The ultimite martial artist part 1-theory

[Jinn]

The ultamite martial artist part 1-theory

Martial arts, while not very commonly discussed here, are brought up from time to time and the same question is always asked. "which martial art would you reccomend?" In my time here, I haven't seen a single question about martial arts other than this. So let's have a discussion on martial arts theory (training will come later)

First, a few points need to be covered

-discipline is the most important thing for a budding martial artist

-diet is just as important for martial arts as it is for bodybuilding

-martial arts requires tons of cardio to be an effective fighter, so either ease up on any bodybuilding or train for 8 hours a day so you can look and fight like ken shamrock. You have to watch muscle growth anyway, you don't want too many of them. If you know what ken shamrock looks like (you can find pics all over the damn place), you don't want to be any bigger than that.

Now for things to avoid

-don't learn any traditional martial art. Karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, judo, none of those are effective. Kyokushin is the strongest style of karate in the world and over the past years even that style has proven to be pathetic compated to what else is available

-You may even want to reconsider taking a class period because A) based on my experience, I am a better trained fighter now than I've ever been under an instructor, the number of flakes overwhelmingly outweighs the number of qualified instructors, and B) High quality classes are ****ing stupidly expensive

Theories not to get caught up in

-don't buy into that "too deadly for the ring" propaganda. Every single instructor in the world who makes that claim is full of ****, I garuntee it

-don't fall into the trap of thinking that a street fight is exactly like a UFC fight. No holds barred fighting events translate to the street better than any other event, but even these events leave some uncovered ground

-kill your code of honor, now. On the street, there is but one rule-don't die. There is no shame in striking the groin, smacking your opponent with a water pipe, biting, eye jabbing, or any other taboos like that. Bounding yourself to a code of honor like that does not make you a badass or an honorable fighter, it just opens you up to a weakness that lessens your chances of street survival.

-many martial arts have unique ways of overcoming large opponents. But the majority of them are impractical. There is no difference in how you should fight a larger opponent than there is in how you shoud fight a small opponent. Train to be the best fighter you can be. Size will be an obstacle no matter what, but there are ways around it which I will discuss in part 2 of this post.

-the whole "one shot kill philosophy". It's been proven so many times how ineffective this is it's unbelievable that people still practice it today! I see no need to go into detail here, just be smart, take my advice, and stay away from this.

The dimensions of fighting.

There are 4 dimensions of fighting. Punching/hand strikes (should be the majority of your strategy), kicking/knee strikes, the clinch, and the ground. A brief run over the latter 2

The clinch: Ever seen a boxing match? When the 2 fighters tie each other up to prevent the other from swinging, that's called a clinch. But in the street, there isn't a ref to break you up, so it's crucial to understand how to fight from there

The ground: When 2 fighters of similar stregnth and skill go at it, 9 out of 10 times, the fight will hit the ground at some point. It amazes me how many people in the world claim to be great martial artists, yet they don't even know how to properly choke someone, they don't even know how to block a double leg takedown, it takes 5 minutes to teach someone that! It's been proven god knows how many times over the past several centuries, but so many people refuse to believe it-If you can't fight on the ground, you can't fight

That's all for now, if I think of other things to add (there's plenty to add) I'll edit my post accordingly. Part 2 will be coming up later and that will cover the training of the martial artist.

peace

 

[Jinn]

just like to point out, this probably isn't tremendously useful without part 2, but the 2 of them together should end the martial arts questions around here for the most part

 

[Boricua_33015]

-don't learn any traditional martial art. Karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, judo, none of those are effective. Kyokushin is the strongest style of karate in the world and over the past years even that style has proven to be pathetic compated to what else is available

well, how is Kyokushin the BEST martial arts if it has been proven to be pathetic compared to all the other styles?

My freind told me that Karate technically isn't Martial Arts because Karate is chinese and Martial Arts is from other countries.

Isn't kyokushin like, Americanized? At least over here?

I never heard of that style but I will like to look into it. The most popular around here is Tae Kwon Do, which I have taken for 3 years. I reached red/black belt, but then quit and went to another Tae Kwon Do school and also reached up to red/black belt. I have also taken Judo for 1 year but I didnt go that far in it.

 

[Boricua_33015]

damn there are no Kyokushin places in Miami. Or the whole state of Florida.

 

[FlyGuy]

Hehe, some bad info going on here...

Karate is Japanese and was adapted from Shaolin (Chinese) styles. Incidentally the Shaolin styles were the first martial arts apart from boxing/wrestling.

There is nothing wrong with traditional styles, they can be just as effective as modern. The only traditional martial art that IMO is not very effective is Tae Kwon Do, mostly because of the emphasis on kicking above the waist. Too much exposure.

What really matters is the training methods used, the teacher, AND the student. You think Bruce Lee was a bad fighter? He was trained traditionally even though he devoted himself to making his own style (fighting without style pretty much). Most dojos teach martial arts as a sport first and as a fighting method second. Most places don't prepare you mentally for a real fight, so even a black belt might freeze up at that critical moment and not know how to use his skills. Unfortunately most dojos (at least in America) are a joke when it comes to good training. Its all about the training. I guarantee that a Shaolin Monk would own in a fight.

If you really want straight up effective self defense I personally like Hapkido.

 

[Jinn]

boricua, I said kyokushin is the world's best style of karate, not the world's best martial art.

Originally posted by FlyGuy


There is nothing wrong with traditional styles, they can be just as effective as modern. The only traditional martial art that IMO is not very effective is Tae Kwon Do, mostly because of the emphasis on kicking above the waist. Too much exposure.

So far, literally every single time a traditional martial art has faced a modern martial art the modern martial art got destroyed horribly, even when the best of the traditional styles took on average modern stylists. I don't know what kind of logic you're using here, but I'm calling them the way I see them.

Traditional martial arts=incomplete and way the hell out of date

What really matters is the training methods used, the teacher, AND the student. You think Bruce Lee was a bad fighter? He was trained traditionally even though he devoted himself to making his own style (fighting without style pretty much). Most dojos teach martial arts as a sport first and as a fighting method second. Most places don't prepare you mentally for a real fight, so even a black belt might freeze up at that critical moment and not know how to use his skills. Unfortunately most dojos (at least in America) are a joke when it comes to good training. Its all about the training. I guarantee that a Shaolin Monk would own in a fight.

With Bruce Lee you've named one good traditional stylist, that doesn't quite discredit my theory, and if he were alive today, I garuntee you he wouldn't have given wing chun or hung gar a second thought

Your garuntee is very bold. I agree with a lot of this, about how pathetic americanized martial arts are, but you're right, it is all about the training.

But how are the shaolin monks trained? Not properly, that's for damn sure

They're good fighters, there's no doubt about that. They're strong, swift, and graceful, but the thing is, they lack experience, which is a huge determining factor in a fight (whatever experience they have is most likely restricted to others in their school)

And also their training is questionable. What kind of training do they recieve? They train how to defeat other shaolin fighters and common street scrappers who don't know what they're doing. Not to mention all kinds of attacks that just plain don't work in a real fight (there's a reason why Bruce Lee stopped training in the shaolin styles you know, it's described in his book "tao of Jeet Kune do") A vale tudoist trains to defeat every concievable opponent he will face, but in the shaolin schools you train one dimensionally and while you may grow strong, you remain incomplete and some of the techniques you practice will actually hinder you in a fight more than help you.

If you really want straight up effective self defense I personally like Hapkido.

The ancient style of hapkido (forgot the name) is pretty decent, but the modern styles where in most parts the grappling system is almost completely omitted, there's no way I'd take up that weak system.

 

[mongoose]

What do you guys think about the effectiveness of the off-shoot martial training. Systems such as attackproof (John Perkins), Paul Vunaks System, Krav Maga, or any other fight systems created to teach self defense with moves and positioning natural to the body.

 

[Soshyopathe]

Oh god, there are so many things wrong with this post it hurts me to read it.

1) Traditional arts are very useful. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been used for hundreds of years.

2) There is no ultimate style. I could just as easily say Shi-To Ryu or Shotokan karate are the strongest in the world. There is no strongest style, only the strongest fighter.

3) Every style has potential to be too deadly for the ring, since many are based on single-strike killshots from before the Meiji Era.

4) There are one-shot kills. Because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. Tiger-mouth to the jugular, tiger claw to the balls (and detatch), chicken beak behind the ear, spear-hand under the jaw, ridge-hand to the temple, hammer fist to the back of the head, just to name a few.

5) Having an instructor is the best way to train and learn, hands down. If you could teach yourself, then everyone would be a great fighter.

6) You would fight a larger guy different than you would a smaller guy. Once you learn how to take a taller guy, life becomes so much easier.

7) This topic comes up all the time.



Some things were right, thank god.

1) No fighting code of honor
2) UFC is not a street fight
3) Discipline discipline discipline
4) Cardio is a big deal
5) Don't get too big

 

[FlyGuy]

So far, literally every single time a traditional martial art has faced a modern martial art the modern martial art got destroyed horribly, even when the best of the traditional styles took on average modern stylists. I don't know what kind of logic you're using here, but I'm calling them the way I see them.

And I suppose you've seen every single fight between traditional martial artists and "modern" martial artist? What the fvck ever. You're just pulling this out of your a$s. Its easy to make claims, but you can't back them up. Until then, your "logic" if that's what you want to call it means nothing. Think what you want, but don't dillude yourself into believing that your opinion is fact.

Bruce Lee wasn't just a fluke, Shaolin training produces some of the world's best fighters. Bruce Lee used it for fame.

 

[Jinn]

Originally posted by Soshyopathe
Oh god, there are so many things wrong with this post it hurts me to read it.

1) Traditional arts are very useful. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been used for hundreds of years.

They were used for hundreds of years because they were the only arts available.


2) There is no ultimate style. I could just as easily say Shi-To Ryu or Shotokan karate are the strongest in the world. There is no strongest style, only the strongest fighter.

There may be some accuracy to this statement, but there are styles which are flat out superior to others, that much cannot be argued against. The fighter has more to do with the outcome of a fight than his style, that's obvious, but the style plays a big role because A) It has to be street practical, B) it has to fit him as a person (and the martial artist I will have described with this thread merger will fit almost anyone), and C) it has to help build a foundation for him to be able to combat against many styles of combat. Most traditional martial arts are too one dimensional to do this.


3) Every style has potential to be too deadly for the ring, since many are based on single-strike killshots from before the Meiji Era.

which don't work (see below)


4) There are one-shot kills. Because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. Tiger-mouth to the jugular, tiger claw to the balls (and detatch), chicken beak behind the ear, spear-hand under the jaw, ridge-hand to the temple, hammer fist to the back of the head, just to name a few.

I know them well, I used to study shaolin boxing hardcore. But think about it, do you have any idea how big the gap between your skill and theirs has to be in order to land any of these? In UFC, it's hard enough to land a solid shot of any type, much less a decisive one. Now think about the street where your opponent will also be biting, eye gouging, and using any nearby resources possible. Against a totally untrained fighter, you could pull these off. Against anyone who's even remotely close to your skill level, you'll have to be extremely lucky to succeed with them.

There may be one shot kills, but they are impractical for a fight


5) Having an instructor is the best way to train and learn, hands down. If you could teach yourself, then everyone would be a great fighter.

I'll explain this in my next post, but self trained fighters can get super tough, and in many areas, trying to find a qualified instructor is nearly impossible. I want to bring about a program that will work for anybody.


6) You would fight a larger guy different than you would a smaller guy. Once you learn how to take a taller guy, life becomes so much easier.

Again, the explanation will come in the training section of my post (you are criticizing only the first half of the merger, mind you, many of my points are still incomplete)


7) This topic comes up all the time.

And if this is successful, it will stop

 

[Jinn]

Originally posted by FlyGuy
And I suppose you've seen every single fight between traditional martial artists and "modern" martial artist? What the fvck ever. You're just pulling this out of your a$s. Its easy to make claims, but you can't back them up. Until then, your "logic" if that's what you want to call it means nothing. Think what you want, but don't dillude yourself into believing that your opinion is fact.

Bruce Lee wasn't just a fluke, Shaolin training produces some of the world's best fighters. Bruce Lee used it for fame.

I've not seen every single one, but when one thing triumphs over another so many times and the other thing finally triumphs, that thing is suddenly big news. For example, if The Buccaneers beat the Cardinals in 75 games in a row, people will notice the end of their winning streak. So if a big time TMAist did ever triumph over a big time MMAist, it would have become big news and many die hard martial arts fans would have heard of it.

Besides, the MMAist vs TMAist ratio is so overwhelming it's easy to come to a conclusion.

Your arguements against me are based on claims also

And once again, Bruce Lee himself brought up plenty of flaws with the shaolin system, he is a bad example. And like I said, even if he were a good example, you've named one good shaolin fighter, that doesn't discredit my theory

 

[Soshyopathe]

Originally posted by Jinn

Originally posted by Soshyopathe
I know them well, I used to study shaolin boxing hardcore. But think about it, do you have any idea how big the gap between your skill and theirs has to be in order to land any of these? There may be one shot kills, but they are impractical for a fight.

Yes, you do have to be better than your opponent, but then, that's why you're training, right? I'm sure I could land a throat blow to my mugger/attacker, they most likely won't be very skilled.


Again, the explanation will come in the training section of my post (you are criticizing only the first half of the merger, mind you, many of my points are still incomplete.


Fair enough. Do continue.

 

[Soshyopathe]

Originally posted by Jinn

Even if he were a good example, you've named one good shaolin fighter, that doesn't discredit my theory

Come on, we don't see 99.9% of the shaolin masters. They're in the mountains of China. The top 3 shaolinists in the world live in my town. Even THE Shaolin Grandmaster. He gives some rockin demonstrations.

 

[FlyGuy]

Blah blah blah, all I'm saying is that you're full of ****. I'm not saying that modern martial arts aren't good but I AM saying that traditional styles can be just as good. Continue your ill informed "advice".

 

[ultrashogun]

What we refer to as "traditional martial arts" are in no way as effective as "modern martial arts".
In traditionalist dojos there is usually no fullcontact sparring, there is no padwork and there is no conditioning of physical weapons.
I do Kyokushin karate, our training starts out "traditional", we do each technic 50 times in the air.
Then we do pushups on our knuckels to strengthen the wrist and make the knuckels harder.
After that we do padwork, combinations, combination sparring and at the end free sparring. Sparring is done full contact without safty gear.

Before I did Kyokushinkai I did Shotokan karate. In Shotokan we did Kihon, that means that we went up and down the room doing "formal" technics. We pulled our non-working hand back to our side and did huge steps. Then we did more forms(Kata) and sometimes we did non-contact sparring.

Non-contact sparring doesnt even come close to contact sparring, hook punches are nonexistent, low kicks arent allowed, people dont cover themselves correctly and there is no clinch. In non-contact sparring you never learn to take a hit, you never learn that sometimes taking a hit is a good tradeoff if it gets you in the position to hit you opponant even harder.

So yes, theoretically "traditional martial arts" can be just as effective as "modern style arts", but when you look at the way the people train you will quickly see that a traditional artist wouldnt stand a chance against a modern stylist.

 

[ultrashogun]

Bruce Lee wasn't just a fluke, Shaolin training produces some of the world's best fighters. Bruce Lee used it for fame.

By the way, Bruce Lee never did any shaolin style, he did wing chun, which he changed by adding anything that he thought was effective from other arts and taking anything that sucked out.

The Bruce Lee that we see at the climax of his career was basically a MMAist.

 

[jaye]

Wow

This post is worthless. Don't follow traditional disciplines cause they're worthless?

Where did you learn martial arts, from watching old chop socky movies behind Wong's Chinese Buffet?

You're not a martial arts expert, so stop posting crap like this.

One of the essential aspects of martial arts is the fact that it is rooted in tradition, perfected over hundreds or even thousands of years by disciplined practitioners who have dedicated their lives to the art. You're calling the work of countless generations of REAL martial artists (unlike you) worthless? Show some respect.

Take a pilgrimage to the Shaolin village beneath Jiuning Shan in Central China, stay there for a month and watch real martial artists in action.

 

[Jinn]

Originally posted by ultrashogun

So yes, theoretically "traditional martial arts" can be just as effective as "modern style arts", but when you look at the way the people train you will quickly see that a traditional artist wouldnt stand a chance against a modern stylist.

exactly. This is what I'm talking about. You have to really go in depth on studying these things.

I have yet to hear one intelligent word against me in all of these responses (with the possible exception of soshy). All I'm hearing is "you're full of ****" and "this post is worthless you're not a real martial artist" blah blah blah

Guys, please, try to be atleast somewhat constructive. If you're pathetic AFC egos are so weak that you can't stand me criticizing something you like, stay the hell away from this thread. Infact, you shouldn't even be posting at this board.

I've brought up plenty of points to back up my logic (although only half of is has been presented thus far, as this is only the first half of my merger). I appreciate the fact that Soshyopathe actually paid attention to them, but the rest of you just see me type the words "traditional martial arts are bad" and suddenly turn blind with resentment toward me.

I'd like to have an intelligent discussion from here on in. Part 2 of this will be here shortly, we can get off to a fresh start then.

 

[ultrashogun]

You're calling the work of countless generations of REAL martial artists (unlike you) worthless?

First of all, I dont think he ever said that.

Second, in my opinion, the traditional arts are all but worthless. I respect the people that developed the foundations of the martial arts we have today, without the traditional art there would be no modern fighting styles now. Also, the way how traditional arts have turned out so inefficiant today is not a process which has been there forever. 200 years ago, when people practised karate( it was called Te back then) they actually practised much like MMa people practise. They did grappling, they hit targets(simular to padwork), they had lowkicks( most people did ONLY lowkicks ) and they sparred with contact. They did not wear white pyjamas, they did not say "OSU!!" all the time, and they never "lined up", like they do it today.

Training was alot les formal back then.

So if you look at it in a way, the modern day martial arts movements which are so new could be sees as a "back to the roots" development.

 

[Drug_L0rd]

Re: The ultamite martial artist part 1-theory

Originally posted by Jinn
-don't learn any traditional martial art[...]judo, none of those are effective.

oohhh, i beg to differ. not that i do judo, but you honestly think that it's ineffective? i'm not talking about kung fu, karate and the rest, just judo. ofcourse you wont be an exeptional fighter doing just judo but many of the UFCers have judo experience under their belt.

btw, you've told us all what NOT to do. why not instead tell us what we should do. and just incase you wanna know, i do boxing.

-You may even want to reconsider taking a class period because A) based on my experience, I am a better trained fighter now than I've ever been under an instructor, the number of flakes overwhelmingly outweighs the number of qualified instructors, and B) High quality classes are ****ing stupidly expensive

hahaha, i can't believe im reading this. you're saying based on your experience you're a better fighter than when you trained with a fully qualified, proffesional trainer? you're trainers were probably just bums off the street or something because that's just not logical.

those "high quality" classes are what i call McDojos. they just charge money and teach you jacksh!t. to avoid them it's simple, keep your eyes open.