Crouchtig

I was thinking after seeing a trailer for the matrix 2 and 3 that: wouldn't it be good if you could train yourself so that you could dodge/block any attack the finish your opponent off with a super speed spinning jump-kick. how wrong i was, this philosophy leads to points contests and moves that look good but would never work in real life. eg because i think that my style is so good that one hit will KO any opponent i say "if i hit you just once then i win, if you hit me then i would be knocked out so you win." this is fighting for points and encourages people to spend all of their training time on defence since attack power doesn't really matter, also moves will be selected for speed, unpredictableness and whether or not they look good (a judge is bound to score more highly for moves which look good). you end up with kung fu/karate/aikido/tae kwon do, it looks good and may be good excersise and no one gets hurt practising it but its basicly useless as a form of self defence. Here is a tried and tested move that works in a real fight: straight punch to the face.

Hulk

the example you gave sounds like street fighter alpha and its special moves .

i think some here will argue about the usefulness of kungfu/karate/aikido etc etc. i think some of their moves are use full. u see in street fighter, there are lots of characters with different styles, and each fighter seem equal. j/k but i think if you know how to use it effectively and that it will work, why not use it if a chance to do so is presented?

there is not only one effective move. it depends on the situation, you might not get an opening to do an "effective" straight punch, so u had to go for an hook punch. that makes the hook punch effective if it does some harm. the question would be a matter of taste... i like knees, i like fighting close. maybe cos i am only 170cm or maybe i am just too lazy to punch or kick :P

__________________
Experience requires no interpreters. Let no man interpret the experience of life to you except yourself.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/stuffedup/nothing.html

JP Prideaux

One of my few opponents threw a LOT of spinning manoeuvres at me, but the technique was awful and his aim was even worse. I dont know what he was trying to prove.

To be honest the only "fancy" move that works for me is the Brazilian up-and-over High-Kick. Difficult as hell to execute properly, but it never lets me down.

My fav basics are HARD low-kicks... follow up by hooks... and end off with a good right straight punch with my full body weight behind it (Stefan Leko style).

Kingston

i think sometimes its good to try some "high flying" or unique moves, "Sticking to the basics" as a philosophy can limit you sometimes. If you remember to stay "creative" in practice, it will allow you to better adapt in different situations. If we throw away an idea because its to complicated you wont be open to using it in a fight. It wont always matter.....but fear of screwing up, or looking stupid, making the wrong move. All that does is limit you.....try as much as you can, if you can pull it off then go ahead, if not it wont matter to much.

I just feel that its better to have a wide aray of ideas concering ways in wich to control a violent situation.

__________________
"Slow down and you'll go faster"
-Chuck Norris-

aseepish

If we're talking about tools that will terminate a fight in a hurry, my vote is for headbutts, knees, and elbows.

__________________
"It was about that time I realized that searching was my symbol, the emblem of those who go out at night with nothing in mind, the motives of a destroyer of compasses." -Cortázar

Streetfighter

First off, kung fu/karate/aikido and tae kwon do are not useless arts for self-defense. They were created for the sole purpose to protect yourself. Granted, some arts are better in peoples opinoins for self-defense, but to say that these certain arts are useless is pure ignorance.

Second. You are right that fancy moves aren't the way to go in a street fight. Those moves are for compition, or are tradition in what ever art were talking about. The basics are most definetly the best, however for self defence I would have to dissagree that a straight punch to the face is best. Its not that hard to break those little knuckle bones. If I had a choice, it would have to be a palm strike to the chin, neck, or ear. Or what the hell, if the attacker deserves it a nice eye gouge would do.

Third. I have taken all forms of martial arts that you have mentioned to be "useless", and there basics and self-defense are pretty much the same. There are different variations here and there, but they all do the same thing. Its when you have gotten good with the basics that you can then learn more traditional moves of the "art". Those moves are what gives that certain art its unique characteristics.

__________________
Jamie Wallace

aseepish

"Kung-fu, karate, aikido, and taekwondo are not useless for self-defense. They were created for the sole purpose to protect yourself."

Some styles of Kung fu are better for self defense than others. Wing Chun vs. modern Wu Shu for example. Same goes for karate. Kyokushin fighters tend to be much tougher than their shotokan counterparts. Go read all of the posts about aikido and TKD, there's no point in me repeating all that's been said about these arts. I would agree that training in these arts isn't completely useless, but you'd be better off going to a specialist if self-defense is your primary motivation for studying martial arts.

Were these above mentioned arts created for the SOLE purpose of self-protection?

Kung fu - if we believe the legend, Da Mo taught the monks of the Shaolin temple some exercises to keep them from nodding off during meditation.

Karate - the traditional okinawan styles were created with self-defense in mind, but the majority of pure Japanese styles were founded to serve means for spirit and character building. Ditto TKD, which was pretty much lifted from Shotokan karate.

Aikido- If you read the writings of Ueshiba, you can see that aikido is as much about spiritual development as it is about self-defense.

The basic techniques of all striking martial arts are the same in principle, but not all arts are created equal when it comes to training these basics, or applying them in realistic sparring.

What the !@#$ is this thread doing in the MT forum?

__________________
"It was about that time I realized that searching was my symbol, the emblem of those who go out at night with nothing in mind, the motives of a destroyer of compasses." -Cortázar

Crouchtig

im saying that muay thai is good because it uses simple yet powerfull moves and that other martial arts try to over-complicate things. i was just saying that muay thai is good because it doesn't try any fancy flying spinning double reverse somersault hook kicks.

Streetfighter

Aseepish - You make me laugh, thank you...

Maybe I should of said "MAIN PURPOSE" instead of "SOLE"

P.S. You might want to check your history books

__________________
Jamie Wallace

ramus

Aikido is useful for self defense!!!!!!!!!!

__________________
DOWN WITH GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aseepish

Streetfighter,

Point taken!

My point is the origin of many styles is shrouded in a lot of myth and confusion. Did Ng Mui really observe a snake and crane and then come up with Wing Chun Kuen? Did whatshisname, founder of Jo-jitsu, really have a dream where a tengu (Japanese demon-thingee) taught him how to construct and use a jo, after which he went on to defeat Musashi?

Many traditional arts have simply refused to adapt to modern circumstances. There is nothing the matter with that, I think practising an art solely to preserve a cultural tradition is a perfectly valid reason. Are there self-defense benefits? Yes, but someone who relies on pure TKD or karate could be in for a rude awakening.

__________________
"It was about that time I realized that searching was my symbol, the emblem of those who go out at night with nothing in mind, the motives of a destroyer of compasses." -Cortázar

darrianation

I've trained in muay thai and karate both are good but I tend to lean more towards thai.
first let me start with your survey. Any one punch will most likey be inffective, dont forget the jab(the set up for your power punch).also a lot of street fights the guy will try to grab you at some point knees are real effective. However I
agree keep it simple. In the ring or street. 3- 4 punch/kick combos.
some poeple might be very good or even effective with the fancy stuff, butt most of us are not. keep it simple. remember its the fighter not the system that makes him good.

BlackMaskX

Aseepish,

You said that "many traditional arts have refused to adapt to modern circumstances." You are certainly not the first to say this. But, I really don't understand *why unarmed traditional arts have to adapt to modern circumstances.*

In the case of weapons-based TMAs, I can see why arts would have to adapt. When most TMAs were created, its practitioners did not have to face guns or switchblades, and they probably would have faced swords, etc., which would rarely, if ever, be encountered today.

But I don't understand why *unarmed* combat is so different from hundreds of years ago. The only TMA techniques that I can see would need to evolve would be those that were designed for fighting someone in heavy armor. Physically, humans are still the same. Aren't the types of threats basically the same; martial artists in the past would have also faced multiple attackers, people bigger than they were, etc. Today, muay thai and BJJ are often considered the most practical, not just in training, but also in technique. But if karate, JJJ, and kung fu worked just as well as MT and Western boxing in the past, I don't see why they couldn't work just as well today.

ryanhall

When an art is not continually used for combat (real or simulated), it begins to slowly but surely lose its combat efficacy. Take a look at karate for example. At one point, it was probably a decent form of unarmed combat. Nowadays...not really. Stylized methods of combat are simply showy depictions of a real fight, not a real fight itself. The traditional block and counter ways of fighting are just not that great. Even if an art was used for combat in some cases, it may never have been as good as another art. To assume that all arts were once of equal combative value is a mistake. There are wrong ways to do things, and many traditional ways are just not the way to go.

__________________
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"

Kingston

couldn't have said it better myself, even simulated combat can slowly degrade techniques wich where learned, and masterd through real life and death "combat".

also the nature of the student/teacher relationship can also help to lessen the intensity through continous generations.

i think that is another big reason why its close to imposible to find a "true" karate place, that is as affective as anything back in Japan. just watch that show "ultimate 10 martial arts" on TLC (i hated that show but thats beside the point) the karate that was shown doesn't even exist in North america (at least not to the same extent). This has to do with two things in my opinion, money, and the lessening of intensity from instructor to student through the generations (wich is sometimes related to money).

__________________
"Slow down and you'll go faster"
-Chuck Norris-