have been able to take care of. But a "victory by avoidance' under those conditions seemed to me more of a loss than anything else, and half a semester's worth of problems in my direction had worn whatever patience I had towards him thin.

So, any thoughts?

*Ok, the sneak attack with a bag full of books was probably underhanded, but I wasn't there to give him a massage either. Passing up 1d6 damage against a flatfooted opponent would have been criminal.

Talic

2008-06-09, 11:04 AM

To lean into attack is not the path of the fool.
To fight in anger is not folly.

To fight without control is folly.
To fight without fully intending to end it swiftly and decisively is the path of the fool.

Sun Tzu, one of the greatest military minds of all time, had an interesting philosphy.

When you fight, win.

He elaborated upon it much more, but that is the bottom line. Every time you raise your fists, do so with every intention of winning. That should be the only thing on your mind. Honor and restraint are noble traits, but they are noble traits more often held by the defeated. The time for restraint is before a fight. Once you get in, the time is for victory. He who hesitates is lost. If those who watch you are horrified by your brutality? Good. Your reputation will prevent far more future fights than your honor ever could.

There is no such thing as a fair fight, and the reason people must learn self defense, is that the nature of man is best discovered by looking at an infant. They take whatever they think they can get, without regard for others. So too, is man. It is in man's nature to take what he can. Some rise above this, most do not. This is why philosophy is best left in a classroom.

When you go out to fight, you are better served by brass knuckles.

EDIT: And it is not better to run than fight. It is never considered a bad thing to stand for your rights than the rights of others. If that brings you into conflict, then, well, life is conflict.

And as for killing someone? It's a regrettable thing, but it is sometimes necessary, legal, and right.

Tom_Violence

2008-06-09, 11:05 AM

Also, Solo, just FYI you are the reason that people are forced to learn self defense. This is the reason that people in martial arts teach when and why to use techniques not just the technique itself.

I gotta disagree massively with you there. Doesn't sound like Solo went looking for fights, but rather realised that sometimes standing up for yourself is better than running away for the rest of your life. In fact, if you learning a martial art need to be told when and why it needs to be used then it sounds like you're the one that people need defending from.

The guy's not saying "just go hogwild and kick the living beejesus out of anyone you like", just simply that there are times outside of literally having your back to the wall and nowhere to run when sticking up for yourself is a good idea.

Me, I favour legging it whenever possible though. Not because I don't believe in standing up for oneself, but rather because I live in a country where 12 year olds carry knives and barely a week seems to go by without someone getting stabbed to death in the street somewhere.

Also:

To fight in anger is folly. To lean into the attack, the mark of a fool.

To lean into attack is not the path of the fool.

Who's right here? Or are we all just confused by what it, essentially, vague notions with no actual bearing on a conversation? Quoting ancient philosophy is all well and good, but given the percentage of us here that are actual military strategists mayhaps bringing up Sun Tzu ain't exactly relevant.

skywalker

2008-06-09, 11:29 AM

To lean into attack is not the path of the fool.
To fight in anger is not folly.

To fight without control is folly.
To fight without fully intending to end it swiftly and decisively is the path of the fool.
This whole post wins. However, I would like to make a point.(from personal experience) Like solo, I found it necessary to defend myself against others more than once during my school days. Both times, I responded rapidly, viciously, and completely without anger. I was mad at them, but I didn't let that take me over.
Now, to compare, another instance, in which I did let anger take me over. This was a year later, and we were on a bus, and I attacked one of my classmates for (among other things) stomping on my leg. I had been training in martial arts for 7 years, he was a year younger, half a foot shorter, and 30 pounds heavier than me.
I should have killed him. I had the capacity, intention, and time to do serious damage to the guy, but I didn't. All I could manage was painful but ineffectual pounding on the top of his head with the bottom of my fist, because I stopped thinking. This is my personal version of "to fight in anger is folly."

To Brickwall, size does matter, at least eventually. There is no way a 5'5" man can stand against a similarly trained, similarly intentioned 6'4" man. I have seen an absolutely ferocious 5'5" guy tear apart a 6-footer who was not similarly intentioned, but the 5'5" guy is pretty much an embodiment of the philosophy in Talic's post. But that's a rarity. Look at boxing. Size most often matters.

I think grappling could actually work out, depending on how long and flexible your legs are. Long legs can actually be an advantage in some grappling arts.

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-09, 11:34 AM

I prefer having facts, my reasoning still stands though. While the villains you mention may have deserved retribution (I refrain from argument), the question is what happens later in life and the entire ethos of violence. If someone throws snow balls at you, are you going to go punch them? What happens if someone steals from you, will you hunt them down, as a vigilante? The question is not wether the punishments were justified but wether the attitude and the morals of the individual are correct to learn to inflict serious damage via martial arts. If you are to be a vigilante then there are problems, the government is designed for purposes, and one of them is to prevent such actions. I know that certainly I am evil enough that I have no right to be the judge jury and executioner of anyone but myself. I will concede that there are times when it is impossible to have the authority properly done, but unless there is immediate threat of danger to oneself or others physical violence is a last resort.
Also, Did the kids throwing snowballs think that they were unjustified? Or did they think that you "asking for it"? Did the kid who stole think that what he was doing was wrong? or was it that he thought that he was more deserving of what you had than you were?
I do not argue that laws are perfect, far from it, but I do argue that no one person should singlehandedly decide the fate of another unless a someone is in immediate danger. Training takes discipline both in the art itself and in the learning of how to use the art. One final example and I will lay this argument to rest, as it is quite tangential to the discussion, in the movie "Batman Begins" Why is Ras Al Gul the villain and not a tragic hero? Gotham deserved its destruction, and it was inevitable, he was trying to be the person who brought it down quickly so as to cauterize the wound so as to prevent it from spreading.
So you see, the problem is not that the fight occurred but that you were arrogant enough to think you should have authority to punish others, and this authority was not given to you by those who are much wiser then you.

Also, the comments about fighting in anger. To fight without thought of morals is evil, but to fight without emotion is just as bad. One must concern themselves with what the minimal amount of force needed to end the fight is, and not strike the other person because they are angry with them, but because they believe that it is the only way to end the fight. If you let your anger control you, you will loose, if you make yourself control and harness your anger it can be powerful as a tool.

Solo

2008-06-09, 11:54 AM

I prefer having facts, my reasoning still stands though. While the villains you mention may have deserved retribution (I refrain from argument), the question is what happens later in life and the entire ethos of violence.
I am a fan of violence, in proper amounts, and directed at the right people.

And i think you are ecaggerating a bit by calling them villians. They never tried to tie my girlfriend up on a railroad track or anything.

If someone throws snow balls at you, are you going to go punch them?
I think I have, actually. Does that answer your question?

What happens if someone steals from you, will you hunt them down, as a vigilante?
Yes, generally when someone steals from me, I will try to find them and ask for my property back. If that doesn't work, the police may come into the equation.

If you are to be a vigilante then there are problems, the government is designed for purposes, and one of them is to prevent such actions.
The government also allows for self defense, last time I checked.

And self defense is not the same as vigilantism. You are exaggerating a tad.

I know that certainly I am evil enough that I have no right to be the judge jury and executioner of anyone but myself.
I have a tab bit more faith in myself than that. And you should have more faith in yourself than that.

I will concede that there are times when it is impossible to have the authority properly done, but unless there is immediate threat of danger to oneself or others physical violence is a last resort.
Given that the kids in the first example were trying to hurt me, and the second had gone far as to commit aggravated assault with a firearm on one occasion, I think there was some element of imminent threat of danger to my person.

Also, Did the kids throwing snowballs think that they were unjustified? Or did they think that you "asking for it"?
Did the kid who stole think that what he was doing was wrong? or was it that he thought that he was more deserving of what you had than you were?

Reguardless of whether they thought themselves in the right or not, their actions were wrong. (As determined by conventional ethics)

Were my actions right? I see no ethical problem in 1) fighting back against eople who were trying to hurt me or 2) righting back against someone who was constantly getting on my case.

I do not argue that laws are perfect, far from it, but I do argue that no one person should singlehandedly decide the fate of another unless a someone is in immediate danger.
Hold on. Since when is hitting/punching someone "deciding their fate"?

You make it sound like I was trying to kill them.

Honestly, that's a bit melodramatic. (I assume melodramatic means over-dramatic. If not, pretend I said a better word)

So you see, the problem is not that the fight occurred but that you were arrogant enough to think you should have authority to punish others,
Arrogant to defend myself? If such is the case, then I will gladly call myself arrogant, and more besides.

and this authority was not given to you by those who are much wiser then you.

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high virtues of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.
-Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), Letter, 20 Sep 1810

.....Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense ... legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.
-Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE

By the way, you might find it helpful in your next post to talk in less... flamboyand and grandiose language. It's hard to comprehend at times, and it does give the impression that you're exaggerating.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-06-09, 12:05 PM

All this talk of 'the evils of martial arts' is, in fact, redundant.

True gentlemen, such as myself, are masters of bartitsu -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9e/Copy_of_Montage.jpg/441px-Copy_of_Montage.jpg

Pic related - that's me in the center.

Solo

2008-06-09, 12:33 PM

'Tis no match for my "fist in your face juitsu"

Illiterate Scribe

2008-06-09, 12:44 PM

'Tis no match for my "fist in your face juitsu"

Try to get in my reach when I'm clobbering you about the head with my dandy cane.

Solo

2008-06-09, 01:00 PM

Try to get in my reach when I'm clobbering you about the head with my dandy cane.

I will grab your cane with both hands and proceed to .... hey, am i detecting subtext here?

Illiterate Scribe

2008-06-09, 01:16 PM

I will grab your cane with both hands and proceed to .... hey, am i detecting subtext here?

While you are distracted by your own sick fantasies,

a wild overcoat attacks!

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6319/picture3li4.png

Gygaxphobia

2008-06-09, 01:40 PM

I'm looking for some kind of style that relies on self control, but also utilizing speed. I'm quick and tall, but amazingly scrawny (I weigh 120lbs and I'm 6'1")

Anything that would be good to look at at?

Speed and self control are synonomous with a disciplined fighting system, every martial art requires them.
If you get a good* teacher, your body type is irrelevant. Any proven style can accomodate you, the teacher can teach you to use it. It doesn't matter.

Just choose a good teacher, he/she will have a good class and you will learn what you need too.

*you have to judge this for yourself, but think along the lines of:
1. they should do a proper, safe warm-up
2. they should be involved in teaching/training themselves
3. they should teach you to train safely and enforce this in the class
4. they should explain the why of everything and answer your questions fully. The moment they say "just do it" or "because I say so", consider why they do not answer.
5. you are paying for this class, you owe them nothing but the respect they earn. Just remember that.

Bonecrusher Doc

2008-06-09, 02:32 PM

So what about the best martial art / sports martial art for me?

I'm not looking for the most deadly one or anything, just the one that will be the most fun from the first day of class. Not something you do in slow-motion for the first six months. Something with stuff that makes you say "Ooooh, cool!"

5'11", 160 lbs. I did wrestling in high school, which I enjoyed, though my record was mediocre. I'm not very fast... I never got a conventional takedown from a shot, I always got them from switches or other finagling. Still, I'd like to do something that gives you the good workout that wrestling does... most martial arts have too much standing still involved in the beginning stages for me.

I was at first going to say Tai Chi because it appeals to me professionally (I am a physical therapist) but some of you guys say it is boring. I have really tight hamstrings so anything that involves kicking is no good, just trust me on this one. Also I'm not really interested in BJJ because I've had too many of my patients come in with shoulders requiring surgery thanks to doing BJJ-based combatives, usually arm bars. Nor am I wanting to kill brain cells by boxing.

I took Uechi Ryu for a little while, which was OK except for the kicking, then I took some kind of kung fu (I forget the name), but that one took too many sessions to move beyond just standing in place with your lead foot turned uncomfortably inward.

I think I would really enjoy something with rolls in it. And Parkour has always seemed wicked cool to me (though I realize it is not a martial art).

Anything with weapons could also be cool as long as it's not crazy expensive. I know that fencing with foil, epee, and saber is offered in my hometown... how long do you have to practice that before you get to moving full-speed?

Meanwhile I'm trying to convince my wife that she should take belly-dancing lessons... no luck so far.

DrowVampyre

2008-06-09, 04:16 PM

Well, I always enjoyed judo, and you'll definitely get a wrestling-like workout with a good portion of it. And I can tell you that rolling is very prominent in it - first thing you learn, in fact, or at least it was for me. No weapons are involved in it, though. but it's great fun, as long as you don't mind getting tossed about as well as doing the tossing.

loopy

2008-06-09, 04:37 PM

Self control + your build = Ninjutsu is best.

Plus, seeing as there is only one of you, you'd gain all the benefits of the Inverse Ninja Law. Just don't get caught going anywhere with other ninjas.

However, I must ask you to disregard all other posts and learn Drunken Boxing, which is easily the best style of combat ever invented. :smallbiggrin:

Bonecrusher Doc

2008-06-09, 04:55 PM

Just realized I may have been rude by attempting to hijack Tahu's thread and redirect the answers towards me... perhaps folks wouldn't mind considering both of us with your answers?

tahu88810

2008-06-09, 05:14 PM

Just realized I may have been rude by attempting to hijack Tahu's thread and redirect the answers towards me... perhaps folks wouldn't mind considering both of us with your answers?

I don't mind. I already got my answers ^_^

@randman22222: Do they even still teach it? I was under the impression that only quacks claimed to know it...

skywalker

2008-06-09, 05:35 PM

@randman22222: Do they even still teach it? I was under the impression that only quacks claimed to know it...In my (not so humble when it comes to this topic) opinion, you're spot on. Ninjutsu probably never existed in the first place. There were probably schools of "spy training" that taught some martial arts, but as a term for describing martial arts, ninjutsu is about as good as "karate"(Which is a blanket term for the myriad empty hand styles from Japan).

Bonecrusher, everything about your post said BJJ/MMA. Due to the "non-traditional" nature of the art,(IE, it's been around for a very short period of time) classes are very non-tradtional(IE, they're missing that annoying start time you talked about). As an example, I started taking BJJ at an MMA school. This school is MMA in the sense that the chief instructor has black belts in Kenpo, Judo, and BJJ. In my first session, I learned how to roll and how to fall. In my second session, we were doing hip throws, take downs, all that beautiful stuff. It was a very fast start.

I have never seen anyone get a serious shoulder injury while practicing at that school, and certainly never while having an armbar performed on them. It's just a matter of knowing your limits and not being an idiot about them.

Gygaxphobia

2008-06-09, 05:36 PM

Just realized I may have been rude by attempting to hijack Tahu's thread and redirect the answers towards me... perhaps folks wouldn't mind considering both of us with your answers?

I've been training martial arts for 14 or so years and shaolin kung fu has been my most enjoyable one, and the one I found most practical. It largely depends on the teacher I find, each teacher and each student practises a style in a slightly different way. So each to his own.

Kung fu is awesome, as long as it doesn't involve too much jumping (impractical) and it incorporates some lessons from non-traditional sources (for street fighting). Fantastic work out for the legs, some serious power techniques and excellent fun for sparring.

potatocubed

2008-06-09, 05:46 PM

@randman22222: Do they even still teach it? I was under the impression that only quacks claimed to know it...

Ninjitsu? Yes, it's still taught, and properly too. Look for budo-taijutsu and the bajinkan.

Caracol

2008-06-09, 06:02 PM

Kendo.

Self control AND fast attacks. Who attacks without spirit and attitudes losts. Who only cares about self defense losts too.

You're tall and this gives you some more inches to get control on your attacker.
Thrust me, I did it for 1 year and a half, and it really helps you to get self control, but also to face your opponent directly. You attack like you're on rage, but you have the sensation of control and self discipline when you do so.

The problem with kendo is the time you need to dedicate to it to do it properly, and the expensive gears.

I discourage Ninjutsu. There are too few ACTUAL ninjutsu schools out there: most of them teach you kickass-looking and totally usesell crap. The risk of ending up in one of these schools is high.

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-09, 07:45 PM

from my 3.5 years of fencing, If you start fencing then don't expect anything too useful for 1-2 months, after that you get to actually use a weapon. This is actually necessary, my school regularly won national competitions, and both our top student's got an A ranking (the highest you can get) at the youngest age ever achieved. The whole idea is to focus and learn the footwork well and then add a blade. I did foil, so my experience with epee is small and saber is non-existent. make sure your instructor has been trained to tech as well as fence, I was at two different schools in my years and one of the instructors couldn't teach me squat but could fence quite well. After 2 months you get to start using a foil, and by the end of 3-4 months, sometimes as long as 6 you are fencing opponents via judging. After 6 months to a year you have to finally break down and buy a set of electric equipment, for foil, that runs you about $100 minimum last time i checked, but this stuff should last a while. If you want the top notch stuff, a foil can run up to about 150, shoes can be about 100-150.

Trog

2008-06-09, 08:06 PM

Well I guess it depends on what sort of thing you are looking for in a martial art. Are you looking for a good workout? Effective self defense? Learning a tradition? Nifty outfits? Catching flies with chopsticks?

The biggest difference I have found in martial arts academies (insert dojo or other proper name here) is the style in which the style of martial art is taught.

For instance, I took a few years worth of Tae Kwon Do (Chung Do Kwon with a bit of Blue Cottage thrown in) lessons when I was a kid. And the place I went to stressed the physical workout, discipline and respect for your superiors as well as tradition. The other school in town taught kids how to fight in tournaments. No learning Korean terms for things, no meditation, and other traditional stuff.

Does that mean it was a worse place to go? Well... I guess that would depend on whether or not I wanted to win a tournament. It's the teachers that make the difference. They are the ones who set the tone for the class.

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-09, 09:37 PM

Trog, You are great, *man hug's trog*
Everything you said about TKD is true, and yet its not too (exactly as you said). It all depends on the instructors a lot of the time. Your observations are very good. Find a school that teaches the purpose that you want, if you want to compete in tournament don't go to a school that has never participated in one, if you want to learn respect and discipline, don't go to a school who's philosophy is do what you want.

Bonecrusher Doc

2008-06-09, 11:47 PM

I have never seen anyone get a serious shoulder injury while practicing at that school, and certainly never while having an armbar performed on them. It's just a matter of knowing your limits and not being an idiot about them.

Ah, I think that's the problem with our soldiers. Refusing to tap out when they should.

skywalker

2008-06-10, 12:09 AM

Ah, I think that's the problem with our soldiers. Refusing to tap out when they should.

I'm confused with your sarcasm. I was speaking about training. I realize now, you said combatives in your first post. From what I have gleaned from movies and a very short visit to Parris Island, military training is very different from civilian training.

I still don't see any reason for it, tho. What's your point? That because they're soldiers, they're not idiots for doing stupid things with their bodies? Accidents do happen, but either: A)The person performing the armbar was intending to injure, or B)The "victim" of the armbar is causing themself obvious harm by not tapping out.

These types of things don't occur(excepting random freak accidents) at civilian schools because a civilian school where someone gets hurt is a school that ceases to exist.

Why on earth would they not tap out?

Bonecrusher Doc

2008-06-10, 12:40 AM

skywalker

2008-06-10, 12:52 AM

No sarcasm intended. The "combatives" (hand-to-hand combat) training has changed a lot in recent years, and from what I hear, incorporates a lot of BJJ. The soldiers talk about practicing their combatives, being put in joint locks, and then refusing to submit... so the other guy just keeps cranking harder and harder on the joint. You know, the old "Say 'Uncle!'" thing. As you said,

I may not have my terminology exactly right since I was in physical therapy school during the time that the Army redesigned the combatives training, but I know I've had multiple patients come in with torn-up shoulders that they attributed to "arm bars."
Of course I only speak for myself from what I have heard, I have no objective data on this and I am not a spokesman for the military.
Whatever the case is, I am sure you are right, a civilian school that's been around for more than a month or two would be careful to avoid these things. BJJ is the hip thing right now. They're incorporating it into everything. Which is okay, it's a pretty good system, IMO. The school I refer to has combined BJJ with Kenpo karate with Filipino Kali. Even more strangely related, the chief instructor is one of those "I got my black belt in the navy" types. His instructor(in a bizarre twist of age differences) came to America, gained citizenship, and enlisted(last I heard, he was in ranger school). I wonder what that guy's first day of combatives was like?

This could develop into a strange commentary on military psychology, because(perhaps because of the chief instructor) the school tends to attract military(two ex-SEALS, etc.) and SWAT types. Regardless of this concentration of highly "macho" males, I have never heard of anyone being injured via a technique's intended function. I mean, there are the normal pulls and strains associated with any physical activity, but beyond that, no one breaks bones or anything.

Talic

2008-06-10, 01:43 AM

Now, to compare, another instance, in which I did let anger take me over. This was a year later, and we were on a bus, and I attacked one of my classmates for (among other things) stomping on my leg. I had been training in martial arts for 7 years, he was a year younger, half a foot shorter, and 30 pounds heavier than me.
I should have killed him. I had the capacity, intention, and time to do serious damage to the guy, but I didn't. All I could manage was painful but ineffectual pounding on the top of his head with the bottom of my fist, because I stopped thinking. This is my personal version of "to fight in anger is folly."
See, I'm angry in just about every fight I get in. I'm pissed that I was drawn into a fight. Angry at what the person did to get me there.

But I have control. In the example of above, your anger controls you, and you don't use what you have. You fought while you weren't in control. Anger wasn't the culprit, but rather, a lack of self control.

The key to victory in any scenario is to do what your opponent won't even consider doing, either by training or conditioning. If he won't even consider it, he is typically not prepared for it. Frequently, this is by ignoring any semblance of concepts people refer to as "fair fighting", which are, in reality, nothing more than artificial restrictions on a fight to protect those with weak sensibilities who get in a fight.

News flash: If you have weak sensibilities, a fight is not the place you should be.

NOTE: The above comment is one of the key concepts of asymmestrical warfare.

Talic

2008-06-10, 01:52 AM

Who's right here? Or are we all just confused by what it, essentially, vague notions with no actual bearing on a conversation? Quoting ancient philosophy is all well and good, but given the percentage of us here that are actual military strategists mayhaps bringing up Sun Tzu ain't exactly relevant.

When you must fight, use every advantage you have. One of those is surprise. To everyone who witnesses the fight, you strike first, strike hard, and strike without mercy. That is leaning into the attack. That is also the wisest way to fight if you must fight, as that is what gives you the best chance of staying around to fight more later.

As for the relevance of sound tactical thinking in a discussion about tactical theory in martial arts style? I'd say the people who aren't conversant in Sun Tzu are the irrelevant ones. And I didn't quote Sun Tzu. I paraphrased, and put it in layman's terms.

Bonecrusher Doc

2008-06-10, 05:28 AM

Regardless of this concentration of highly "macho" males, I have never heard of anyone being injured via a technique's intended function. I mean, there are the normal pulls and strains associated with any physical activity, but beyond that, no one breaks bones or anything.

Could just be a matter of scale. When you have several thousand troops doing combatives training, there are bound to be a couple of knuckleheads who don't follow the guidance of the instructors and end up injuring each other. And those few knuckleheads are the ones who end up in my clinic.

poleboy

2008-06-10, 05:45 AM

I was at first going to say Tai Chi because it appeals to me professionally (I am a physical therapist) but some of you guys say it is boring.

I personally found it boring. Traditional Tai Chi is nice to look at and the best option for people who are untrained or have weak joints (hence why it is so popular among older people in Asia), but as I mentioned, very defensive and subtle.
I only studied it a bit, but my experience was that it's more a good basis for learning other, more aggressive internal MA's than an effective fighting system in itself.
I know I'm pushing Xingyi a little hard here, but I think it's one of the better Internal MA's to choose, since it doesn't strain your body too much in the wrong places (much like Tai Chi), but is still very aggressive and straight-forward.

I took some kind of kung fu (I forget the name), but that one took too many sessions to move beyond just standing in place with your lead foot turned uncomfortably inward.

Kung Fu is basically just Chinese for "boxing" or "fighting". A lot of people who claim to teach "Kung Fu" are hacks.

I think I would really enjoy something with rolls in it.

Anything with weapons could also be cool as long as it's not crazy expensive. I know that fencing with foil, epee, and saber is offered in my hometown... how long do you have to practice that before you get to moving full-speed?

Sounds like you might enjoy Judo, it's mostly floor combat and holds and kicking is optional, I think. Weapons... there's this Filipino system called Escrima where they fight with two sticks. You can basically do it with any two straight pieces of wood.
Dual-wielding FTW.

Bonecrusher Doc

2008-06-10, 06:15 AM

Thanks for all the great advice everyone.

What distinguishes an "internal MA?"

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-10, 06:28 AM

Sunzi is also talking about war, remember, never does he talk about one on one fights. So his statements of striking first are perhaps useful but then again, If I insult you and you respond by attempting to kill me who is in the wrong, you, I, or perhaps both? If, on the other hand, I insult you and you walk away, who is wrong? Or yet again, If I insult you, and you turn to walk and I strike, who is wrong? These questions are simple to Sunzi he claims that might makes right, so the first is the best scenario for you and the last is the best for me. Certainly you are more guaranteed to be around to fight again. But at what cost? Are morals cheap loose? (in case people want, Sunzi (chapter:line) 3:2-3,6,17-18, 4:1-3,6,14,16,5:17, 7:30,36, 8:2,12-13)

Also, is it weak sensibility to strive for honor is ones life? I think that these terms are confused here. To have strong convictions is not the same as to be weak.
Also, is the key to victory escalating a fight? After all, I win if my opponent tries to take a drunken swing at me and I break his arm and then continue to beat on him after he is down. He would never consider that. And so I do win. and yet, I did overreact.
Perhaps the underhanded techniques are a lack of self confidence. If I have no fear of my opponent then I will reduce my aggression and confront them to their face, giving them every opportunity to leave at any point to reduce my culpability for them getting injured. I do not argue against saying that those with honor should never be in a fight, but I also would say that some fights are unable to be avoided. As I have implied earlier in posts, I believe that the perfectly honorable person is the one who is so skilled that they never need to fight, and if they do, they will not injure their opponent.
So, the concept of a fair fight is not as simple as you may like to make it seem.

Also, I would like to point out that the purpose of training someone on when to use a martial art is not that they are unaware of this, but instead to be able to codify it into a unified philosophy instead of just saying, I fight when I feel it is appropriate. If I judge on my feelings then I am might hurt people that I shouldn't, after all why else do crimes of passion happen. So instead of relying on feelings, they teach to rely on objective standards and always error on the side of mercy. So the idea of teaching why and when to use a MA is not that they don't think the person has a proper grasp of such concepts (although some don't) instead it is to unify the concept into a coherent whole.

P.S. I am not trying to obfuscate what I say here, this is actually how I speak.

Talic

2008-06-10, 06:28 AM

Actually, many martial arts incorporate weapons into their routines. Some, such as Escrima and Kenpo, feature it, but many use them. Worth noting: Any martial art that features two weapon fighting will start with 1. Once you are competent with that one, then you will learn to begin incorporating a second in. Because of this, almost all martial arts such as this have radically different styles at advanced levels than they do in beginning, as the focus gradually shifts towards greater proficiency with the second weapon.

Even martial arts such as Savate, Karate, and Muay Thai have weapon routines. They merely incorporate the weapon into the existing style. One of these would probably be better suited to you.

So far, Judo and Savate seem like strong contenders for styles to look into.

Talic

2008-06-10, 06:42 AM

Sunzi is also talking about war, remember, never does he talk about one on one fights. So his statements of striking first are perhaps useful but then again, If I insult you and you respond by attempting to kill me who is in the wrong, you, I, or perhaps both? If, on the other hand, I insult you and you walk away, who is wrong? Or yet again, If I insult you, and you turn to walk and I strike, who is wrong? These questions are simple to Sunzi he claims that might makes right, so the first is the best scenario for you and the last is the best for me. Certainly you are more guaranteed to be around to fight again. But at what cost? Are morals cheap loose? (in case people want, Sunzi (chapter:line) 3:2-3,6,17-18, 4:1-3,6,14,16,5:17, 7:30,36, 8:2,12-13)
Sun Tzu does not deal with war. He dealt with the underlying concept of war. Conflict. His Art of War is required reading for many military officers, businessmen, and political leaders. Any time that you are in opposition with something, even the environment, the Art of War has something relevant and telling for you, if you fully understand the concepts that lie beneath the proverbs.

Basic concepts such as concealing strength and weakness, misdirection, aggression, resource management, and conflict avoidance (yes, he does espouse this in many cases)... These concepts are universally applicable for any conflict based situation. His book is not ethical, it is logical. You do what you need to, in order to accomplish your goals. The underlying concept of what goals you should be setting? Less relevant to the discussion at hand. Martial Arts, Strategy, these are nothing more than tools. A trainer can teach you to use them proficiently. It is up to the individual to determine what it means to use them well. You apply your line of thinking as the right one, without acknowledging that there are other valid lines of reasoning for the "proper" use of a martial art.

Ultimately, martial arts are tools for conflict resolution. How you use those tools is up to you. But if you choose to be more aggressive than less, and choose to deter people from attacking, it is no less valid. Look at Hiroshima. The scale of the brutality was such that it terrified people. But look how many more wars have been deterred, how much more life was spared, for that act of brutality.

Was it right? That will be argued for all time. Was it effective? There is no doubt.

poleboy

2008-06-10, 06:44 AM

Thanks for all the great advice everyone.

What distinguishes an "internal MA?"

Wiki it, you lazy bastard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_martial_arts) :smalltongue:

Anyway, to dumb/shorten it down, internal means focus on strength through directing your body's weight efficiently, external means strength through training your body in a more "direct" fashion (such as lifting weights).

Tai Chi is very internal.
(Western) Boxing is very external.

Both have a few qualities from the other. A good boxer knows that the way you toss your weight around matters as much as having big muscles.

Solo

2008-06-10, 06:45 AM

English translation of the Art of War (http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html), for reference purposes.

These questions are simple to Sunzi he claims that might makes right,
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-10, 07:21 AM

As Talic says, "His book is not ethical, it is logical"
and so is "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli is also logical, even if not ethical.
Also, troop movements do not precipitate in all conflict, while some of what he says is directed both to battle as well as other conflict remember that it was indeed written for war, and he never encourages uses outside training generals.
As I can read any textbook on war and use it in conflict diverse. Sunzi is not unique in this.

For your citation, I might ask for a citation to the opposite. Also, one must study the history of the situation. And, Lionel Giles notes on the translation of chapter 1:4-6 should shed some light on this. If morals are balancing principles then the right is the force that overcomes and the wrong is the one who looses.

Solo

2008-06-10, 07:31 AM

As Talic says, "His book is not ethical, it is logical"
and so is "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli is also logical, even if not ethical.
Machiavelli does not dispense entirely with morality nor advocate wholesale selfishness or degeneracy. Instead he outlines his definition of, for example, the criteria for acceptable cruel actions (it must be swift, effective, and short-lived).

For your citation, I might ask for a citation to the opposite.
Come now, come now, you are aware of debating conventions, right? He who makes a claim must provide the evidence supporing the claim. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-10, 08:24 AM

Gygaxphobia

2008-06-10, 08:29 AM

MA discussions always seem to become very high, mighty and esoteric very quickly without any real need.

In a fight the bigger, stronger person wins.

Martial Arts are a centuries old attempt to:
a, use training to make up for any deficit
b, make your training better than your enemies
c, stop your men dropping their <insert cheap weapon name> and running away.

alternatively d, stretch and strengthen you for hard work while distracting your mind from the pain with pretty thoughts.

In choosing a MA I would suggest you either choose what sort of training you prefer... or what pretty thoughts you prefer.

Solo

2008-06-10, 08:55 AM

If I am forced to defend my points with citations, then I would cite the entirety of the book, for it argues this as a general theme.

If it is truely so, then you should have no problems pointing out the specific instances in which Sun Zi says "might makes right".

After all, if the entire book's theme is "might makes right", surely you can cite a passage to show it?

Now, If I am going to cite my views from a book then according to debating convention so should you.
I have not made a claim yet. Thus I do not need to cite anything. I merely wish to see the reasoning behind your claim.

For if you argue my points are false, please read the book and come back with a rebuttal instead of saying that my statements are invalid because of lack of citation.
Generally, when someone makes a claim without providing proof/refusing to provide it, they are not taken seriously. Doubtless you can figure out why this is the case.

Caracol

2008-06-10, 09:07 AM

In a fight the bigger, stronger person wins.

No. Not always. Depends on the type of fighting, on the weapon used, if any, and the psichological states of the contenders.

Martial Arts are a centuries old attempt to:
a, use training to make up for any deficit
b, make your training better than your enemies
c, stop your men dropping their <insert cheap weapon name> and running away.

Again, it depends on what martial arts are you considering. Please don't generalize this much.

alternatively d, stretch and strengthen you for hard work while distracting your mind from the pain with pretty thoughts.

This is true, altough it regards recent martial arts or recent adaptations of old martial arts. Unless you fight for living, chances to use the techniques you learn are low, so you train actually to develop self-discipline and to beat your fears.

In choosing a MA I would suggest you either choose what sort of training you prefer... or what pretty thoughts you prefer.

True. The best thing would be trying a lot of them, and then choose what fits the most. This is unfortunately problematic, because they are MANY, the time and the money you have to invest in them is not endless and, when you begin to train in a martial art, you get only some glimpses of what you will actually do in advanced training. A lot of newcomers becomes scared or bored and eventually quit before they even start to actually training.

Talic

2008-06-10, 09:39 PM

If I am forced to defend my points with citations, then I would cite the entirety of the book, for it argues this as a general theme. Now, If I am going to cite my views from a book then according to debating convention so should you. Remember that, so someone please cite to the contrary of me. For if you argue my points are false, please read the book and come back with a rebuttal instead of saying that my statements are invalid because of lack of citation. If you can argue it then so can I.
By the way please refrain from Negative Proof, Appeal to Ridicule, and Ad Hominem.
If it carries the general theme throughout, then it should be no problem finding a specific quote or two to support your unfounded claim.

Machiavelli's text and Sun Tzu's are fundamentally different, in that while sun tzu points out the qualities of a victor, without regard to morality one way or another, Machiavelli's text is a defense of what is commonly considered amoral actions, when need justifies it.

In short, there is a reason that almost anyone in any major position of competition needs to read the Art of War. That is not true of anything penned by Machiavelli.

Comparing Sun Tzu to Machiavelli is not unlike comparing Tai Bo to Hitler. It's a very, very poor and inaccurate analogy.

Talic

2008-06-10, 09:46 PM

No. Not always. Depends on the type of fighting, on the weapon used, if any, and the psichological states of the contenders.
Given all other factors being equal, the more physically strong person will win. Size also provides a reach advantage, so, given equal skill, fights generally go to larger competitors. It's the reason that fighting organizations group combatants by weight class.

Again, it depends on what martial arts are you considering. Please don't generalize this much. Actually, that's a valid generalization. Generally, martial arts is about self-improvement, and conflict resolution.

This is true, altough it regards recent martial arts or recent adaptations of old martial arts. Unless you fight for living, chances to use the techniques you learn are low, so you train actually to develop self-discipline and to beat your fears.Both of you are correct here. Even without serious repeated use, martial arts can teach you to ignore pain. However, the discipline that martial arts teaches is the discipline of the body, patience, repetition. It gains a single effective result, and has other applications, but all martial arts teaches in and of itself is dedication and physical discipline.

True. The best thing would be trying a lot of them, and then choose what fits the most. This is unfortunately problematic, because they are MANY, the time and the money you have to invest in them is not endless and, when you begin to train in a martial art, you get only some glimpses of what you will actually do in advanced training. A lot of newcomers becomes scared or bored and eventually quit before they even start to actually training. You need not practice a martial art to learn about it. Watch it in action. You tube is excellent for this. Study the precepts and principles. Google can be used. 90% of your research can be done with naught but a decent internet connection.

Caracol

2008-06-11, 03:46 AM

Given all other factors being equal, the more physically strong person will win. Size also provides a reach advantage, so, given equal skill, fights generally go to larger competitors. It's the reason that fighting organizations group combatants by weight class.

Please don't start this kind of argument. It's not always true in weapon using martial arts (where sometimes strength is useless) and it will only start hypotetical and probably false assumptions and confrontations between this and that martial art. "Given all the factor being equal" is an hypotesis that is never true, and the theoric consequences you can get from it aren't true in many cases.

And NOT all the fighting organizations groups combatants by weight class.

Actually, that's a valid generalization. Generally, martial arts is about self-improvement, and conflict resolution.

And other, like Ninjutsu, aren't neither of them, but are techinques to kill and defeat your opponent, assassination skills. They don't resolve a conflict. They create a conflict.
This is why I discourage the practice of Ninjutsu. Even if you find a proper school, what can you really learn? To kill somebody in kickass but outdated techiniques.

You need not practice a martial art to learn about it. Watch it in action. You tube is excellent for this. Study the precepts and principles. Google can be used. 90% of your research can be done with naught but a decent internet connection.

No, don't do that. That's a bad advice to give. Watching videos on Youtube about martial arts doesn't give you the feel about what you will really do and don't let you understand how is the actual training done, and if you will like it.
Doing previous research is good and necessary, but I'm convinced about this: if you don't try it you will never know if you will like it. Watching stuff on Youtube only results in "OMG kicks to the face!", becoming enthusiastic about that martial art and eventually finding out that training wasn't as you expected it.

poleboy

2008-06-11, 05:41 AM

In a fight the bigger, stronger person wins.

All right. I propose a fight then. You bring the biggest, meanest guy you can find and I'll bring a gun.

Solo

2008-06-11, 05:44 AM

All right. I propose a fight then. You bring the biggest, meanest guy you can find and I'll bring a gun.

Guns aren't useful if you're engaging people stronger than you.

Now, if you also had bullets, you might be getting somewhere.

poleboy

2008-06-11, 05:52 AM

Guns aren't useful if you're engaging people stronger than you.

Now, if you also had bullets, you might be getting somewhere.

Why are you assuming the gun isn't loaded? That's like assuming the guy I will be fighting doesn't have any hands or something. Although pistolwhipping is extremely manly. Giving up your combat advantage to humiliate someone is both masculine and stupid.

Solo

2008-06-11, 06:05 AM

Why are you assuming the gun isn't loaded?
A gun is an object made to fire bullets. However, they do not come with bullets by default, unless you live in Texas.

Although pistolwhipping is extremely manly.

Yes, but if you're going into melee with him anyways, why don't you bring something designed to melee, and not risk marring the finish on the gun?

Gygaxphobia

2008-06-11, 10:40 AM

(where sometimes strength is useless)

And other, like Ninjutsu, aren't neither of them, but are techinques to kill and defeat your opponent, assassination skills.

Come on guys, why does this kind of thing always have to happen in an MA discussion?
Caracol, you started off by flat-out refuting everything I said (without any reasons) and now you're taking a tone with Talec? Why?
Shall I go back and quote you typing: No, Yes, No, No, False. Does that help us?

Strength is always important with weapons, why wouldn't it be? Even with guns, though I'm assuming we aren't talking about firearms for the purpose of our MA discussion, which fundamentally refers to melee unless you specifically include firearms.

Ninjitsu is clearly about training and improving yourself. Why would you use it to disprove any of my points? Finishing a conflict also "resolves" it, so Talic's point is valid.

Any kind of research is good. Video is as valid as any other form of research, it has benefits over some and disbenefits comared to others.

Seriously, no points are being awarded in this discussion, no one is scoring.

Solo

2008-06-11, 10:42 AM

Strength is always important with weapons, why wouldn't it be?

Strength (Str)

Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat. Strength also limits the amount of equipment your character can carry.

You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:

* Melee attack rolls.
* Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon (including a sling). (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only one-half the character’s Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
* Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability.
* Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).

Gygaxphobia

2008-06-11, 10:47 AM

Is that still true in 4th Ed? I haven't checked, but am assuming the rules of physics are still the same.

Caracol

2008-06-11, 11:55 AM

Come on guys, why does this kind of thing always have to happen in an MA discussion?

What? Like, trying to prove your point? Are you referring to this? Because it's the point of every discussion (along with confrontate your views and opinion with others)

Caracol, you started off by flat-out refuting everything I said (without any reasons) and now you're taking a tone with Talec? Why?
Shall I go back and quote you typing: No, Yes, No, No, False. Does that help us?

Actually, I'm agree with you for the most part: I was just telling you to don't generalize and to consider some additional factors.

Strength is always important with weapons, why wouldn't it be? Even with guns, though I'm assuming we aren't talking about firearms for the purpose of our MA discussion, which fundamentally refers to melee unless you specifically include firearms.

I wasn't referring to firearms. Maybe I swapped strenght with brute force- my bad. If you talk about strenght as physical condition and fitness, yes it's important. But it's not "how hard you punch". If you think like this, then I'll say that you obviously didn't ever used a katana. No a single bit of brute force is needed when handling it, even in test cuts. It's more a matter of "dexterity", altough the use of DnD stats for referring to actual stuff is generally bad.

Of course, this is different for other weapons and martial arts, but THAT's the point: there are differences. I was just trying to point out this.

Ninjitsu is clearly about training and improving yourself. Why would you use it to disprove any of my points? Finishing a conflict also "resolves" it, so Talic's point is valid.
Ninjustu (as the "justsu" word states in the end), is a collection of techiniques. Martial arts that have the "do" (that means "way") word in them, istead, are about improving yourself. And sorry, Ninjutsu isn't. I'm just using the definition of "jutsu" and "do" here, not battling Ninjutsu just because or because I just want to contradict you.

Seriously, no points are being awarded in this discussion, no one is scoring.

Awarded? Scoring? Did you started a fight all by yourself? I think we were just talking and discuss here, not fighting to be "the one that is right". If you want to do this, then go ahead. Just tell me when you're finished in this case, so we can discuss just to confront our opinions again.

Gygaxphobia

2008-06-11, 12:41 PM

Caracol

2008-06-11, 01:28 PM

It looks like you're disagreeing with me because you're reading more into what I say than there is.
Strength is different from brute force, brute force implies little control.

Using a katana is less about dexterity (by which I mean the manipulation of objects with your fingers). You need strength to hold the blade still in the first place, to make a precise cut your strentgh gives you control.

I see that it was a matter of mistranslation and different weight we gave to the words used. Strength is commonly associated with brute force in my language, so probably that was the problem. Of course, if strength means "how you use your body", I agree with you.

That's the point in generalising, you try and use the fewest words to describe the biggest picture.

I was just trying to work out things by their definitions. Of course, if you want to consider them differently, and to give your own interpretations, I'm perfectly fine, also because they are sort of abstract concepts, and prone to be considered slightly differently by everyone.

You can pick holes but in the purest form what I said was true. The reason I say you pick holes is that you have used negative critiscism, which seems aimed more at arguing than discussing. Which then requires me to defend myself if my words are to have any weight with you.
Expand if you want to discuss rather than contradict.

Ok, I've been measured and calm by now. Allow me just a single anger burst:

STUPIDEST POINT EVER.

From where the hell "negative criticism" jumped out? What the hell is supposed to mean? The people that screams "negative criticism" make me laugh. It's a sort of last resort weapon when they want to move the discussion somewhere else.
Criticism is criticism, reply to it or ignore it. I'm being critic on the thing you say because I don't think they are exactly right. That's why.

Also, last time I checked, "negative criticism" is : AH! YOU SUCK! without saying why.
And I think I said why I didn't agree with you and made the necessary nitpicking, "expanding" the discussion.

I'm not contradicting just because. I'm contradicting because I don't think you're completely right or that you're missing something. AND I'm giving you a different point of view istead of just saying "Wrong".

I still don't understand your point about Ninjutsu. You have to train to learn techniques, which is practise.

Ok, I will be kind and measured again from this point on.
Again, this was probably a matter of different translations or weight that we gave to the words. I don't consider phisical practise as a self improvement. Neither learning killing techinques is self improvement to me. Of course, that's just me. You could consider them improvement and so on, and you can say Nijutsu is not "just that" and so on. No problem to me. I was just saying that, to ME, Ninjutsu is kinda useless because:

- I don't plan to become an skilled assassin,
- If you would, I'll do it in another way,
- I still don't think there are many ACTUAL Ninjutsu schools out there.

Since I think the OP doesn't want this stuff too, I discouraged him to train in Ninjutsu for the reason stated above. If he still wants, and actually feels himself improving meanwhile, well, what can I say, good for him!

Rollin

2008-06-11, 01:46 PM

I personally found it boring. Traditional Tai Chi is nice to look at and the best option for people who are untrained or have weak joints (hence why it is so popular among older people in Asia), but as I mentioned, very defensive and subtle.
I only studied it a bit, but my experience was that it's more a good basis for learning other, more aggressive internal MA's than an effective fighting system in itself.

I can't resist putting in a good word here for Chen-style Tai Chi. Most teachers and schools teach Yang-style Tai Chi, which is said to be slower and gentler. Chen-style includes plenty of fast movements such as punches and kicks, and I found it not at all boring. (Unfortunately I have no basis for comparison to other martial arts, and I only studied Tai Chi at a beginning level. It was a lot of fun, though.)

Cybren

2008-06-11, 01:49 PM

Well, I can only speak for the things I've actually tried myself...

Tae Kwon Do is very structured, but also a bit bland IMO. It's a very traditional external MA without too much fuss. Easy to learn and quite popular.

Tai Chi is the most well-known internal MA. It's very graceful, very slow and quite boring. It's also very defensive/passive and doesn't lend itself well to someone who is not inhumanly patient. Also, most of the people you will find claiming to teach Tai Chi are hacks and con artists. If they refuse to spar with you, chances are you won't learn anything there.

Xing Yi is a more obscure internal MA. It's also my personal favorite, since it's simple and more aggressive than Tai Chi. It's not easy to come by skilled trainers either, and most practitioners tend to develop their own style, since there is no official association in the western world.
I've trained a style called Xing Yi LiuHe Quan. Most people train the "basic" style called Xingyiquan. They are very similar, however.

If you're interested in internal MA (and Xing Yi in particular), I can recommend this site (http://www.emptyflower.com) and especially their forum. Lots of friendly and helpful people there.

actual Tai chi isn't "slow and boring"; it's a legitimate combative style. The stuff you see at the Y with all the middle aged women? That's not Tai Chi.

4. Combat, Krav Magaw is the classic, although Mui Tai also is good.

Krav Maga is a self defense style. It was born out of WW2 to defend some people the Germans didn't like. Muay Thai is the national sport of Thailand, and is a brutal sporot resembling kickboxing. While a Muay Thai fighter would be at an advantage in a street fight from excellent conditioning and their training in fighting, krav maga would not work will in the ring, any ring, because of the tactics it uses (killing you).

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-11, 11:07 PM

Krav Maga is the name for the IDF's(Israeli Defense Force) MA portion of training, hence my saying its combative. I will say that any martial art that is used primarily by a military organization as their primary martial art is a combative style, I just don't remember nor has anyone mentioned other governments styles.
Muai Tai focuses on attacks and so I list it as I would any martial art used in that style of competition as a combative martial art. Boxing and most MMA schools, would be combative too.

Solo

2008-06-11, 11:18 PM

So, no citations then?

Cybren

2008-06-11, 11:36 PM

RTGoodman

2008-06-11, 11:43 PM

Regarding Ninjutsu:

I was a student of ninjutsu for a couple of semesters back in college, and yes there are still places where you can learn it. If you're interested, look up Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, as I believe that's what our official name for it was. In my 7 months or so of it, we did a lot with ukemi (breakfalls, rolls, etc.), kamae (postures), katas (one for each element), some strikes, counters and reversals, a little grappling, and some weapons stuff (including with the hanbo, tanto, and those hand and foot spike things). (Not sure about the spelling or names for some of those - I haven't done anything with it since May 2006.)

Bonecrusher Doc: If you can find a legit place, I think Bujinkan is probably worth at least checking out. I don't know about your physical state, but I'm a short, fat guy and could do most of it. (In fact, the only thing I had problems with were balancing on my shoulders sticking my feet straight up in the air, which was a warmup, and a backwards roll.) It was definitely interesting from day one, speed was not as important, it's definitely a workout (especially when you're doing breakfalls and going up and down constantly, or having to do rolls for two hours), it involves rolls and weapons (which you said you wanted), and there's some other neat stuff (including assassination stuff that you learn later, though we didn't learn much about it).

poleboy

2008-06-12, 01:17 AM

actual Tai chi isn't "slow and boring"; it's a legitimate combative style. The stuff you see at the Y with all the middle aged women? That's not Tai Chi.

True, the stuff you see most people practicing is Qi Gong. It is, however, a part of how you train Tai Chi. I only learned the basic form when I did it, and I can't recall if it was Chen or Yang style. I'm sure there are many, many ways to practice Tai Chi. The people I learned it from got it from a Xingyi guy, so maybe he taught it wrong, I can't say. I'm just relating my experience, and compared to stuff like Ba Gua and Xingyi (which are related styles), I think Tai Chi is slow and boring.

Gygaxphobia

2008-06-12, 06:36 AM

I'm not sure you can catergorise any MA as combative or not, even external/internal definitions only hold up to a certain degree.
(the old hard/soft comparison doesn't seem to be used any more).

I think what matters is the focus you are using when using the techniques. I've learnt hard-style kung fu that can be practised in a soft style, also soft style tai-chi that has hard style applications.
Normally when training tai chi you do 'x' years of practise before you even think about the combat applications.

Krav Maga doesn't seem to be anything particularly new to me, it just "cuts to the chase" by discarding anything "traditional" that isn't a direct, practical application.
I've only been training it for a few months but I've not seen anything I haven't seen before, except some knife/gun techniques (which I never expect to use).

Iudex Fatarum

2008-06-12, 07:47 AM

I'm not sure you can catergorise any MA as combative or not, even external/internal definitions only hold up to a certain degree.
(the old hard/soft comparison doesn't seem to be used any more).

I agree completely, my attempt at classifying them is purely for a pragmatic purpose and I guess I am getting a little carried away in my passions. I was trying purely to classify them otherwise how does one tell the difference between ones where people regularly get injured and train to attack your opponent at the first indication of attack or one that teaches defensive posture and always to allow your opponent to make the first move

Trog

2008-06-12, 11:12 PM

I take it all back. You should train in this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOAY5tm-YX4&feature=related)

Caracol

2008-06-13, 02:14 AM

I take it all back. You should train in this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOAY5tm-YX4&feature=related)

Dear God, that is amazing. It's going to be a real movie?

qube

2008-06-14, 11:38 AM

I'm looking for some kind of style that relies on self control, but also utilizing speed. I'm quick and tall, but amazingly scrawny (I weigh 120lbs and I'm 6'1")

Anything that would be good to look at at?kendo.
- not to muscle intensive
- relies on reflexes
- very traditional

Kendo IMO isn't agressive anymore, because it has been honned into a sport (to score you may to hit your opponent on certain spots (head,wrist,side,chin) and you must strike *correct* not *hard*). It teaches you to focus on your opponent, find or make openings and then take advantages of them.

Caracol

2008-06-14, 11:50 AM

kendo.
- not to muscle intensive
- relies on reflexes
- very traditional

Kendo IMO isn't agressive anymore, because it has been honned into a sport (to score you may to hit your opponent on certain spots (head,wrist,side,chin) and you must strike *correct* not *hard*). It teaches you to focus on your opponent, find or make openings and then take advantages of them.

I suggested Kendo in the first place. I think is really good, and you're about right on your statements. And (at least it was like that for me) even if it's not taught for competition purposes, they never say you to hit "hard". Because it's not how you use a katana.

Just a question: do you practice Kendo? From how long? I did it for a year and an half before to stop for a leg injury (totally unrelated to martial arts, I was at a stupid concert)

qube

2008-06-15, 05:34 AM

I suggested Kendo in the first place. I think is really good, and you're about right on your statements. And (at least it was like that for me) even if it's not taught for competition purposes, they never say you to hit "hard". Because it's not how you use a katana.also here
Just a question: do you practice Kendo? From how long? I did it for a year and an half before to stop for a leg injury (totally unrelated to martial arts, I was at a stupid concert)Currenlty I'm doing it for a year now (10 months actually) ...

Oh, thinks I forgot:
- its good for your /*I don't know the engish word: always keeping your shoulders back, never hunched.*/
- its good for your self confidence (since you can't see the degree of your opponent, you can get a (small) mental advantace if he does not know if your weaker then 'm or stronger then 'm)
- you get a stong voice (to parafraise one of my teachers "unlike other situations: in Kendo you get noticed if you DON'T scream while you're running")

Caracol

2008-06-15, 06:13 AM

Oh, thinks I forgot:
- its good for your /*I don't know the engish word: always keeping your shoulders back, never hunched.*/
[/spoiler]

I think "posture" is the right word.

[quote]- its good for your self confidence (since you can't see the degree of your opponent, you can get a (small) mental advantace if he does not know if your weaker then 'm or stronger then 'm)
So true

- you get a stong voice (to parafraise one of my teachers "unlike other situations: in Kendo you get noticed if you DON'T scream while you're running")

Screaming is highly encouraged: my teachers said that "If you don't scream when attacking, it's like you didn't even attacked".
You have a lot of problem in the beginning, you don't want to do it because you think you look stupid. Then, after a while, it just comes naturally, and you do different types of kiai (screams) depending on the situation.