| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 10/31/2006 11:57:46 AM | I haven't practiced anything for almost 3 years now (various excuses) and am hoping to get back into it soon. I thought I'd start this thread to relay my experiences with various TRADITIONAL martial arts and hope that people will relay theirs, with pros and cons of each style. I know mixed martial arts kick ass because they borrow the best from various styles.
Since experiences can be affected alot by the quality of teacher, feel free to add comments to any of mine.
Karate (Shotokan):Green Belt (5th rank): Good for starters. Decent sparring. Mostly striking and upright fighting. Katas are of questionable practical use but can feel like poetry in motion, once you get going. Good cardio workout. Attitude of sensei was excellent, teaching respect/control first and closely monitoring class.
Hapkido:Yellow Belt (2nd rank): Well balanced between strikes, locks and throws. Fair cardio workout. Decent real life scenario training. Decent sparring with strikes and takedowns. Good fall breaking lessons. Some of the joint locks are quite vicious/deadly and working with overly enthusiastic begginers without proper supervision, led to my departure with joint injuries lingering for months. Also, the sensei taught killing moves to virgin beginners. Not very responsible in my books.
Budotaijutsu/ninjutsu: (5th Rank). My favorite so far. Top assassins/agents/military are trained in this. Focus was on modern and traditional weaponry (defense and attack), scenario type maneovers and falls/rolls/escapes. Empty hand striking was good in theory but no sparring so somewhat useless in real life. No cardio. Excellent stealth/avoidance/awareness and dirty fighting techniques. Killing/maiming moves aren't taught to beginners. Excellent fall breaking/rolls/acrobatics. Good compliation of hand to hand locks and throws. Teacher had to move away (bummer)
Boxing/kickboxing: 1.5 years: Excellent cardio. Good sparring but no takedowns, grappling or open hand technique. Teacher was focused on the "champs". Everyone else was starved for attention/sparring time.
I'd like to try Kungfu, Judo or aikido next. I wish I could find Jujutsu around my town. When I find a style I like that is offered in my area, I'm going to stick with it. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 10/31/2006 2:58:09 PM | I hold a red belt in Okinawan Hapkido I love the style very similar to Judo and ninjitsu
with lots on joint manipulation and locks where I think It is different from other styles is the throw techniques
Even Bruce Lee a Kung-Fu Master was impressed by some of the moves that Hapkido offers. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 10/31/2006 8:00:01 PM | | I'm a beginner in 7 Star praying mantis kung fu, I like it a lot, but get frustrated trying to learn the basic punches, blocks and kicks, i think coz I'm not used to striking air, that and I'm a n00b. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 10/31/2006 10:58:18 PM | ^Yeah I really liked Korean Hapkido. Definately had less nonsense than some of the other arts. It's too bad I was injured so early.
I'm kind of scared of kung fu because its seems such a fluid and extensive artform. So different from anything I've ever taken. Could make a good lifetime project though. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/1/2006 7:12:40 PM | there are good styles and bad styles. the bad ones are the ones created solely to brainwash the students into believing that they are learning something worthwhile so that they will pay $$$$. example - Juko-kai.
within the good styles, there are good and bad schools also. For example, you mentioned kung fu. Kung Fu is plagued with bad schools... teachers who never sparred full contact in their life, and their knowledge of the fighting applications are so far removed from what was originally taught. But, once in a while, you come across a kung fu teacher who believes in sparring and kept the art "alive".
Even arts like Brazilian jiujitsu, where sparring is central to the ciriculum, I am starting to hear about some teachers handing out black belts to rich students who can afford to pay them top $$$. Whenever a martial art becomes popular... there will be some watering down going on. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/2/2006 5:31:09 PM | In high school I took Tang Soo Do while I was in 10th grade. It's a Korean style similar to Tae Kwon Do. However, there seemed to be a lot of politics and "our style's better than everybody else's", which I didn't care for.
While in college I took 2 years of Tae Kwon Do under a Korean instructor. He was a very good teacher and unfortunately I haven't found very good instruction in TKD apart from him.
At one college I went to an Aikido instructor would come on campus every Friday and give free lessons. That was an interesting style. Having come from external martial arts, I had a hard time learning to not use so much of my own force at first.
During my 2 months of unemployment in 2004 I studied some Capoeira with an instructor from São Paulo, Brazil. Not enough time to really learn anything, but that's a fun and fascinating style, developed during times of slavery in Brazil.
Now I mostly do T'ai Chi on my own. I learn from a DVD. I had a hard time trying to learn it from books. Right now where I live (2 hours from Dallas) there are only 2 Tae Kwon Do schools and 1 American Karate school. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/2/2006 8:55:46 PM | | Well I never really took any of these martial arts you guys are talking about so I cant really say anything bad about them. But from what I have done I think any style that involes some kind of grappling is by far the best. In most fights, outside of a ring, the two fighters get close enough to take each other down. Kickboxing, TKD and all the rest of the standup arts are useless when the fight gets taken to the ground. So if you like to do these martial arts cuz they are fun then take them but if you wanna be able to hold your own I'd have to say Judo and if you can BJJ. But also make sure to have some kind of stand up training too. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/2/2006 9:03:21 PM | | sure most fights end up on the ground, but to be honest, I'd rather get the fight over with before it ended up on the ground, which is why I feel that any striking art is important. I mean, in a bar fight, if you're on the ground, whos to say that 5 other people aren't going to attack you while you're applying an arm bar on your foe. BJJ or judo wont do much good in that sense. But some kung fu styles do teach some grappling and Chin'na, joint locks etc. To be fair, I wouldn't say that any one art/style is better or worse than the other. Its the skill of the fighter that matters, and if you're in it for health/workout benefits, than I'm guessing that all of them are good. Its really a matter of taste. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/2/2006 10:38:04 PM | I've never been in a real fight that ended up on the ground but I know what you're saying. There is definately most often always going to be grappling, even if its stand up. It's not a good idea to say that one without the other is the better way to go. It all depends on the other guy. He's going to try to take the game where he feels strongest and thinks you are weakest. I have had alot of stand up training but want to work more on groundwork. Its a whole new endurance game down there. Damn it sucks living in a small town for that reason. There's nothing available.
I'm past my streetfighting days anyhow. You never know when its going to happen though. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/7/2006 10:10:55 PM | If You want to develop good ground skills work on the choke out locks it's the fastest way to end a fight that ends up on the ground.
Arm bars are effective also but if Your up right striking skills are good it wont go to the ground
the fight will be over never hurts to be prepared though depends on the surroundings also. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/8/2006 12:50:01 PM | | As a marine I studied line training, combat hits, Gun Fu. Additionally I studied Ju jitsu and aikedo. Ju jitsu was my favorite.... kinda like wrestling/ judo more than anything I think???? I'm really looking into this Tiger Klay's Krav Maga.... You can find out more about it from my space. com/ midcitieskravmaga | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/8/2006 7:05:46 PM | I trained in Tae Kwon Do for about five or six years, and managed to get my black belt. It was great at first, but near the end of my tenure (like, the last year), it was overly repetitive. For each class, we'd focus on the same two kicks every single class. I know repetition is the key to success, but c'mon. Plus, some of it wasn't exactly practical, other than an occasional back kick that can surprise an opponent.
After that, I went to study Kyushu Ryu jiu-jitsu, and got up to my green belt, but had to quit because I was in college, and I had to concentrate on that. I liked that so much better because there was a strong variety, as there was striking, nerve holds, randori (mat grappling), sword practice, to name only a few things. Plus, it was centered around what you could do in a real-life situation, and you didn't have to be a star athlete to succeed. Just look at my father, who's 54 years old, and only has one kneecap and hipbone, yet he's a brown belt. It's something anyone can get into, which is what a martial art should be. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/9/2006 12:56:40 PM | 1st I would like to say that any "style" has its practical uses. Its the manner of your training that affects how well it will serve you in a fight!
If you are asking for martial arts suggestions I would STRONGLY suggest a combat/sport based martial art over the others. Styles such as Judo, wrestling, Jiu Jitsu, Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Full Contact karate and such. I would also suggest when you reach a moderate level of proficiency that you spend about a year learning the opposite range just to get familiar with the concepts and defenses.
For example if I wanted to study Judo as my primary style after I became "proficient" in Judo I might also take up boxing to supplament my stand up. No I dont intend to be golden gloves, but I would like to have an idea of how to defend myself and avoid strikes until I can grab my attacker and throw him on his head.
On the other hand if I were very good at kickboxing I might spend a year or so getting adept at wrestling to be able to avoid getting taken to the ground in the event that someone clinched up with me or surprised me.
The other styles all have value but until you actually spar in a live environment and develop accuracy, timing, speed and power you can never put it to full use.
its much like a sniper who might practice only indoors in the range and take the time to line up his shot but never pull the trigger.
Would you count on him to cover your back if he is 100 yds away on a hill with a 15mph breeze blowing at him?
I wouldnt! And that is the dilemma with many styles, you practice the form, you feint kicks and jabs, you punch and kick air, you kick a bag..but many times you never get the chance to put on the gloves and FIGHT. You learn by doing!
Sorry for the rant! | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/9/2006 7:55:35 PM | | I studied Go Ju Ryu for almost 10 years, having attained the rank of brown belt at two different schools. I have also studied Brazilian Jiujitsu and Kung Fu weapons. Go Ju Ryu translates into Hard and Soft style. At one point I competed in a provincial tournament in Toronto as an adult, due to being 17 was when you were forced into the adult class. I wound up placing second in open hand forms, also known as katas and 3rd in sparring, while placing 4th in the weapons category. I am fluent with various weapons, the kung fu staff, bo's, tong fa's and those flimys swords they use in kung fu, as well as sai's and daggers. I had much appraisal by my first teacher for my hardwork and my commitment, however having moved from Brantford to Guelph caused me to change schools and having to start at the beginning again even though the school I attended taught the same stuff, although I quickly moved through the ranks. I started off knowing more than the highest ranking students did, most of whom were green belts. I attained my yellow sash in kung fu during my time in Guelph and have met some great fighters. I have completed various trials of endurance including 24 hour seminars. I remember when I went for my brown belt, the grading went from about 6 pm until 11, and it was on a school night. I was in my first year of highschool then too, and slept through all my classes that day. | |
|
| |
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/9/2006 9:34:59 PM | As a marine I studied line training, combat hits, Gun Fu. Additionally I studied Ju jitsu and aikedo.
What was your opinion of aikedo? It's offered in my town. Is there any groundwork?
I would also suggest when you reach a moderate level of proficiency that you spend about a year learning the opposite range just to get familiar with the concepts and defenses.
I totally agree. That's what I was trying to do but I couldn't find Judo/jujitsu/wresting to balance out my kickboxing/karate/etc | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/13/2006 10:20:50 AM | I have studied "kung fu", karate, arnis/kali, european swordsmanship, and my favorite style jujutsu.
The style does not matter so long as its trained and practiced in a realistic way. If you practice two to four hours a week at your classes, don't work that hard and rarely fight/spar, don't expect to be able to do it in real life.
We don't all want to become the next UFC champion (or do we?) but if we want to be effective at what we do (combat) we should train as though we were. You must treat training like a bloodless battle, and battle like bloody training.
Bruce Lee talked about it. Talked about how people spend too much time on the technique and not enough on preparing for participation in combat. Make your body into a weapon, then however you use it, you will be effective. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/13/2006 12:02:05 PM | | As far as my instructor he wasn't the best. A friend of mine actually was a wrestler in high school and went to Japan on a martial arts scholorship.... That just happened to be one he studied. Its by far the best for counters! As far as locks and holds Ju jitsu. But, I looked at Krav Manga and I think it maybe the best martial art I have ever seen. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/13/2006 2:09:26 PM | I dont know your location but here is a Jiu Jitsu school In BC. Maybe they can lead you in the right direction.
http://www.cocoonathletics.com/
and a Judo BC link.
http://www.judobc.ca/home.html
Now with a kickboxing background you get to decide. Do you want BJJ because you feel its inevitable of going to the ground? If so good choice.
Or do you want a style that can teach you to remain standing?
If so thats Judo.
Have fun! | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/16/2006 8:57:02 PM | | I train In Mixed Martial arts and come from a wrestling background. If you can find a MMA school I highly sugest it. My training forms mostly come from JKD(Jun Fun Gung Fu), KTX(Muay Thai)- don't confuse with kick boxing, though very similar but more destructive. CSF(Shooto-Brazilian Jiujitsu), and FFA(Kall'Escrima'Silat)-this is a wepons and self defense class that I don't attend very offten. All of these from flow to gether, as can many other arts. example. take a simple judo hip toss. This toss leads directly into a Jiujitsu arm bar. Some who has the benefit of training in various forms has more options from any position in standing or ground. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/16/2006 9:27:45 PM | | One that I might wind up getting into is the Russian "Systema" style. There are a lot of really idiotic video clips of that on places like YouTube (in the style of that Monty Python "attack me with that banana" skit) , but also some rather good ones. The philosophy and training style fits what I am looking for, which is effective and practical self-defense which focuses on controlling an aggressive opponent with things like pressure points and joint locks. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/18/2006 8:44:39 AM | I dont have too much faith in a system that focuses on pressure points but not immobilizing the opponent 1st. A police officer might use a come along hold or a pain compliance hold but usually they have already pinned the suspect either against a car, a wall or the ground.
Too many "x" factors out there if the opponent is loose and free to maneuver around. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/18/2006 11:00:47 AM | A lifetime project is right!!! Thats exactly what you have to devote to any form of Kung-Fu.
It took me some 11 years to finish Ninjitsu but there is so much more to kung fu, even when you take into account the weapons/mental elements of Ninjitsu, Kung Fu is still more diverse in just physical style. But it would defintitly be worth it if thats what you wanna do.
Me I compete in Muay Thai and Kickboxing because its fun as hell and It just feels right for me, like my true calling. | |
|
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 11/18/2006 11:05:47 AM | My first post was to message number 4 and this following one is for number 16
For some reason I cant quote.
I know you didnt ask my opinion but....Aikido is definitly something worth looking into. Good for real life situations, very intimidating style, and overall easy to adapt to. Just dont think Steven Segal hahaa | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 25 | |
| Martial Arts - Whats good/whats not
Posted: 12/20/2006 10:47:30 PM | I can only comment on Judo having competed for 20 years and then coached for 5 years.
Judo is one of the few martial arts in the Olympics. It was introduced in 1964 to the Olympics.
It is highly regulated and there is none of the 12 year old black belt nonsense.
The rules are the same around the world and ranks are internationally recognized.
Don't piss away money on some contrived made up style until you have thoroughly
investigated the background of the instructors and the school.
Anyone can make certificates on a home computer and buy trophies for the windows.
Flashy stuff doesn't win fights. Most people can't kick waist high without warming up first.
Judo has choke holds, arm bars, and throwing techniques.
The beautiful thing is you can compete full force with no pads.
Judo is tied to Jujutsu which was a composite exercise, consisting principally of the ways of fighting without weapons;
using, however, occasionally daggers, swords and other weapons.
The kinds of attack were chiefly throwing, hitting, choking, holding the opponent down and
bending or twisting the opponent's arms or legs in such a way as to cause pain or fracture.
The use of swords and daggers was also taught.
But systematic instruction, as an art, dates only from about three hundred fifty years ago.
Judo became a way of training without killing/maiming all your sparring partners.
Ju means gentle or to give way, Jutsu, an art or practice, and Do, way or principle,
so that Jujutsu means an art or practice of gentleness or of giving way in order to ultimately gain the victory;
while Judo means the way or principle of the same.
The guy I trained under for 20 years is Noburo Saito from Birmingham, Michigan.
He is currently holds 7th degree black and is now an Olympic referee.
http://www.saitodojo.com/SaitoHomePage.htm
Sambo might also be something worth looking into. It started in the USSR.
Sambo is one of the four main forms of amateur competitive wrestling practiced internationally today, the other three being Greco-Roman wrestling,
Freestyle wrestling and Judo.
In 1980, Sambo was a demonstration sport at the Olympic Games in Moscow, Russia. However, due to boycotts, it failed to bring sufficient numbers for continued inclusion as a participatory game.
| |
|
Home
login 
