Martial Arts for Roleplayers

[Maerok]

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]

Read GURPS martial arts. Oh, wait, wrong system .

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

[kamikasei]

Well, if it's "for roleplayers" what do you actually want/need to know about them?

[Maerok]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There's also boxing, which is probably the only art possible to "describe" somehow sensibly on forum, beacuse shortly, it's quite simple

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ), 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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.