Other/Mixed Picking the right Martial Art

[North Coast Miller]

My 2 cents re grappeling arts for self defense - it is far more important to understand defense (sprawl etc) than involved exchanges of ground skill. This might change if you are in a profession where you need to control and apprehend someone, otherwise willingly going to the floor is a recipe for getting kicked or hit with improvised weapons or even stabbed repeatedly. Mobility is more important, possibly the most important single factor to control.

Likewise the use of boxing generally more important to understand defending against it rather than hitting someone with an unprotected fist using a power shot (jabs and shallow hooks can be effective). Plenty of boxers have broken their hands in street fights, and a bunch of MMA guys have broken metacarpals even with gloves. Heavy jackets, watch caps, etc - clothing impairs effectiveness both attack speed and impact force and these factors are almost never addressed in class.

Just stuff to think about. In my experience a real SD situation involves multiple assailants, often armed with improvised weapons or small knives. A great deal of what is commonly taught becomes functionally useless if not potentially counterproductive. YMMV

 

[3letterslong]

Could you please clarify in which way you think Judo has "a tremendous learning curve that arts like boxing, wrestling and BJJ do not"? I mean, boxing has an extremely limited set of techniques, and BJJ is probably the disciple that is currently diversifying the most, so I find that hard to compare. The main difference I can see between wrestling and Judo is the curriculum - while in Judo you'll learn the techniques of the Gokyo etc. on your way to black belt, wrestling has no similar standard set of techniques, it will depend from school to school. On the other hand, the number of total technique variations in wrestling is much (!) larger, estimates vary between 300 and 1000, depending on who you ask. In both Judo and wrestling, players will however only focus on a handful of techniques in their active competition repertoire ("tokui-waza" in Judo, while my Dagestani wrestling coach calls it коронка or "crown"). I'm therefore not really sure what you mean.

Yes. Judo has a tremendous learning curve before you can apply it because the techniques are much more complicated (involving things that aren't intuitive, like stepping next to your opponent and turning away from them) and depend on kuzushi, which takes a long time to become proficient in. BJJ is easy to become effective at because most people are lost on the ground and wrestling makes intuitive sense to people: move their hands out of the way and drive into them. But Judo requires you to off-balance your opponent (which is difficult because people have been walking all their lives and are really good at maintaining their balance) and then put yourself in a vulnerable spot next to them.

It's not about the number of techniques, it's about the complexity of techniques and developing a command of the intangibles: kuzushi, timing, footwork and distance. Wrestling and BJJ do not demand the intangibles like Judo does.

 

[Period]

Yes. Judo has a tremendous learning curve before you can apply it because the techniques are much more complicated (involving things that aren't intuitive, like stepping next to your opponent and turning away from them) and depend on kuzushi, which takes a long time to become proficient in. BJJ is easy to become effective at because most people are lost on the ground and wrestling makes intuitive sense to people: move their hands out of the way and drive into them. But Judo requires you to off-balance your opponent (which is difficult because people have been walking all their lives and are really good at maintaining their balance) and then put yourself in a vulnerable spot next to them.

It's not about the number of techniques, it's about the complexity of techniques and developing a command of the intangibles: kuzushi, timing, footwork and distance. Wrestling and BJJ do not demand the intangibles like Judo does.

Ah, I see, thanks. I would argue against that, though - without timing, footwork and distance, you won't manage a single takedown in wrestling. As for kuzushi, it is more obvious in Judo, and not emphasized in the same manner in wrestling. But unless your opponent provides you with an opening big enough to drive a truck through, you'll have to set him up for it. What Judo calls kuzushi, tsukuri, kake and kime (I'm referring to Steve Scott here), wrestling calls set-up, entry (shot/penetration step or turning in), execution and follow-up. Also, basically all the Judo techniques on the feet (with the exception of Hane Goshi) have one or multiple equivalents in wrestling - except for tomoe nage, since you'll give up at least as many points as you'd gain, you might even throw the match by trying it. I don't see that much difference in application apart from the gripfighting. Gripping tends to be more precise in Judo, but also a lot more repeatable and secure. That being said, my background are the international styles, not folkstyle, and we tend to throw a lot more than high school and collegiate wrestlers. Case in point, when I went to train with the Judokas, they offered me a place on their team's competition roster on the spot (despite me being a whitebelt).
Besides, up until the rule changes in 2011/2013, all wrestling attacks on the feet were theoretically legal in Judo, except the grapevine variations (kawazu gake).

 

[moustaid7]

My two cents: first of all, self defense is a fairly specific topic, and you will likely not learn the thing I would consider to be the most essential in self defense (situational awareness) in any of the disciplines you mentioned. Judo and Taekwondo these days tend to mostly (if not completely) neglect the self-defense aspect in training, so please bear that in mind. With Karate, it will depend mostly on the school, but in general, that's not the direction I would first point you to in that regard either. With BJJ, it will also depend: while self defense is adressed specifically in some schools, in others it isn't. You will likely not learn good striking in BJJ, good takedowns are also a rarity there (at least from my point of view - my background being freestyle and Greco wrestling as well as Sambo with a bit of cross-training in Judo on the side; I have coached some BJJ players up to black belt in takedowns, and I was usually shocked by how bad they were at that). On the other hand, what both Judo and BJJ have going for them is teaching you to deal with a resisting opponent in close contact.
When it comes to longevity, it also depends - Judo and BJJ have much (!) higher injury rates in my experience than something like Karate and Taekwondo. I do think BJJ is easier to start in your 30ies compared to Judo, though, and you may be able to keep at it longer.
Mobility will be an aspect mostly up to you, in terms of strength and cardio you'll likely benefit the most from Judo, since the pace is the highest among the styles you listed.
If you ask me, I'd recommend rethinking your priorities first: if self-defense is the most important to you, I'd recommend a different route entirely and either enrolling in a system specifically geared towards that (e.g. Krav Maga) or doing your own reasearch about awareness etc. (reading recommendation for starters: everything written by Rory Miller); in terms of learning how to fight quickly by doing a combat sport, personally I think boxing has the steepest learning curve at the beginning, and a year or so of boxing will likely make the biggest difference in how well you can handle yourself physically. You'll likely be hitting quite a bit harder and more effectively than with either Karate or Taekwondo in the same time frame. Boxing also places a great emphasis on distance management, timing, avoiding a strike etc., aspects where I think both karate and Taekwondo are often lacking a bit. From there, you could add a grappling art of your choice, basically creating your own version of Krav Maga (which, incidentially, was founded by a guy who was both a successful boxer and a successful wrestler) or moving on to a different system like Silat etc.

Many thanks for the detailed breakdown to each of the aspects I tried to cover. To be honest, I cannot second strength, mobility and longetivity against Self defense, but I think of Martial Arts as a way of getting fit and strong while being disciplined as part of group lessons. Big bonus to me is learning techniques, that I agree with you, want always be effective in real life scenario (Except MMA probably)..

 

[moustaid7]

All: There is a preception I have that I need you to confirm or correct me. Probably MMA is the best option for me because it looks like more of a pragmatic MA, taking most of the useful techniques from different traditional arts. But how about the coaching approach itself? I was looking around for some clubs and I found many, one of them (which is also the most respected) is founded and coached by Belgian and European multiple champrion. When I look at the curriculum, I can only see his successful career as an MMA fighter, contrary to other traditional martial artists where you can see grades, belts, years in activity .. etc which gives confidence on the pedagogic side. Training with a great chamption doesn’t come at the cost of getting structured learning? Does it have a risk of having chaotic (hence dangerous) journey?

 

[silveraw]

Some thoughts that are probably useless to those outside of the USA.

The IDPA is a weapons based competition and kind of system that is better than almost every martial art listed in terms of self defense. It has a whole bundle of issues, but if you want self defense, learning to shoot from concealment fast and accurately is one of the most effective methods I know of.

Granted it is pretty much useless when traveling or living outside of Texas and it’s subsidiaries.

 

[Mike Torres]

All: There is a preception I have that I need you to confirm or correct me. Probably MMA is the best option for me because it looks like more of a pragmatic MA, taking most of the useful techniques from different traditional arts. But how about the coaching approach itself? I was looking around for some clubs and I found many, one of them (which is also the most respected) is founded and coached by Belgian and European multiple champrion. When I look at the curriculum, I can only see his successful career as an MMA fighter, contrary to other traditional martial artists where you can see grades, belts, years in activity .. etc which gives confidence on the pedagogic side. Training with a great chamption doesn’t come at the cost of getting structured learning? Does it have a risk of having chaotic (hence dangerous) journey?

The level of risk depends entirely on the instructor and the training methods/curriculum. MMA can be taught safely to reduce the rate of injury. But with any combat sport trained against a resisting opponent, you are guaranteed to get banged up - but that doesn’t mean you will get injured. The tradeoff is worth it if you want the experience (he says having tweaked both his left thumb and right toe during sparring rounds today).

 

[cwheeler33]

imho...
Martial Arts is like religion. Everyone has a belief their way is the best way. Honestly there is more than one way to the top of the mountain. Each has a pro and con.

Regraless of anything else: Evaluate the teacher and the students of the specific school. You will become that one day. These people will become your family. Their culture and environment will become yours.

Physically you have holds/pins, throws, upper body strikes, lower body strikes, mobility and health, weapons. And then you have to combines them. That's just the sport aspect. In self defence we also have to include ambushes, single/multiple opponents, weapons, enviornment such as pavement ice cars etc, as well as legal and revenge/retribution issues.

So with that, primary suggestion is a system built for that. Tony Blauer (Spear) Richard Dimitri (Senshido) Lee Morrison (Urban Combatives) are the types of systems to look at as a primary source for Self Defence, But there is nothing pretty about them. You learn about violence and how to deal with it.

If you want to do a sporting or more traditional system, then by all means do go that route. There is a lot to learn and is a great lifelong addition for your health. More so than the Comnatives route. Try your best to cover each of the ranges. There is nothing wrong with taking more than one system at the same time if they are covering diffrent aspects. Examples: Judo paired with Karate, BJJ paired with Muay Thai, Boxing with Wrestling. Ignore comments about which is easier or harder, it doesn't matter because you will learn. But do not take similar arts at the same time. It will mess you up. You can take similar arts later. Example Judo with BJJ, MT with Boxing etc... Wait until you get at least a black belt before adding similar systems. For systems without belts, I suggest 5 years...

A traditional system which you should consider given wheer you live is Aikijujitsu. Especialy if the teacher can show direct lineage to Minoru Mochizuki's Yoseikan. Hiroo's version changed to become more sportaitve than his father. And Hiroo's sons are incorporating more modern ideas and training importing from BJJ erc.

Ful discolusre so you might get an idea of my biases
currently doing: Nintai Ryu Aikijujitsu and Judo (with different teachers in different schools)
past(serious study3-5y): Senshido under Rich Dimitri, Kajukenbo, Katori Shinto Ryu
past(brief stints 6m-18m): Muya Thai, Aikido, Karate, BJJ, Fencing, Boxing
future plans: Goju Ryu Karate, Boxing, (Aikido when I'm 75), BJJ,
Nintai Ryu will be done for the rest of my life

Happy training!

 

[North Coast Miller]

All: There is a preception I have that I need you to confirm or correct me. Probably MMA is the best option for me because it looks like more of a pragmatic MA, taking most of the useful techniques from different traditional arts. But how about the coaching approach itself? I was looking around for some clubs and I found many, one of them (which is also the most respected) is founded and coached by Belgian and European multiple champrion. When I look at the curriculum, I can only see his successful career as an MMA fighter, contrary to other traditional martial artists where you can see grades, belts, years in activity .. etc which gives confidence on the pedagogic side. Training with a great chamption doesn’t come at the cost of getting structured learning? Does it have a risk of having chaotic (hence dangerous) journey?

A good instructor is a good instructor. Training with a champion would have its benefits if you were going to compete, otherwise it is no guarantee they'll be better at teaching than someone less competitively accomplished.

If the environment isn't well structured I'd leave it. Having gotten a great deal of "informal" instruction it was always in a usable format.

 

[Period]

All: There is a preception I have that I need you to confirm or correct me. Probably MMA is the best option for me because it looks like more of a pragmatic MA, taking most of the useful techniques from different traditional arts. But how about the coaching approach itself? I was looking around for some clubs and I found many, one of them (which is also the most respected) is founded and coached by Belgian and European multiple champrion. When I look at the curriculum, I can only see his successful career as an MMA fighter, contrary to other traditional martial artists where you can see grades, belts, years in activity .. etc which gives confidence on the pedagogic side. Training with a great chamption doesn’t come at the cost of getting structured learning? Does it have a risk of having chaotic (hence dangerous) journey?

Whether MMA is the best option for you, I can't say. MMA is first and foremost a sport, although you might find various hard-living types training there. For them, it is an effective option for all kinds of brawls, since they already have hands-on experience with real-world violence (by the way, the clientele in my opinion will make a huge difference in how "real world effective" something is considered to be, but that's another topic), while you may have to take care of those yourself. It completely lacks all aspects of self defense other than fighting without weapons. It is also a fairly complex thing to learn, and may be even more injury-intense than the other options. I honestly wouldn't recommend it unless you're willing to leave blood on the mat. That may sound harsh, but if you're not willing to do that, you probably won't get too much out of the training. Lifestyle-MMA has no real combative advantage over any other full-contact style done with little effort.

In either case, how many belts or medals the instructor has isn't really important. If you want to evaluate his credentials as an instructor, look at his students. If you're into the sport aspect, look what titles or medals they have, and it will tell you more about his coaching ability than his own medals (as they say: you rather want to be coached by Cus d'Amato than Mike Tyson). If you're looking for self-defense, a high numbers of bouncers, policemen and er, colourful caracters usually is a sign that the approach has real-world applications. It also may mean that the training is going to be quite rough. Whether that is for you, you'll have to find out.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Lee Morrison (Urban Combatives)

Good stuff, and is one of the few striking/percussive approaches that can be executed by smaller boned individuals male or female. Multiple attackers etc baked into the mix.

 

[solarbear]

Whichever has the best instructor in your area.

And I don't mean best by has lots of fancy trophies or whatever. My son learns from one of these guys - only option for 100km - and I would rate his ability to defend himself quite low.

I mean best by you watch one of his classes and he has a focus on self defence. I lucked out and just happened to take Kung Fu from a man who combined boxing, Kung Fu and modern sports science into what he was doing - with a total emphasis on self defence. IMHO it is more about the instructor than it is about the martial art.

 

[Mike Torres]

This is a deep topic and a timeless debate, but I'd argue pretty strongly that we do know what's most effective in 1:1 hand-to-hand combat. Unlike religion, we see validation of effectiveness in action every Saturday night... and for the last 28 years of televised competition (which of course, started out as style vs. style and has evolved into today's MMA).

An athlete who only trains Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, etc. or someone who has taken a weekend Combatives course, wouldn't stand a good chance 1:1 against an amateur or even hobbyist MMA fighter - because it's pretty easy to exploit someone else's weakness. And if you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of hours training something, you probably want to prepare for the worst-case scenario - and that would be facing a good fighter, not "training" for someone you could easily handle with a couple hammer fists to the face learned from YouTube.

There's definitely more to self-defense than what you see in MMA; weapon defense, situational awareness, verbal de-escalation, "illegal" attacks, multiple attackers, etc. And they should all be explored, but they tend to be the spice not the main dish. With a strong foundation in standup, clinch, and ground (MMA) you will pick those up much more quickly.

Ultimately, good luck controlling a knife on the ground without training something resembling BJJ... or poking someone in the eye if you can't even hit them in the face with a 16oz glove on Fundamentals are what really matter, and (good) MMA is the most crystalized form of time-tested techniques and training methods for 1:1 fighting.

I've spent most of my life exploring this topic and it took me way too long to internalize this - and I wasted a lot of precious time. My background: Tae Kwon Do black belt, Hap Ki Do black belt, former certified instructor in Jeet Kune Do, Kali, and Tony Blauer's SPEAR system... achieved intermediate rank (3 years of training) in Krav Maga, and have also trained in boxing, Kung Fu, and Muay Thai. Currently a purple belt in BJJ, training 5x/week (including self-defense and fight simulation with strikes, takedowns, etc.)

If you want a great overview of this topic, this is a fantastic podcast episode with Matt Thornton: Matt Thornton on The Art of Aliveness & BJJ Fundamentals

 

[cwheeler33]

This is a deep topic and a timeless debate, but I'd argue pretty strongly that we do know what's most effective in 1:1 hand-to-hand combat. Unlike religion, we see validation of effectiveness in action every Saturday night... and for the last 28 years of televised competition (which of course, started out as style vs. style and has evolved into today's MMA).

An athlete who only trains Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, etc. or someone who has taken a weekend Combatives course, wouldn't stand a good chance 1:1 against an amateur or even hobbyist MMA fighter - because it's pretty easy to exploit some else's weakness. And if you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of hours training something, you probably want to prepare for the worst-case scenario - and that would be facing a good fighter, not "training" for someone you could easily handle with a couple hammer fists to the face learned from YouTube.

There's definitely more to self-defense than what you see in MMA; weapon defense, situational awareness, verbal de-escalation, "illegal" attacks, multiple attackers, etc. And they should all be explored, but they tend to be the spice not the main dish. With a strong foundation in standup, clinch, and ground (MMA) you will pick those up much more quickly.

Ultimately, good luck controlling a knife on the ground without training something resembling BJJ... or poking someone in the eye if you can't even hit them in the face with a 16oz glove on Fundamentals are what really matter, and (good) MMA is the most crystalized form of time-tested techniques and training methods for 1:1 fighting.

I've spent most of my life exploring this topic and it took me way too long to internalize this - and I wasted a lot of precious time. My background: Tae Kwon Do black belt, Hap Ki Do black belt, former certified instructor in Jeet Kune Do, Kali, and Tony Blauer's SPEAR system... achieved intermediate rank (3 years of training) in Krav Maga, and have also trained in boxing, Kung Fu, and Muay Thai. Currently a purple belt in BJJ, training 5x/week (including self-defense and fight simulation with strikes, takedowns, etc.)

If you want a great overview of this topic, this is a fantastic podcast episode with Matt Thornton: Matt Thornton on The Art of Aliveness & BJJ Fundamentals

I have a feeling we'd have a good time chatting while training... Minor differences of opinion thanks to our different histories, but mostly headed in the same way.

I do not put MMA on a pedestal in the context of SD, but does serve as a necessary "sport fundamental" of any good RBSD course. For example, the old Senshido system also had a grappling and Muay Thai specific classes in addition. Those who wanted to attend the more advanced SD classes had to prove a certain amount of competency in the other two. There was a lot of blood on the floor in the advaced SD classes. When I mentioned combatives/RBSD - I had intended to imply it as something you take for years, not a weekend course.

A personal story from my Senshido days:
One class we were doing scenarios with knives. This guy I was working with on one of them was new to us. From what I can tell he was a great BJJ player. I was playing the "unskilled" bad guy mugger with knife ear but not at his throat - the experience I was told to have was I've murdered people in the past with a knife while mugging them and was in desperate need for cash... He threw an amazing armbar on concrete. Took me down and would have broke my arm had this been real. His kanding on the hard surface was also nice and smooth. But reviewing the marks from the trainer and review of the video he had "suffered" the following signifocanbt cutsin his physical responce: Cut to the throat, slashed pectoral, slashed inside bicep, femoral artery, gashed inside knee, two cuts to the achiles tendon. A question remained, would he have really broken my arm? We proceeded to look at better setups or solutions... Yeah, that was my tarining 4 days a week for 5 years....

The context of of your practice is important. I do grappling with my Catch, BJJ, Judo, Sambo friends on occasion for the fun of it (keeps me humble). In the context of their sport I get owned. In the context of my sport, they get owned. In the context of SD, those that never did RBSD get owned while those that have trained RBSD we're all pretty even. The guys who've only ever trained RBSD don't have any special advantages, it's always a crap shoot when it's purely physical.

I still maintain as a general rule for most people it's a damn religion. They can't detach themselves and look at it objectively.

But yeah, I can keep going on... Martial arts are amazing...
Most important is just start doing with a good group pf people. Don't care about the specific system/style...

 

[3letterslong]

I started at a Jeet Kune Do school which also had strong kickboxing and Arnis programs (and a meh grappling program). Since then I've done MMA, boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, BJJ, and judo.

The Jeet Kune Do class was hour after hour of eye-gouging, hair-pulling, testicle ripping, fish-hooking, knife-fighting and stick-brawling. No matter how good I get at sports training, I would never be as dangerous in a fight if I didn't do the JKD. Similarly, if I was at a JKD school that didn't also encourage you to compete in boxing, kickboxing, MMA or BJJ (and all I had was the JKD program) I would never be as capable as I am now.

I really think one has to go with the other. If you only have one side of the coin, you're going to be f@#$ed up by someone who has both.

 

[ShawnM]

So I practice BJJ and Judo twice a week. I'm horrible! I practice these two arts because I suck at them! I can strike all day and have won several boxing and kickboxing fights but I suck at grappling!

Point being, figure out what your the worst at and fix it! Will possibly save your life one day and practice is much less damaging!

 

[Period]

This is a deep topic and a timeless debate, but I'd argue pretty strongly that we do know what's most effective in 1:1 hand-to-hand combat. Unlike religion, we see validation of effectiveness in action every Saturday night... and for the last 28 years of televised competition (which of course, started out as style vs. style and has evolved into today's MMA).

An athlete who only trains Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, etc. or someone who has taken a weekend Combatives course, wouldn't stand a good chance 1:1 against an amateur or even hobbyist MMA fighter - because it's pretty easy to exploit someone else's weakness. And if you're going to spend hundreds or thousands of hours training something, you probably want to prepare for the worst-case scenario - and that would be facing a good fighter, not "training" for someone you could easily handle with a couple hammer fists to the face learned from YouTube.

There's definitely more to self-defense than what you see in MMA; weapon defense, situational awareness, verbal de-escalation, "illegal" attacks, multiple attackers, etc. And they should all be explored, but they tend to be the spice not the main dish. With a strong foundation in standup, clinch, and ground (MMA) you will pick those up much more quickly.

Ultimately, good luck controlling a knife on the ground without training something resembling BJJ... or poking someone in the eye if you can't even hit them in the face with a 16oz glove on Fundamentals are what really matter, and (good) MMA is the most crystalized form of time-tested techniques and training methods for 1:1 fighting.

I should point out a few things here: Historically speaking, pretty much wherever you look, martial training was weapons + wrestling - and pretty much exclusively stand-up in almost all cultures. Striking is pretty much an afterthought in these contexts, because it pales in effectiveness comapred to weapons. Stand-up grappling on the other hand always was indispensable, while ground grappling was a special occasions thing. Even striking arts such as karate and boxing had throws and takedowns, including some remarkably elaborate ones (better than what I've seen from pretty much any BJJ players below ADCC level).
MMA has its merits, such as requiring both distance management and control in close, but it's also shifted people's perception of a "real fight" while sneakily taking out three of the most dangerous aspects in fighting - weapons, multiple opponents, and hitting your head on hard ground. Let's not forget for what modern MMA was created - to showcase the strengths of BJJ, with rules and hand-picked opponents to allow for that.

I have trained with MMA fighters, and I've coached some. I met some fantastic athletes there, but honestly also a bunch of guys that a good grappler or boxer with any kind of training in the other disciplines would totally wipe the floor with. Same with BJJ etc. There are some noteable exceptions, especially in wrestling - I challenge people to find me a single wrestler with a couple of years of experience who cannot scrap. However, that is mostly due to the selection process, not the art per say - "the weak ones never started and the cowards died along the way" so to speak, people start as kids, and by the time they're old enough to wrestle at senior level, the average wrestlers easily have the equivalent of a BJJ black belt's training behind him, with significantly more matches. And while I have met wrestlers who did or didn't like fouls, I've yet to meet one inexperienced at fouling.
BUT, that is still only a sporting match, not a brawl. When it comes to the latter, my money will always be on the sneaky guy who hits you with a two-by-four in the head from behind, with five friends waiting to give the other guy a booting. Extensive real-world experience with violence with or without fluffy-bunny-kung-fu (or whatever) will beat the best of athletes who doesn't see that coming.

Either way, I'd argue the individual and the intensity of training they've gone through is more important than the style. I'd argue that the weapons disciplines have widely overlooked this aspect, and that's why they've ended up where they ended up. The fact remains - even rudimentary skills with pointed and bladed weapons plus rudimentary grappling are something I'd consider more dangerous than your average MMA or BJJ guy.

 

[spc]

For me it was like - when I was young I was in trouble many times. I had some judo - that mostly solved my teenage brawls. (It always ended on the ground by O Goshi and Kata Gatame 'til surrender.)
When I began to train serious martial arts I had a couple of encounters and I was always able to talk me out of it.
All that training to avoid fighting. Isn't that, what it is all about?
If you can't talk, (maybe you are robbed or it's just bad luck) something that requires not too much skill but is highly effective will serve best.
Your fine motor skills will be shut off when the adrenalin is flowing and your knees start to shiver. You need easy, agressive , gross mottorik skills. Palm strike to the side of the neck, the ear, mouth or nose. Pulling hair, kick to shin or knee.. And run...
Something easy to learn, good to grind in.
Sure - years of training - thousands and thousands of repetitions will help. But if if you want to be ready soon... Military style close combat, Combatives, Krav Maga. Fast and effective. (Check out Lee Morisson from Urban Combatives. Real stress situation training is key to self defence)
If you want to evolve and learn an art form. Go for BJJ, Boxing, traditional Muay Thai, Judo or Karate. Even Capoeira or Aikido are lots of fun and put your body and soul to another level. (I've been once kicked by my Capoeira Mestre to the shin and I thought a truck hit me)
If you want it all - go for MMA. (But be prepared of encounter some wild young men who watch too much tv with severe issues who just want to ground and pound.. Make sure it's a good gym with trainers who follow some security standards)
Personally, when it comes to infight and weapon defence (knife and sticks) I'd go for JKD, Escrima/Arnis and Silat. Those mechanics are quiet universal and a perfect match. And the more confident you are, the less you appear a victim, the less conflict you will encounter.
Si vis pacem, para bellum!
All that said - I never felt better than after a two hours Capoeira session. To me it's the last real spiritual martial art. Inside the Roda you are naked and exposed. You can't hide who or what you are. It is a very transforming experience.
And you'll be never in a better shape in your life. It is an complete art. Singing, dancing, playing/building instruments, fighting without even touching and still compete. It's a kind of magic. ( If salto mortale is not your thing - check out Capoeira Angola).
Take some Luta Livre or BJJ in addition and you'll be fine.

 

[Kev]

For me it was like - when I was young I was in trouble many times. I had some judo - that mostly solved my teenage brawls. (It always ended on the ground by O Goshi and Kata Gatame 'til surrender.)
When I began to train serious martial arts I had a couple of encounters and I was always able to talk me out of it.
All that training to avoid fighting. Isn't that, what it is all about?
If you can't talk, (maybe you are robbed or it's just bad luck) something that requires not too much skill but is highly effective will serve best.
Your fine motor skills will be shut off when the adrenalin is flowing and your knees start to shiver. You need easy, agressive , gross mottorik skills. Palm strike to the side of the neck, the ear, mouth or nose. Pulling hair, kick to shin or knee.. And run...
Something easy to learn, good to grind in.
Sure - years of training - thousands and thousands of repetitions will help. But if if you want to be ready soon... Military style close combat, Combatives, Krav Maga. Fast and effective. (Check out Lee Morisson from Urban Combatives. Real stress situation training is key to self defence)
If you want to evolve and learn an art form. Go for BJJ, Boxing, traditional Muay Thai, Judo or Karate. Even Capoeira or Aikido are lots of fun and put your body and soul to another level. (I've been once kicked by my Capoeira Mestre to the shin and I thought a truck hit me)
If you want it all - go for MMA. (But be prepared of encounter some wild young men who watch too much tv with severe issues who just want to ground and pound.. Make sure it's a good gym with trainers who follow some security standards)
Personally, when it comes to infight and weapon defence (knife and sticks) I'd go for JKD, Escrima/Arnis and Silat. Those mechanics are quiet universal and a perfect match. And the more confident you are, the less you appear a victim, the less conflict you will encounter.
Si vis pacem, para bellum!
All that said - I never felt better than after a two hours Capoeira session. To me it's the last real spiritual martial art. Inside the Roda you are naked and exposed. You can't hide who or what you are. It is a very transforming experience.
And you'll be never in a better shape in your life. It is an complete art. Singing, dancing, playing/building instruments, fighting without even touching and still compete. It's a kind of magic. ( If salto mortale is not your thing - check out Capoeira Angola).
Take some Luta Livre or BJJ in addition and you'll be fine.

Zoom zoom zoom capoeira mata vu. Lol

 

[Kev]

Zoom zoom zoom capoeira mata vu. Lol

I always preferred Angola myself. I was grupo Senzala by their Angola was pretty guff. There was a group of us in the group who gravitated to Angola more and more. We went to seminars with other groups and watched groups like cordao de ouro approach to Angola. That group within the group are now cordao de ouro last I heard. I quit years and years ago. Was good fun but Glasgow is a cold a#@ place and missed warmups through diving into a roda inevitably led to injury.