posted
I am planning on picking up a martial art. I am interested in something that can be used in actual self-defense and not simply something for sport or as an exercise. While my first choice is Krav Maga, there are no studios around me, so I am curious if anyone here knows another street-oriented martial art?
I have two questions for anyone with knowledge on the matter:
- I am in my early 20s, so I am wondering, is it too late for me to start and martial art and get proficient with it, as most of the people I know started when they were teenagers, or younger.
- What kind of commitment is usually required; for instance, how many days a week of training/working out are normally necessary to start gaining benefit from classes?
EDIT:
Some Martial Arts I'm not interested in:
tae kwon do
tai chi
any art involving only weapons
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recommend investigating Aikdio. There's a ton of information out there to read, and there are several of us here that can answer specific questions.
Starting in your 20s shouldn't be a problem. That's what I did.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I started doing Aikido in college. It's a fairly practical art for self-defense, but I'm not sure you could call it "street-oriented." Additionally, I think that progress in Aikido is slower than in something like karate. I did it for two years, 2-3 times a week, and I'd just barely gotten the basics. It was rewarding and enjoyable in its own right, but you aren't going to be some sort of super-ninja after a month.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've tried a couple, and I've really enjoyed the MMA club I joined. It depends a lot on the place, of course, but I really liked that most drills tended to be a bit more "alive" than most other martial arts I did. There tended to be a lot of work with partners or in groups, with typical drills being things like working on combinations on pads held by your partner, reacting to an opponent, and other similar things.
In general, there was a big focus on being able to react appropriately in a wide variety of scenarios as opposed to memorizing patterns (ie, there's no kata). At the place I went to, there was also a lot of focus on practical self defense, especially for beginners.
There was a wide variety of sizes and experience levels, ranging from complete newbies (ie, me) to a couple people who competed professionally in some smaller regional events. There were also a fairly decent number of girls in the classes, including a few who fought regularly in competitions.
All in all, I've found it to be great for self defense, as well as excellent conditioning and a good sportlike atmosphere. That said, it tends to be real light on the meditative and cultural elements that some traditional martial arts have. It is also probably not a good choice for kids, so may not be the best option as a family martial art, but from your description none of those are likely to be problems.
All in all, I would strongly encourage you to look into schools in your area. I know that MMA might have a bit of a bad reputation sometimes, but I think that if you give it a chance you could really enjoy yourself.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
It involves reaction to attacks and does not involve attacks on attackers but throwing a person five feet is definitely going to discourage them.
Also, I have seen Aikido um... masters? I dont know, they were very good, and they essentially took out all comers without punching or kicking, but simply by helping them on their way, into the floor, or wall, or air.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gecko. Starting in your 20's doesnt really matter. it's how serious u take it. almost all of the good ones take a long time to get a black belt in. if u find a place that can get u a black belt in 2-3 years, it's probably not that good. also the city u live in makes a difference. one form of martial arts might have a great school/community while the same form is garbage somewhere else.
also, when u ask if it's "street" useful, is there a reason u need it to be? most times the person who doesnt let a situation escalate to a fight is the one who practices martial arts.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gecko: I have looked into Aikido but have been told it is not really practical for real-world self defence since it is primarily a reactive arts.
Is this true?
There are two answers to that.
The first one is "it depends on the teacher/dojo". There really is quite a broad spectrum of Aikido. Some Aikido is not very concerned with practical effectiveness at all, and is more concerned with things like spiritual or ki development. But Aikido is definitely a practical martial art. It depends on the teacher and dojo you find.
I think that the individual instructor and dojo you pick is more important than the style you pick. They say it's better to spend ten years looking for the right instructor than ten years training under the wrong one.
As Shigosei alluded to earlier, you're not going to see fast and practical results in Aikido. If somebody knew they were going to get in a street fight in a month, Aikido is not what I'd recommend. But to give you an idea of its perceived effectiveness, Aikido is the martial art that they teach to Japanese Law Enforcement Officers.
But to answer your specific question, I disagree with the notion that because Aikido is a "reactive" martial art, it is not practical. The higher you get in Aikido, the less reactive it becomes, but it's much easier to teach Aikido principles and techniques in a reactive setting.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't Aikido what Sulu used right before hid "Don't call me Tiny" line? Looked pretty practical to me. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ad me to the list of those who say your age isn't a factor. I started my current art when I was 31. Now I teach it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
And, despite his lame movies and the stories that his rank is inflated, he is quite skilled. I had a chance to train with one of his top students. He was excellent.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took Hapkido for a short while and found it to be (theoretically) applicable to real life situations. Krynn is right however; whatever martial art you pick, you'll find that your increased confidence means you're calmer in stressful situations and won't let things escalate to a fight.
As far as worrying about reactive martial arts, I'd say there's nothing wrong with them. Being good at a reactive art ensures that you'll only ever use it in self defense. In other words, you'll never use a reactive art until someone throws the first punch. The whole idea is to go into the "Martial Artist Mode" only when your life is in danger.
If you really want something that's "street practical" I'll give you the advice one of my more colorful co-workers gave me: "Go somewhere and start a fight. You'll loose, and loose, and loose until you either figure it out or spend so much on hospital bills you can't afford to go start fights anymore."
In all seriousness, plain old boxing is going to be pretty applicable to street fights. Martial Arts, while designed to be practical, aren't going to give you split second results.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to ruin the Aikido vibe here guys, but I think somebody should mention Jeet Kune Do. From what I can gather Bruce Lee designed it to be efficient and street effective, and the people I've seen demonstrate it look like they would be pretty effective. He did a tremendous amount of research into the martial arts of his time both eastern arts like Aikido (LOL) , and western ones such as Boxing and Fencing. I think the only problem you'd have Gecko is that there aren't really a surplus of schools around. Most of what I know about It I've learned from books and Internet research. If you think you might be interested in learning more just post another reply, I might be able to send you some good internet links, and recommend some books that might be useful.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could learn that one inch punch! I'd love to learn how to do that, especially being such a little guy (5'1").
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gecko, what part of the country are you in? and what is your goal?
If you just want to protect yourself bare-handed, plain and simple, then western-style boxing is probably the quickest, easiest, and most effective course of action. It will certainly get you the most results in the least amount of time. It's also extremely good exercise, if that's a secondary concern.
If time is less of a concern, maybe start with some boxing lessons to learn proper punching and then move into something else, depending on what you are looking for. If you aren't looking to something like Aikido or Judo-- trying to take an opponent down and control them without pummeling them-- then get some punch training and never forget it. Using fists with power and effect is primary and essential to any violent art and no one does it better than boxers.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My old roommate is a little guy, and he knows all sorts of submission holds, nerve pinches, and dirty fighting tricks, like taking out knees or feet and running. I don't remember which specific styles of martial arts he studied, but that sort of thing seems like it would be quite effective for self-defense. Why go toe to toe with someone when you can break the wrist and walk away?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you go the Jeet Jun Do route just remember it is not a style. In fact it is the antithesis of style. Bruce Lee regrets ever calling it a style. Its really complex but its in essence reacting to whatever your opponent is using, but there is also a very proactive element to it that even Lee I am uncertain could put his finger on.
Jeet Kun Do really only works if you have studied ALOT, and by alot I mean, "Every style that might aid you in some miniscule way."
Aikido is a solid well rounded style. Also Tai Chi is still good to warm up to and get the muscle memory in.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stomping on your assailant's foot and running is extremely effective self-defense... but you have to hit the foot.
Taking out a knee is a bit tougher... if your opponent has any kind of training at all, their knees are probably going to be flexed and prepared to give with a blow.
Getting to where you can apply submission holds, nerve shots, or wrist breaks takes a lot of training, and you still have to be very good and a little bit lucky to recognize and capitalize on the opportunity against someone who is actively trying to hurt you.
Any of those become much easier if you've just driven your fist into your opponent's solar plexus or floating rib. And learning how to do that with force, even for a little guy, is very doable.
Or, to flip your question around: Why risk getting grappled (where small size is a HUGE disadvantage) when you can knock his wind out and run away? And make no mistake, if you go straight for a wrist leverage and miss, you are toast, unless the person simply doesn't know how to fight at all.
Edit to add: because a proper wrist leverage is going to take two hands, and if you don't control your opponent immediately his other hand (the one you aren't trying to leverage) is going to be headed for your unprotected head/face.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a very good point. My friend actually showed me some of his submission moves, and while they were uncomfortable, they certainly weren't debilitating. Either he wasn't doing them properly, or they just weren't that effective. I told him, "You keep pinching that nerve, and I'm going to start punching you in the face and we'll see who stops first."
Thankfully, he didn't try to break my knee or instep, but I really doubt it's as easy as he implied.
Even with his years of training, I'm 99% sure I could beat him down in a serious fight, mostly because I have about 100 lbs and 6 inches on him.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll reiterate-- the instep (stomping on a foot) is a great target... the bones are very exposed there and even if you don't break them, it's pretty easy to cause a lot of pain, which is a huge distraction.
If you can take the guys mind off of what he's going to do to you and get it on "ow! that hurt" even for a tenth of a second, you've taken the initiative.
Keeping it, of course, is a whole different ball of wax.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
That's fine. I never said that he should choose Aikido -- I just think he should investigate it more and see if he likes it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a brown belt in Google-Fu. I hope to one day reach the blue-red-yellow-green belt of a Google-Fu master. I have only met one -- rivka. Maybe it's like Highlander where there can be only one.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Gecko, what part of the country are you in? and what is your goal?
Northeast, east PA.
I would just like a martial art that would prove usefull in the event of any kind of physical altercation where walking away isn't an option. I am in no hurry to learn, so if boxing is the quickest way, but maybe not the best all-round approach, I would rather go with a slower, more rounded art.
I have looked into Jeet Kun Do quite a bit, but it's really more of a fighting philosophy than a style. And from what I read, you already have to be quite adept at fighting to really make use of it.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boxing is probably a good overall choice, as would be kickboxing or some sort of mma. The biggest thing, in my opinion, is to find a place where you'll be doing a fair amount of at least light sparring against other people. If you want practical skills in defending yourself, then by far the best way to do that is to put yourself up in a situation where someone is trying to get past your defenses and beat you. There's really no other good way to expose areas where your skills aren't as good as you might think, or to prepare your body to react quickly in a self defense situation.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boxing is a very good fundamental approach, and from there you can take the punching lessons you learn into any other style with you.
But I disagree with ricree that sparring is the only effective way to train. A properly done cooperative workout can be very helpful, but I freely allow that a proper cooperative workout can be *very* hard to find.... and that a poor one can be outright damaging to your fighting instincts and knowledge.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boxing is very proficient. However, Jeet Kune Do is far more proficient then any other art.
But sadly it's very hard to find a solid teacher as most of the practitioners are not teaching Jeet Kune Do and in turn don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you just want to protect yourself bare-handed, plain and simple, then western-style boxing is probably the quickest, easiest, and most effective course of action.
I agree. While Aikido is definitely effective and practical, it has a much more difficult learning curve, which means that for X amount of practicing (assuming X is a relatively short amount of time, definitely anything under 5 years), you'd probably get more practical benefit from studying a punching/kicking art than Aikido.
quote:But I disagree with ricree that sparring is the only effective way to train. A properly done cooperative workout can be very helpful, but I freely allow that a proper cooperative workout can be *very* hard to find.... and that a poor one can be outright damaging to your fighting instincts and knowledge.
I agree with this, but I'd add that many sparring workouts are just as damaging.
Jim, from the martial arts conversations we've had, I think we'd both enjoy training together, despite out differing backgrounds.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scurvy, I'd like to point out that arts are not proficient, people are. While this might seem like merely a flippant point of grammar, I'm actually taking your use of the word "proficient" as you mean it, here. A fight is not between two styles, but between two practitioners. I definitely think the style I study is the most efficient and effective art I've seen, but I have no delusions as to exactly what that means without hard, dedicated and realistic training: not a hill of beans.
Here's video of someone who practices the same art I do getting totally wiped out by a BJJ guy (the snap at the end is his arm getting broken because he refuses to tap out). Not coincidentally, this is a good example of what nothing but poorly done cooperative workouts can do to you over time-- one *real* attack sends everything you know flying out the window.
Porter... no question. Some sparring I've been involved with becomes about speed and "scoring" and favors attacks that wouldn't make the a good grappler bat an eye before taking you down, or make a good boxer even flinch before he busted you with a combination that left you out cold. All sparring encourages a little too much messing around and probing for weaknesses for my taste as well. As far as I'm concerned, the longer a fight goes, the more chance there is that I will screw up big time.
And yeah, when your back is better and I have disposable income, we should get together and roll some. That'd be cool.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Scurvy, I'd like to point out that arts are not proficient, people are. While this might seem like merely a flippant point of grammar, I'm actually taking your use of the word "proficient" as you mean it, here. A fight is not between two styles, but between two practitioners.
I perfectly agree with you that it is the practitioner. However, a persons form (hand positioning, footwork) can play a factor in a fight. Which that's when the art comes into play.
And yes, other arts are more proficient than others.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sparring training is problematic because you're trying to safely practice something that is inherently dangerous. Different arts have different strategies for overcoming this difficulty. Some go the route of "touch sparring", where you demonstrate that you could have struck your opponent. The problem with this is that you're training your body to perform ineffective technique. If you're always practicing touching your opponent without doing damage, chance are hight that you'll perform like you practiced. Other arts, like TKD and Judo, severely limit the "legal" attacks/techniques to ones that are relatively safe, allowing the practitioners to practice the techniques at full speed and strength. One weakness of this approach is that you never learn to protect yourself against illegal moves, such as a punches to the face.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ridiculous method of teaching students to pull their punches while sparring is the reason I quit Tae Kwon Do and took up Aikido (wish I could have continued). It didn't me long to realize I wasn't learning anything in my Tae Kwon Do classes that would be effective in a real-world situation. It was great exercise, but so is square dancing, and with far less bruising.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you go the Jeet Jun Do route just remember it is not a style. In fact it is the antithesis of style
Jeet Kune Do IS a style
Apparently Mr. Bruce Lee, the creator, disagrees with you.
quote: I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that. There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is. Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive. Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.
posted
Jeet Kune Do has principles and guide lines that you have to follow, like any other art form.
What Bruce was saying is that there are no fixed patterns, which at the time just about every art had fixed patterns.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scurvy: Jeet Kune Do has principles and guide lines that you have to follow, like any other art form.
What Bruce was saying is that there are no fixed patterns, which at the time just about every art had fixed patterns.
No fixed patterns and no forms. He kept using water as a metaphor because it takes whatever shape it is placed in. You can't call it a style anymore then you can say water is a certain shape.
If anything Jeet Kun Do when used correctly could only be identified when used AGAINST a different organized style.
I think its fine calling it a philosophy or a system but to lump it as another style I think ruins the idea and Bruce Lee was VERY much opposed to the name being called "a style."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Jeet Kune Do does have a stance from where everything comes from, and it's called the On-Guard position.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scurvy: But Jeet Kune Do does have a stance from where everything comes from, and it's called the On-Guard position.
And even Bruce Lee admits that there are situations where that stance is not appropriate.
The On-Guard stance was the one Lee chose in particular, he did not ask people to all assume that the way he did things must be the right way. Even he acknowledges that he could be beaten or could make a mistake.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. You can't always get into the On-guard position. I agree with that.
But to say that it doesn't have principles and rules that you have to follow is false.
It is based on simplicity and economy of motion. If you don't follow that then you're not preforming Jeet Kune Do.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, I'd love to get back into Martial Arts. I just don't have the time anymore -- too many other activities.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scurvy: You're right. You can't always get into the On-guard position. I agree with that.
But to say that it doesn't have principles and rules that you have to follow is false.
It is based on simplicity and economy of motion. If you don't follow that then you're not preforming Jeet Kune Do.
I said, "No fixed patterns and no forms." and I also said I agree it could be called a system or a philosophy. Can Jeet Kun Do have principles? Sure, "Be formless." "If my opponent acts I react." Those are both principles.
Its rules are almost non existant. Lee was pinned by a wrestler while practicing and was asked what he would do if this was a real fight, and Lee responded with, "Bite you of course!"
If Jeet Kun Do has rules they are, "Do whatever it takes to defeat your opponent."
and,
"Don't limit your options in anyway."
The rest of the discussion is, "If my Opponent does X what do I do?" What about A? B? C? ad infinitum.
"If people say Jeet Kune Do is different from "this" or from "that," then let the name of Jeet Kune Do be wiped out, for that is what it is, just a name. Please don't fuss over it." -Bruce Lee
Bruce Lee went to great pangs to distance his Jeet Kun Do from any and all "styles" that were out there. He believed in studying them all and incorporating anything useful from any dicipline.
If Bruce Lee was being attacked by a man who had mastered every single martial art and would never make a mistake in a fight, he would eventually recognize the opponent as unbeatable in martial arts and promptly pull out a gun and shoot him. That would be Jeet Kun Do in action.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scurvy: So does it make you feel better to call Jeet Kune Do a system instead of a style?
I think a philosophy is closer to the truth. But no personally it would not make me feel better.
Its an idea, not something you can stand alone and demonstrate. A Jeet Kun Do expert alone on the mat would be pretty boring to watch, but I would have very much liked to see Bruce Lee's response to Brazilian Jujutsu.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter is funny. Someone with Bruce's level of skill would wipe the mat, floor, street, whatever with any 50 BJJ practitioners. Dude. Not even close.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scurvy: So does it make you feel better to call Jeet Kune Do a system instead of a style?
I think a philosophy is closer to the truth. But no personally it would not make me feel better.
Its an idea, not something you can stand alone and demonstrate. A Jeet Kun Do expert alone on the mat would be pretty boring to watch, but I would have very much liked to see Bruce Lee's response to Brazilian Jujutsu.
You seem to like the philosophy of JKD a lot more than the physical part.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scurvy: So does it make you feel better to call Jeet Kune Do a system instead of a style?
I think a philosophy is closer to the truth. But no personally it would not make me feel better.
Its an idea, not something you can stand alone and demonstrate. A Jeet Kun Do expert alone on the mat would be pretty boring to watch, but I would have very much liked to see Bruce Lee's response to Brazilian Jujutsu.
You seem to like the philosophy of JKD a lot more than the physical part.
How are you separating the two?
Porter: <snicker> That might have been his first reaction upon encountering it. I am sure he would become well versed in the style and come up with a way to deal with it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
