What martial art should I learn?

Originally Posted by mizanation

Click to expand...

not trying to be critical, just trying to help you out.

you have this notion that you can develop mental discipline and, i think, some kind of spirituality through martial arts--specifically some sort of "east asian" traditional martial art. which can be true.

but, you have to understand that this has nothing to do with performance in terms of fighting or "self-defense"--which is the purpose of martial art.

there is no level of spiritual understanding which will make you a better fighter. realistic training in a proven system of fighting will make you a better fighter.

the cool thing, though, is that you can develop the "mental discipline" that you desire, through this training. even though it's not as exotic as you would hope.

so, you have to decide whether you want to learn a spiritual discipline or a martial art.

I think you are a little misinformed about the purpose of martial arts. Some are primarly for fighting, street or otherwise. Krav Manga is an prime example. In fact many people would not really consider krav a martial art but rather a self defence system. Others are geared towards controlled combat, kick boxing in all its forms, mma hybrid styles and so on. These types usually are effective in a street fight and also have some tradition behind them although this tradition might not be stressed. Most martial arts have some combative aspect and you can find examples of people using them in controlled fights, sport karate for instance. or TKD.
Lastly there are many martial arts that really stress the more esoteric aspects of human development. Tai Chi for instance. Many traditions focus more on the mind body connection using sport and movment as a means. You can think of it as kenetic meditation.
And finally there are many, many arts that combine all three aspects, often in the same class.
To say that fighting is the sole purpose of martial art is a totall misrepresentation and gross simplification, not to mention it devaules quite a few traditions.

Originally Posted by NorCal

Click to expand...

Lastly there are many martial arts that really stress the more esoteric aspects of human development. Tai Chi for instance. Many traditions focus more on the mind body connection using sport and movment as a means. You can think of it as kenetic meditation.

Actually Tai Chi was developed for martial application (fighting), it's only relatively recently that it's been used exclusively by people for other purposes. The majority of martial arts have their roots in fighting application. Some have just developed or have been used towards other purposes.

People who pursue martial arts mostly for the spiritual aspect amuse me the same way as those who go do bench press/bicep curls/low-intensity elliptical just so they can feel better about their Tripple Whopper sandwiches...

Originally Posted by Rolo

Click to expand...

The problem with all of these is you are facing someone that wants to hit you with a stick. What I've seen of Escrima is absolutely insane. You at least get some padding in Kendo.

When we trained kali, the only gear we used were hockey gloves to avoid broken fingers. The target there was more the hands "defang the snake" but it was still great.

Originally Posted by NorCal

Click to expand...

I think you are a little misinformed about the purpose of martial arts. Some are primarly for fighting, street or otherwise. Krav Manga is an prime example. In fact many people would not really consider krav a martial art but rather a self defence system. Others are geared towards controlled combat, kick boxing in all its forms, mma hybrid styles and so on. These types usually are effective in a street fight and also have some tradition behind them although this tradition might not be stressed. Most martial arts have some combative aspect and you can find examples of people using them in controlled fights, sport karate for instance. or TKD.
Lastly there are many martial arts that really stress the more esoteric aspects of human development. Tai Chi for instance. Many traditions focus more on the mind body connection using sport and movment as a means. You can think of it as kenetic meditation.
And finally there are many, many arts that combine all three aspects, often in the same class.
To say that fighting is the sole purpose of martial art is a totall misrepresentation and gross simplification, not to mention it devaules quite a few traditions.

i understand what you are saying. and i know that what i am saying is probably not taken very well.

there are many traditional martial art forms that should be preserved for their historical significance and their health benefits--tai chi being one of them. yang style tai chi, which is the most commonly performed tai chi was created not for fighting, but for health. there are many studies that have shown its health benefits. i am all for preserving this tradition.

but to say that it has any use as a fighting system, as many practitioners claim, is just not realistic.

so, if an art is not useful for fighting--or more specifically, is not used for fighting, is it still a martial art? if a martial art has no "martial" application, is it still a martial art? i think we can have different opinions on this.

Originally Posted by mizanation

Click to expand...

so, if an art is not useful for fighting--or more specifically, is not used for fighting, is it still a martial art? if a martial art has no "martial" application, is it still a martial art? i think we can have different opinions on this.

Yes, we can, and apparently do, but it is more of a semantic disagrment so I won't be offended.
Thanks for not flaming

yeah, that's the problem, because everything is lumped together under "martial art" in the west.

actually, in japan, there are two words for this. "kakutougi" and "budo." "kakutougi" means something close to "fighting sport," which includes judo, karate, and mma. "budo" is "warrior art" which includes jujutsu, kendo, kyudo (archery), etc. "budo" has an element of self-improvement and may or may not be practical or effective.

Originally Posted by whacked

Click to expand...

People who pursue martial arts mostly for the spiritual aspect amuse me the same way as those who go do bench press/bicep curls/low-intensity elliptical just so they can feel better about their Tripple Whopper sandwiches...

Eagle claw!

Originally Posted by whacked

Click to expand...

People who pursue martial arts mostly for the spiritual aspect amuse me the same way as those who go do bench press/bicep curls/low-intensity elliptical just so they can feel better about their Tripple Whopper sandwiches...

It's all about the spiritual aspect. Some people want to become one with the universe, other people want their fist to become one with your face.

Originally Posted by mizanation

Click to expand...

but, you have to understand that this has nothing to do with performance in terms of fighting or "self-defense"--which is the purpose of martial art.

I have been a student of full contact forms of martial arts for a long while, though I've never been very skilled. They definitely suit my temperament better than so-called "soft" martial arts (my parents made me take Tai Chi for a while, and it drove me crazy with frustration,) but I have to disagree with your very limited definition of the purpose of "martial arts". The original purpose of all martial arts was to make one more proficient in mortal combat, but the purpose of pretty much any style that is taught today, save perhaps Krav Maga, is something very different. Some, like many styles of Wushu, is for performance. Some, like Tai Chi, are primarily practiced today as a form of meditation, Some styles, like Muy Thai and BJJ, are practiced as competitive sports. They may have the secondary effect of making one better at protecting oneself in so called "real life" confrontations, but they are practiced primarily as sport.

I think that it is a disservice to everyone to conflagrate sport ringfighting and self defence. They are very different animals. And I think that it is a further disservice to somehow assume that a style that may have more self-defence applications is objectively more of a "martial art" than a style that has less. Of course, it would be silly for an Aikidokai to insist that Aikido would be very effective as a ringfighting style, but that makes that Aikidokai an idiot, and says nothing about Aikido.

Sorry Miz, but Yang style was invented by Yang Luchan who was known as Yang the Invincible. Yang was a fighter. In his youth he watched Chen style which is low basin, fast and dynamic and made it better.

His Grandson, Yang Chen fu actually tried to escape having to learn the family system because it was so grueling. He returned to the fold after masters from other systems refused to train him and consequently he didn't get the full transmission of the art. Yang chen fu's Tai chi is the broad frame soft flowing stuff you see many Yang Style practioners practice now that has been even further demartialized into "moving meditation." Few of these people will even acknowledge or worse yet, recognize the animal techiques and martial applications still contained in their vague forms.

Originally Posted by LA Guy

Click to expand...

I have been a student of full contact forms of martial arts for a long while, though I've never been very skilled. They definitely suit my temperament better than so-called "soft" martial arts (my parents made me take Tai Chi for a while, and it drove me crazy with frustration,) but I have to disagree with your very limited definition of the purpose of "martial arts". The original purpose of all martial arts was to make one more proficient in mortal combat, but the purpose of pretty much any style that is taught today, save perhaps Krav Maga, is something very different. Some, like many styles of Wushu, is for performance. Some, like Tai Chi, are primarily practiced today as a form of meditation, Some styles, like Muy Thai and BJJ, are practiced as competitive sports. They may have the secondary effect of making one better at protecting oneself in so called "real life" confrontations, but they are practiced primarily as sport.

I think that it is a disservice to everyone to conflagrate sport ringfighting and self defence. They are very different animals. And I think that it is a further disservice to somehow assume that a style that may have more self-defence applications is objectively more of a "martial art" than a style that has less. Of course, it would be silly for an Aikidokai to insist that Aikido would be very effective as a ringfighting style, but that makes that Aikidokai an idiot, and says nothing about Aikido.

yeah, i see what you're saying and i agree with you.

like i said, in japan, there is a separation between arts like traditional jiu-jitsu, kendo, etc. and styles like kyokushin and judo. they are not all lumped under the term martial arts. in fact, the term "budo" which is the term for jiu-jitsu, kendo, etc. is closer in meaning to "martial arts" than "kakutougi" which is the term for sport fighting or self-defense.

Originally Posted by The Deacon

Click to expand...

Sorry Miz, but Yang style was invented by Yang Luchan who was known as Yang the Invincible. Yang was a fighter. In his youth he watched Chen style which is low basin, fast and dynamic and made it better.

His Grandson, Yang Chen fu actually tried to escape having to learn the family system because it was so grueling. He returned to the fold after masters from other systems refused to train him and consequently he didn't get the full transmission of the art. Yang chen fu's Tai chi is the broad frame soft flowing stuff you see many Yang Style practioners practice now that has been even further demartialized into "moving meditation." Few of these people will even acknowledge or worse yet, recognize the animal techiques and martial applications still contained in their vague forms.

i understand the combat origins of tai chi--i have a good friend who has practiced a dynamic chen style for years. when i say "yang style tai chi" i'm talking about the yang style that most people practice--which is, as you described, "moving meditation"--which has evolved to emphasize health vs. combat application. of course, you know, this is a very different form than what was practiced by chinese soldiers long ago.

Aikido is another one of these martial arts people seem to be on the fence about.

To me, it's one of the most graceful of arts. But also the most powerful. Many of these so-called "esoteric" arts, if practiced with the correct intensity, can be as powerful (and overpowering) as any mma or aggressive style.

In the traditional Aikido dojo, for example, one would have to take ukemi - or, the art of falling - for at least 2 years before one could fully participate. I think it's this kind of "old-school" discipline that's been transmuted over the years...especially into this idea of a pat eastern "austerity" that seems so prevalent in western culture.

Chad

blech