I was wondering if anyone would like to discuss the pros and cons of each style of MA when it comes to self defence? A lot of this is of course is dependent on how the style is taught and its effectiveness is usually down to the individual. I'm not concerned with "effectiveness", just pro's and con's. For instance, from my experience of Shotokan Karate: The low stances develop strong legs and quick movement rapidly, when applied to a more upright, natural stance. Typically only punching and kicking is taught, but some may show other aspects such as pressure points and locks/throws. Unfortunately I only found one or two dojos that had an aspect of "fighting" in them. This was usually because the Sensei had experience in other MA. Another downside is that without proper attention to "fighting" the attacks and defences can appear linear. Any other thoughts?? Please discuss - don't flame
wado-ryu: depending on instructor, jiu-jitsu's principles combined with karate's system is pretty effective against an average opponent. unlike shotokan, wado emphasizes more evasion, and manipulation of opponent's force, like jiu-jitsu. in one of it's katas, pinan yondan, there are a lot of grab strike combos, and this is good when fighting multiple opponents.
Choy Li Fut: A relatively new Kung fu style, almost everymove is practical. Much work on low stances and high kicks. A whole slew of hand techniques. It has many long range hand and foot strikes, it owns all at long range, plus it has powerful short range techniques. And it is theoretically great against multiple opponents. Disadvantage, umm.. hmmm... you might get out grappled on the ground.
Ninjutsu: Pro: Emphasis placed on surviving rather then winning. Therefore, there is a better chance you will survived the encounter becuase we train to escape. Con: Ninjutsu is Bujutsu, meaning we can get into legal problem cause we train to kill. In addition will still train with Japanese weapons that aren't used in the street. Taking time away from more street situations. This is pro and con on street defensive not the style in general.
Hrmm...I wouldn't class training with traditional weaponry as a con. Most of the basic weapons can easily be substituted with something that may be found in the vicinity such as a pool cue, chain or a mop etc. Even something like a jutte could be exchanged for a steering club. Replace your weaponry with a common object once in a while to get a bit more realism into your training. Anyways, my take on TKD: Pros: Fast and consecutive striking skills, incredibly powerful in it's own right. Footwork and balance play a major part in preventing a confrontation from going to the ground. Cons: Lack of restraint/grappling, although some very basic techniques are included eg. sweeping, neck restraints and throws.
J-man, I'm going to take this in a different direction. I fundimentally believe that most if not all empty hand focused martial arts provide the fundimental techniques that can be used for self defense.Any martial art should provide a firm punching and kicking basis. This will be re-enforced with stance work (however, I think most martial arts overemphasize deep stances in application) and movement. In my opinion, perhaps channeling a little SBG, the issue comes down to training methodology. Where they fall down is on two counts: 1. Psychological and awareness training. 2. Training against attacks that occur outside of the stucture of their system. (It can be argued that an overreliance on point sparring causes problems as well.) Correct these factors and I think one would find that most systems will cover at least 75% of all possible self defense encounters. - Matt
well, most of them have a newer eqivalent. ninja had guns, for 1 thing, and knives. a yari can be just a pointed stick. swords translate well to a baseball bat. heavy ashtrays make good shurikens, salt or sugar packets in restaurants make good metsubushi, pool cues=hanbo, walking stick=bo. manrikikusari=wallet chain. there are a few that arent as common, but some places still use kama, i believe. a naginata would be hard to find today, but most of them are still useful.
A very good point Matt. As I said earlier this thread is more concerned with the pro's and con's of a style. Even if you took the "alive" principle and applied it to say wrestling (an "alive" trained style), you could say that the grappling techniques were very good, both standing and ground, however its striking ability is non existent. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the "Balance" thread. Nrv4evr and Scarlet, are there any other con's to those particular styles? An interesting take on Ninjutsu, are you saying its vary adaptable, but limited to the use of weaponry?
Good point ShadowWarrior (Kagebushi), I would agree with everything you said. However, my original point stands. When we train weaponery, we train to kill, Blinding Powder and Shuriken would be ok, but if most places assault with a baseball bat is assault with a deadly weapon and I believe that carries jail time. IMO if you end up being sued or in jail it just as good as losing the fight. just a point, a wallet chain would be a terrible kasari-fundo, the aren't strong engouh or heavy enough. Also I would want ot use my wallet as a weapon, what if they just grab it and run? Judderman, Ninjtusu train Taijutsu equally with weapons, I was just comparing the time we spend on taijutsu vs. an empty handed style.
Ahh, but here's the question: what consitutes a style? Is "wrestling" a style. I would suggest that collegate/greco roman wrestling may not fall into the category of a complete style. In a pure form it only addresses, at best, two of the four ranges of combat (trapping and grappling). However, is there ever such a thing as a pure art. Take judo. Tgere are no "strikes" in judo. However, after reading a number of accounts of judo matches, it's clear that stiking does enter into competition (often masked in grabbing techniques). So are those stikes a part of Judo or not? So onto Kung Fu and it's weaknesses. For the most part systems have strong striking and trapping aspects. They opperate well in those areas. There is some emphasis on locking as well (though I tend to think most schools practice this far less than striking). KF's most glaring gap is when you get to full on grappling. Chinese systems have grappling components, but (at the risk of getting flamed) they typically are not as developed as those of Japanese systems (I should note that I'm not the only one who shares this view). - Matt
ah yes...the cons. hoped i'd get away with that. cons: no knuckle strengthening exercise, at least not in the curriculum. speed is good, but not everything, you need to teach force. not enough focus on locks for a jiu-jitsu based art... no real emphasis on knees, again with the jj absence not enough full contact tournaments, most students also take muay thai or bjj for the full contact practice
as well, brazilian jiu-jitsu and san shou have excellent grappling and throwing systems. the proof's in the UFC.
BJJ is an outgrowth of Japanese Ju Jitsu and Judo. And frankly it isn't that far removed from those arts. The Chinese grappling arts have far more differences when compaired to the Japanese arts. As for San Shou, I consider it a relatively modern art and a direct outgrowth of Judo and Brazilian Ju Jitsu. Bringing back to China of Japanese techniques. - Matt
but you must give them credit for the realization of ground fighting's importance, as plagiaristic as it may have been.
There's nothing plagiaristic about it. No one can "own" technqiues. Ideas, perhaps (perhaps not). Evolve or die. I was just noting that the Japanese went further with grappling and ground work than the Chinese did. And just like in the arms race, one the technology get out there a lot of people play catch up. - Matt
Progressive Protection Systems PPS is direct, effective and drills its students using scientific and progressive methods
Judo: Pros: Slamming a guy on the sidewalk is usually a pretty effective way to stop the fight. It works for people who don't have a lot of body strength and can't put much power into punches. Time-tested. I haven't heard of it failing yet. (Saved the life of one of our boys over in Iraq that ended up in hand-to-hand combat range.) Cons: In dojos, it is looked at too much as a sport, and the self-defense aspect is sometimes lost. (This is why I want my black belt...) Judo's hold-downs are not as effective in all situations.
