48 replies to this topic

[Oldak]

What do people think about martial arts training? There seem to be some obvious arguments for and against incorporating martial arts/self-defense training into an exercise regime:

• Pro: practical strength training and cardio, capabilty to defend oneself, self-discipline (?)
• Contra: injuries during training

One has to balance the possibility of injury during training against the capabilities, if any, that martial arts training would give an individual to defend themself in dangerous situations.

Boxing, kickboxing, and muay thai, while effective, do not seem to promote healthy living. Pugilistic dementia comes to mind, as well as the possibility of fractures.

Grappling arts such as judo and Brazilian jiu jitsu seem effective at self-defense, and do not have the same risk of concussion. That said, Brazilian jiu jitsu incorporates chokes and strangles. It is not clear what effect this kind of cerebral hypoxia has in the long-term.

Finally, there are systems which are intended for self-defense, such as Krav Maga. This seems like the most effective way to train for self-defense, although it may not promote the same weekly level and consistency of training as martial arts.


SO: are martial arts/self-defense worth doing? If so, which one is worth doing?

[meh]

Well, seeing as most people here intend to live forever I'd put learning self-defence to the top of the list of things to do for longevity. The longer you live the greater the chance you might need it someday.
Currently im not attending any martial arts classes thanks to lack of time, although Krav Maga looks interesting, might give it a try at some point.
I am going to get myself a few bokkens (wooden swords used in martial arts training), just for the occasional sparring match with friends to develop speed and reflexes.
Edit: Thinking about it, it might actually be better for longevity not to learn self-defence, so that when the need arises, you wont do anything stupid

Edited by meh, 18 January 2011 - 02:01 PM.

[forever freedom]

I practice Krav Maga, and it is definitely one of the most effective self defense martial arts. You're taught what works in the real world, and not pretty yet ineffective moves.

As an exercise, I'm not so sure it's very good. As you most likely know, Krav Maga is not a sport and there's no competition (like championships), so classes don't focus as much on physical fitness as on the techniques. I've done several other martial arts, and for fitness I'd recommend something like Taekwondo, Karate, Kickboxing, etc.


I live in Brazil, and I do intend to live forever if that's possible, but given the high level of violence in here, I decided that it'd be very good to be able to handle myself in a fight should there be no other way out. I want to get a gun registration too when i have the minimum age, of 25.

[shp5]

Grappling arts such as judo and Brazilian jiu jitsu seem effective at self-defense, and do not have the same risk of concussion. That said, Brazilian jiu jitsu incorporates chokes and strangles. It is not clear what effect this kind of cerebral hypoxia has in the long-term.



SO: are martial arts/self-defense worth doing? If so, which one is worth doing?

You can have bad sprains doing grappling. However, I think these arts are a very good compromise between applicability (in daily-life, it's often more useful to be able to restrain someone effectively without hurting him. and you still can break his arm) and, well, art.

Krav Maga is interesting too, I did it for half a year. Had a good feeling about it. Has some fitness-elements depending on the class, and they had a sensible approach to the whole fighting thing.

I have been learning Chen-Style Taijiquan for 5 years, it's a great workout, "bodywork", meditation, and if one has the right teachers, colleagues and mindset, a great martial art.
This is probably the very best for longevity. Find a good teacher for internal martial arts (Taiji, Bagua, Xingyi, Yiquan, Liuhebafa etc.), I swear you'll love it.


In the end, I don't think you need lots of fighting skills in the western world. So choose something you have fun doing and consequently will stick with.

If you think you need to be able to fight, it is mandatory that you have partners who will try those things out with you in a uncooperative setting. Tunnel-vision is very common and bad, obviously.

Edited by shp5, 18 January 2011 - 04:42 PM.

[Oldak]

Edit: Thinking about it, it might actually be better for longevity not to learn self-defence, so that when the need arises, you wont do anything stupid

That said, martial arts can have a dampening effect on violence, as one is taught the capabilities and limits of martial arts. Anecdotally, kids prone to violence who are taught martial arts tend to become more responsible (perhaps due to maturation, increased discipline, or being provided with a safe outlet for energy). Martial arts can teach the most efficient way out of a situation, but do provide you with the skills necessary to get out of the situation. Not just physical skills, but the ability to deal with an adrenaline rush (tunnel vision, etc.). What do you think?

I practice Krav Maga, and it is definitely one of the most effective self defense martial arts. You're taught what works in the real world, and not pretty yet ineffective moves.

Krav Maga is interesting too, I did it for half a year. Had a good feeling about it. Has some fitness-elements depending on the class, and they had a sensible approach to the whole fighting thing.

I'm very interested in taking Krav Maga up, although I'm wondering what the risk of injury in Krav Maga training is. Do you think fractures, sprains, or concussions are common?

Edited by Oldak, 18 January 2011 - 05:06 PM.

[TysonS]

If you train martial arts properly with good partners, there is no need to ever suffer injuries while training. I have been doing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for close to 5 years and Muay Thai/Kickboxing and MMA/wrestling training for nearly 4 and never had any serious problems. If you are considering trying BJJ but are worried about being choked out, don't be. In training you don't hold chokes to the point of your partner going unconscious. If they do, that's not the gym you want to be training at!

I don't think that there is any other sport that can compare to these in terms of improved cardio, muscle strength and function, as well as discipline. Since I started, my resting heart rate has dropped to around 40bpm from around 60bpm, I have much more lean muscle and reduced body fat.

As far as real life situations go, BJJ/wrestling and basic boxing skills are your best friend I recommend BJJ to anyone who is looking for a very fun and effective workout. It's entirely safe and very useful in real life situations if needed.

[meh]

Edit: Thinking about it, it might actually be better for longevity not to learn self-defence, so that when the need arises, you wont do anything stupid

That said, martial arts can have a dampening effect on violence, as one is taught the capabilities and limits of martial arts. Anecdotally, kids prone to violence who are taught martial arts tend to become more responsible (perhaps due to maturation, increased discipline, or being provided with a safe outlet for energy). Martial arts can teach the most efficient way out of a situation, but do provide you with the skills necessary to get out of the situation. Not just physical skills, but the ability to deal with an adrenaline rush (tunnel vision, etc.). What do you think?

All in all it comes down to common sense when put in a tight spot, although when the adrenaline hits the brain, even the most wise can turn into trembling vegetables, which does give an advantage to those used to it. I agree that martial arts can have a strong impact on a persons mindset under the right teacher, making it quite more useful than just jogging or swimming.
Also, for some people, the extra self-confidence might make a real difference.

[TheFountain]

I practice Krav Maga, and it is definitely one of the most effective self defense martial arts. You're taught what works in the real world, and not pretty yet ineffective moves.

As an exercise, I'm not so sure it's very good. As you most likely know, Krav Maga is not a sport and there's no competition (like championships), so classes don't focus as much on physical fitness as on the techniques. I've done several other martial arts, and for fitness I'd recommend something like Taekwondo, Karate, Kickboxing, etc.


I live in Brazil, and I do intend to live forever if that's possible, but given the high level of violence in here, I decided that it'd be very good to be able to handle myself in a fight should there be no other way out. I want to get a gun registration too when i have the minimum age, of 25.

Sounds like a very grim reality when you have to consider shooting people in self defense. I often wonder if living in such a world is even worth the effort.

[TheFountain]

As for martial arts, I always wanted to try Aikido. It seems to be the most graceful of all martial arts. Where 'fighting technique' is concerned I have taken up some basic boxing skills (footwork, arm work, cardio conditioning, etc) because in my opinion there is absolutely no point in going out of my way to be the best 'martial artist' in the world. As most men who are that trained in martial arts will not be dumb enough to attack you, and thus basic fighting skills are adequate to fend off average assailants. But it would be nice to learn a technique in which the other guy has to make all the effort just to punch himself out.

[Shepard]

I've spent several years in some of the Korean martial arts, both classical and "real-life" approaches. I was initially trained in a classic style, and it's the approach that I prefer. I found that all the grace and fluidity of the movement was lost when I went back under a guy that adapted everything to simulate real-life scenarios. By that point, I had already realized that the best self-defense, outside of a ranged weapon, is to be physically stronger than your opponent(s). The best way to build that is not through martial arts.

All in all, it was useful, and I'm still a big boxing fan. I dabbled in the internal stuff when I was younger, but it was very watered down and really nothing special.

[Matt]

yes absolutely worth doing. I have done a few, I enjoyed karate, but right now I'm doing shaolin nam pai chuan kung fu and it's probably the best one that I've done so far and I'm very likely to stick to kung fu now. Take up martial arts, I think its worth it for anyneone wanting to live a long time!

[openeyes]

To me the best and first defense is to live in a relatively safe area. Do whatever you can to avoid/escape dangerous situations. The murder rate where I live is ZERO most years. I'm cautious with martial arts. My fiancee and I both enjoy them, but after being kicked in the knees by a third person with the instructor saying knees are off limits, I left an MMA school that was otherwise good. Just too much risk for injury with people not staying within the instructed limits for sparring. It was similar with Parkour: once I saw the high rate of serious injury I moved on.

My dad was a 1st degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do. He broke his leg during practice, and my mom permanently injured her back being thrown before being shown how to fall properly. In my MMA class I saw ACLs torn, noses broken, and on any given night a couple people would have braces on their wrists.

My dad taught me basic Aikido and Tae Kwon Do from the time I was a little kid, with an emphasis on real life defenses and general awareness that a kid could use against adults, but I didn't have much experience sparring with people my size until college. I'm still open to trying something like Krav Maga, but only as long as I feel capable of doing so without permanent injury. I try to only do things that will leave me in better or similar shape 70+ years from now, not worse.

Edited by openeyes, 19 January 2011 - 09:27 PM.

[RighteousReason]

By that point, I had already realized that the best self-defense, outside of a ranged weapon, is to be physically stronger than your opponent(s).

That's always kinda been my default assumption... although I am pretty interested in the idea of making up my own sorts of martial arts training. Training the right muscles to get faster/stronger in the right ways and such things could always help

Edited by RighteousReason, 19 January 2011 - 10:44 PM.

[Oldak]

As for martial arts, I always wanted to try Aikido. It seems to be the most graceful of all martial arts. Where 'fighting technique' is concerned I have taken up some basic boxing skills (footwork, arm work, cardio conditioning, etc) because in my opinion there is absolutely no point in going out of my way to be the best 'martial artist' in the world.

Aikido seems to be a beautiful art, and it's philosophy about reducing harm is good, but I am skeptical about its applicability to self-defense, as I think you imply?

I had already realized that the best self-defense, outside of a ranged weapon, is to be physically stronger than your opponent(s).

Do you not think that a weaker, well-trained martial artist will have an advantage over a stronger person, untrained in martial arts? My impression is that grappling arts such as BJJ and judo give an advantage to those who are physically weaker. It gives them the skills to throw someone to the ground, and once they are on the ground, locks can be used to control the assailant.

[Shepard]

Depends entirely on the people. You can spend 8-10 years becoming very good at a martial art, or 2 years getting very strong. And all else being equal, the stronger opponent is going to win, especially in something like judo. The idea of a small guy throwing around a much bigger or stronger person is a nice touch in movies, but I've never really seen it. I've been thrown around by a guy that was probably 30-40 lbs. lighter than me, and several inches shorter, but he also had more absolute strength, and much more relative strength.

Edited by Shepard, 20 January 2011 - 12:59 AM.

[TysonS]

Depends entirely on the people. You can spend 8-10 years becoming very good at a martial art, or 2 years getting very strong. And all else being equal, the stronger opponent is going to win, especially in something like judo. The idea of a small guy throwing around a much bigger or stronger person is a nice touch in movies, but I've never really seen it. I've been thrown around by a guy that was probably 30-40 lbs. lighter than me, and several inches shorter, but he also had more absolute strength, and much more relative strength.

I agree with Shepard. Key phrase: 'all else being equal, the stronger opponent is going to win'. There is always someone out there who is going to be bigger and stronger than you are, no matter how much time you spend lifting weights. And the guys who tend to start fights with someone generally do so with a person smaller than them. But like Oldak said, being well versed with BJJ and grappling arts will definitely give an edge to a smaller opponent (assuming the larger opponent is not equally trained). Wrestling and BJJ are very effective if you need to control a much larger assailant. It takes a few years of solid training to be able to use it in real life situations but it works!

[openeyes]

You can spend 8-10 years becoming very good at a martial art, or 2 years getting very strong. And all else being equal, the stronger opponent is going to win, especially in something like judo. The idea of a small guy throwing around a much bigger or stronger person is a nice touch in movies, but I've never really seen it. I've been thrown around by a guy that was probably 30-40 lbs. lighter than me, and several inches shorter, but he also had more absolute strength, and much more relative strength.

Weightlifting can also have lower injury risk than martial arts. Having done strength training for 17 years now, since age 9, I've yet to experience an injury from it, while my wrestling coach injured my rotator cuff on the first day of practice in junior high. I know people CAN be hurt depending on how they lift weights, but it seems much easier to do in a way that is relatively safe long term, and it can be done in a way to make you more injury resistant in day to day life. In my MMA class I found myself able to compete very well with the top students and even the instructor when sparring due to my strength, flexibility, and pain tolerance even when my skill was very low for what we were doing. I don't weigh much, just ~155-160 pounds, but I train for strength rather than size.

For me in self defense, the most efficient route would be: focus on spending your time in safe areas as much as possible, avoid/run from conflict as much as possible, build up your strength, wear clothes you can move in, learn to take and give a good punch, learn how to fall properly and get back up, develop awareness of your surroundings, become acquainted with what weapons you have around you at all times/can make use of (guns, flashlight, or any hard surface you can direct someone to before running, for example) and don't flash wealth.

Edited by openeyes, 20 January 2011 - 06:02 AM.

[TheFountain]

By that point, I had already realized that the best self-defense, outside of a ranged weapon, is to be physically stronger than your opponent(s).

I must disagree with this. I have seen far too many instances of technique being dominant over strength for this to make an ounce of sense.

[TheFountain]

Aikido seems to be a beautiful art, and it's philosophy about reducing harm is good, but I am skeptical about its applicability to self-defense, as I think you imply?

I think there is a serious misconception about aikido amongst the martial arts communities. The reason is because it is not seen in 'MMA' or 'UFC', so people immediately assume it is worthless. Well, of course it's not. It's one of the only martial arts that are arguably 95% based on actual defense instead of mixing defense with offense. In aikido the practitioner uses the force of the attacker against themselves. This would not bode well in MMA because the rules and limits of MMA require that both fighters be on the offense from the get go. The first time an aikido master is attacked and uses the force of the attacker against himself, bones will be broken. See, in Aikido Dojos, when sparring, the one on the receiving end (known as an 'uke') goes through extensive training to learn how to flow with the one performing the movements. In a 'real life' scenario an idiot flailing his arms around wouldn't know how to flow with the Aikido masters movements and this would undoubtedly result in broken bones, torn ligaments, dislocated joints, etc. And this would ultimately be the first and last time Aikido would be featured in 'MMA' or 'UFC'. The same argument applies to people who quite stupidly say that the fighting style of the shaolin school is useless because they don't feature in these silly competitive programs. No, it is because the training methods of Shaolin monks is far beyond any of these monkeys in 'UFC'. Lethal force is banned in these programs, which would always give the upper hand to wrestlers since the force required to truly incapacitate someone (I.E crush their trachea for example) is not allowed. In real life a well conditioned shaolin monk would kill any of these MMA apes easily.

Edited by TheFountain, 20 January 2011 - 10:23 AM.

[TysonS]

Aikido seems to be a beautiful art, and it's philosophy about reducing harm is good, but I am skeptical about its applicability to self-defense, as I think you imply?

I think there is a serious misconception about aikido amongst the martial arts communities. The reason is because it is not seen in 'MMA' or 'UFC', so people immediately assume it is worthless. Well, of course it's not. It's one of the only martial arts that are arguably 95% based on actual defense instead of mixing defense with offense. In aikido the practitioner uses the force of the attacker against themselves. This would not bode well in MMA because the rules and limits of MMA require that both fighters be on the offense from the get go. The first time an aikido master is attacked and uses the force of the attacker against himself, bones will be broken. See, in Aikido Dojos, when sparring, the one on the receiving end (known as an 'uke') goes through extensive training to learn how to flow with the one performing the movements. In a 'real life' scenario an idiot flailing his arms around wouldn't know how to flow with the Aikido masters movements and this would undoubtedly result in broken bones, torn ligaments, dislocated joints, etc. And this would ultimately be the first and last time Aikido would be featured in 'MMA' or 'UFC'. The same argument applies to people who quite stupidly say that the fighting style of the shaolin school is useless because they don't feature in these silly competitive programs. No, it is because the training methods of Shaolin monks is far beyond any of these monkeys in 'UFC'. Lethal force is banned in these programs, which would always give the upper hand to wrestlers since the force required to truly incapacitate someone (I.E crush their trachea for example) is not allowed. In real life a well conditioned shaolin monk would kill any of these MMA apes easily.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. The reason Aikido is not used in the UFC is because it does not work. Look at this video of an 'Excellent Aikido Demonstration' and tell me when you will ever see an 'MMA ape' try to strike like that grappling dummy who the demonstration is on. You don't. The partner is simply going through the motions in this video and any other Aikido demonstration you see. Any wrestler would have this Aikido knob on his back in 3 seconds! I can POSSIBLY see this working on a complete drunk if he can barely hold himself up on his own two feet... That's it.



Brazilian Jiu Jitsu in mma has resulted in many broken bones and is it still used? Yes. People use it because it works. See Frank Mir vs. Tim Sylvia. There are many literally hundreds of similar incidents and it is not illegal in MMA competition.



If aikido did work, it would be used and not banned because of it resulting in broken bones, torn ligaments etc. If it worked and you could disable opponents as effectively as BJJ/wrestling it have revolutionized MMA the way that BJJ did in 1993 when it was first demonstrated by Royce Gracie. Instead, no one who is serious about real fight skills bothers to train it.

The same can be said about Muay Thai used in MMA. Take a look at Alistair Overeem, the current Dream and Strikeforce heavyweight champ and 2010 K1 Grand Prix champ. There is no Aikido practitioner who has ever lived who could stop that man! Muay Thai in MMA constantly results in breaking ulna and radius bones from attempting to block kicks. Is it banned? Of course not.


http://www.mixedmart...ery-broken-arm/

[Matt]

I haven't seen this particular one myself, but there are others you can look for on youtube, and google video. Science of martials, fight science... just search them and all parts are on youtube. I've only come across the situation 3 times in the street where I needed to defend myself. Anyway one fight was over in under a minute max, one of them a few seconds lol. Doing martial arts most of my life, it helps believe me. You wouldn't think i'm that dangerous because of my CR'd size ;p

Edited by Matt, 20 January 2011 - 11:57 AM.

[shp5]

It was probably unavoidable that this thread would degenerate into this. Good martial artists are good martial artists. "real life" is not only about winning unarmed combat.

[Oldak]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. The reason Aikido is not used in the UFC is because it does not work. Look at this video of an 'Excellent Aikido Demonstration' and tell me when you will ever see an 'MMA ape' try to strike like that grappling dummy who the demonstration is on. You don't. The partner is simply going through the motions in this video and any other Aikido demonstration you see. Any wrestler would have this Aikido knob on his back in 3 seconds! I can POSSIBLY see this working on a complete drunk if he can barely hold himself up on his own two feet... That's it.

Of course, martial arts training may be useful for both self-defence and physical fitness. If a particular art isn't very applicable to self-defence, but I find it is the only martial art that's fun, it's worth doing for the sake of fitness, exercise, and self-confidence. IMO, in terms of self-defense Aikido is like chess, it has a rigorous ruleset which isn't very adaptable to fighting against those who are not playing by that ruleset.

I haven't seen this particular one myself, but there are others you can look for on youtube, and google video. Science of martials, fight science... just search them and all parts are on youtube.

Yeah, those are good programs to learn a bit more about each. I suppose it comes down to what is available in your area, and which has the best instructor. A good instructor is preferable to an ideal martial art.

It was probably unavoidable that this thread would degenerate into this. Good martial artists are good martial artists. "real life" is not only about winning unarmed combat.

Heh, quite unavoidable, but there wasn't a good thread on the topic that I could find. Martial arts/self-defence is only one factor, but in particular situations it may tip the balance.

[Shepard]

I must disagree with this. I have seen far too many instances of technique being dominant over strength for this to make an ounce of sense.

This is just simple physics. You can talk about leverages all day long, but the most straightforward way to move something still boils down to blunt force. If you're talking about being on the receiving end of pressure point or knockout stuff, I still hold that being stronger will give you an advantage. Not taking anything away from martial arts, just saying that strength is a prerequisite to be a great martial artist. And, if you're talking basic one-on-one self defense, I think strength is the best way to go about it in almost any situation. That said, I did watch several videos when I started Hapkido of an older fellow embarrassing everyone that came near him. No clue as to anything else about him, though.

Edited by Shepard, 20 January 2011 - 05:12 PM.

[TheFountain]

...

You miss the fundamental point that in MMA there are limits of ones conduct. And the first limit is that both fighters must be on the offense. Obviously this would be stupid because aikido requires defensive posture only. You obviously lack a fundamental comprehension of the biomechanics of aikido. It utilizes a centripetal force, meaning that everything is done in a circular motion and 'strength' is a useless indicator of skill in this regard. A frail old man could incapacitate a strong, young man easily using aikido methods. Get off the 'strength' band wagon. Or feel free to attack a 20 year aikido veteran and see what the result is.

Oh and just because broken bones happen from time to time using BJJ does not mean it would be banned. If aikido were introduced into MMA broken bones would happen all the time. If you made MMA a life or death scenario because that is truly the only way to determine which martial art is the best. Having limits only prevents certain martial arts practitioners from using full on force. If the above scenario were to take place and a shaolin monk got involved in one of these life/death scenarios, then you would see that 'MMA' is not that godly after all. There is a reason all these 'MMA' fights end up looking like two drunk fucks flailing their arms and then falling to the ground every time. It's because the competition is set up to end that way. In many real life instances a shaolin monk would end the fight before it got to the ground by incapacitating (and possibly killing) his opponent.

Edited by caliban, 24 January 2011 - 08:42 PM.
quote cut

[TheFountain]

I must disagree with this. I have seen far too many instances of technique being dominant over strength for this to make an ounce of sense.

This is just simple physics. You can talk about leverages all day long, but the most straightforward way to move something still boils down to blunt force. If you're talking about being on the receiving end of pressure point or knockout stuff, I still hold that being stronger will give you an advantage. Not taking anything away from martial arts, just saying that strength is a prerequisite to be a great martial artist. And, if you're talking basic one-on-one self defense, I think strength is the best way to go about it in almost any situation. That said, I did watch several videos when I started Hapkido of an older fellow embarrassing everyone that came near him. No clue as to anything else about him, though.

You obviously think that good schools do not teach people how to take down larger, stronger opponents. I have no idea where you get this notion from because I have seen countless instances in dojos where a hulking monster was incapacitated by a frail, skinny kung fu master. Biomechanics indicate that speed=force. Why do you think that these practitioners are taught how to kick and punch so quickly? You think a full on jab to the trachea of an 300 pound muscle man by a kung fu master would do no damage and that the muscle man would just grin like nothing happened? Ridiculous! he would be on the ground dying. In some instances being larger is a limitation in martial arts, as with ju jitsu, according to the teachers I have spoken with. But this 'all things being equal' thing also makes zero sense. How often is the guy attacking you on the street going to be a super strong obnoxious douche bag who happens to be a master of 5 different forms martial arts? The fact that this douche bag would even attack you gives you the upper hand as it leaves him off balance and opened to several counter movements. And 'all things being equal' just carry a taser and electrocute the prick if he tries using his skill to ill effect. Because if this 'all things being equal' fantasy you made up were to be true, that's about the only thing alot of people could do.

But I still stand by the fact that strength does not equal superiority. Just look at muhamad ali versus george foreman. Strength obviously failed that day and technique won.

Edited by TheFountain, 20 January 2011 - 09:03 PM.

[Shepard]

Uh, boxing has absolutely nothing to do with fighting. But, whatever, there is no point in discussing this further.

Edited by Shepard, 20 January 2011 - 09:14 PM.

[TheFountain]

Uh, boxing has absolutely nothing to do with fighting.

You really believe this? Okay go and try to attack a professional boxer any day of the week and I will sit back watch you get your ass kicked within 2 minutes.

But, whatever, there is no point in discussing this further

This much i will agree with.

[TysonS]

It was probably unavoidable that this thread would degenerate into this. Good martial artists are good martial artists. "real life" is not only about winning unarmed combat.

My appologies. It is easy for me to get carried away on this topic! You're right though. It's all relative to what you consider "good" and what your own personal goals are.

[TysonS]

I must disagree with this. I have seen far too many instances of technique being dominant over strength for this to make an ounce of sense.

This is just simple physics. You can talk about leverages all day long, but the most straightforward way to move something still boils down to blunt force. If you're talking about being on the receiving end of pressure point or knockout stuff, I still hold that being stronger will give you an advantage. Not taking anything away from martial arts, just saying that strength is a prerequisite to be a great martial artist. And, if you're talking basic one-on-one self defense, I think strength is the best way to go about it in almost any situation. That said, I did watch several videos when I started Hapkido of an older fellow embarrassing everyone that came near him. No clue as to anything else about him, though.

You obviously think that good schools do not teach people how to take down larger, stronger opponents. I have no idea where you get this notion from because I have seen countless instances in dojos where a hulking monster was incapacitated by a frail, skinny kung fu master. Biomechanics indicate that speed=force. Why do you think that these practitioners are taught how to kick and punch so quickly? You think a full on jab to the trachea of an 300 pound muscle man by a kung fu master would do no damage and that the muscle man would just grin like nothing happened? Ridiculous! he would be on the ground dying. In some instances being larger is a limitation in martial arts, as with ju jitsu, according to the teachers I have spoken with. But this 'all things being equal' thing also makes zero sense. How often is the guy attacking you on the street going to be a super strong obnoxious douche bag who happens to be a master of 5 different forms martial arts? The fact that this douche bag would even attack you gives you the upper hand as it leaves him off balance and opened to several counter movements. And 'all things being equal' just carry a taser and electrocute the prick if he tries using his skill to ill effect. Because if this 'all things being equal' fantasy you made up were to be true, that's about the only thing alot of people could do.

But I still stand by the fact that strength does not equal superiority. Just look at muhamad ali versus george foreman. Strength obviously failed that day and technique won.

What Shepard meant by "all things being equal" was skill and training. When two EQUALLY SKILLED/TRAINED opponents square off, the stronger and better conditioned person has the upper hand. I have seen tiny people take down and submit other men 150 lbs heavier than them too. The difference here is that the skill set is not equal. Obviously the smaller man has far better training and therefore all other things ARE NOT EQUAL.

What Kung Fu and Aikido base their effectiveness on is only that the attacker be a drunk flailing idiot. If the person attacking is not a flailing idiot and can in fact keep their balance like a sensible fighter, the techniques are useless. I've also seen lots of counter attacks and wrist locks done when someone is reaching their hand out, as if to shake a hand. Why the hell do you need to counter attack someone who is trying to shake your hand???

You need to educate yourself on the rules of MMA, Fountain. Obviously a percentage of the audience loves to see the two opponents come out swinging for the fences. Many others prefer to see them strategize on their feet. Either way, the rules allow both. Many fighters base their entire game plan on defense and counter strikes (not Aikido though). When they go to the ground, it is because one of the two fighters want to go to the ground. It's not because they "fall to the ground like two drunk fucks", as you stated earlier. I would love to take a step down in competition to fight an "Aikido master" to prove a point. The fact that you never see Aikido or Kung Fu fighters in MMA only verifies what I'm saying. They all claim the same thing... "It's too deadly and vicious for competition". How many decades of training to kick someone in the groin do you really need to perfect the ball kick? Kicking in the groin and poking eyes are the only things they train that are illegal in MMA that would actual be of any use. In the early UFC days when groin strikes were allowed, the BJJ expert still won handily... Just don't engage them with a hand shake and you won't get a finger bent or your neck chopped