[gakada]

Another casualty of the internet.

Before the web, you would pretty much only learn about whatever martial arts were available in your area. There was no objective truth. In the absence of evidence, comparisons between martial arts were done on a subjective level: does it look cool?

Now, anybody can look up kung fu on youtube, and if they do they'll see that it's a bit shit, compared with the others. No sane person is going to dedicate years of their life into learning something that is a bit shit.

In general the world has become a lot more factual in the last 25 years.

[arcanus]

I think you are over-selling the internet's contribution. The growth of MMA has been the real driver. UFC1 (and even PRIDE, a bit) was originally billed as a 'meeting of martial arts styles', where different disciplines could compete. The fact that an undersized ji-jitsu master won the first UFC really demonstrated the efficacy of that martial art.

The present ascendency of Muay Thai and BJJ (Brazilian school of ji-jitsu) is a direct product of this sorting of martial arts effectiveness against competing disciplines. Karate and Kung-Fu's substantial drop are also related, as they are essentially unused in modern MMA.

[mightybyte]

> The present ascendency of Muay Thai and BJJ (Brazilian school of ji-jitsu) is a direct product of this sorting of martial arts effectiveness against competing disciplines. Karate and Kung-Fu's substantial drop are also related, as they are essentially unused in modern MMA.

It's important to keep in mind that many of the most effective self defense techniques are illegal in organized fighting competitions. These include eye gouging, throat strikes, biting, joint breaks, stomps, kidney shots, downward elbows, etc. IMO this seriously limits the ability of these competitions to predict how various styles will fare in real life or death self defense situations.

[jblow]

There's another factor: MMA fights are one-on-one in a controlled environment. If you get into a fight in a bar and take your opponent to the ground, his friend is going to kick you in the head and now you have a concussion. MMA fights and the styles that succeed most frequently in MMA are based around this kind of maneuver, and it works because you know you are fighting one dude and nobody else is going to bother you.

[St-Clock]

And:

1. The floor is likely slippery.

2. It's dark

3. Glass mugs/Bottles can be broken and used as a weapon

4. There are hard table corners (watch out if you fall!)

5. There are chairs in the way (or maybe they can help you if you like to wield chairs!!)

A football team once picked a fight in a bar with a kung fu school. One of the best Kung Fu student slipped on the floor and his 15 years of kung fu went out of the window very very very quickly :-)

[dragonwriter]

> It's important to keep in mind that many of the most effective self defense techniques are illegal in organized fighting competitions.

Its also important to keep in mind that, while historically most martial arts (including those in which sport competitions involving the unarmed subset have been popular) include training in weapons (in some cases ones which, while purpose built, are intentionally stand-ins for things which might commonly be used as improvised weapons), MMA competitions -- like most full force combat sport competitions, and for good reason -- completely exclude the use of weapons. Both the fact that you won't have or be improvising a weapon and the fact that you don't have to deal with your opponent having or improvising a weapon is a significant difference from conditions in many real-world fights.

And also that MMA competitions take place on a mat enclosed by a cage, an environment which does not simulate the environmental conditions of many real-world fights particularly closely.

MMA competitions are perhaps good at showing which unarmed techniques are optimum for the conditions and rules under which they are held; generalizing from them to which are most useful for real-world fights is, well, pretty much the same error as generalizing from any combat sport to the real world.

[hinkley]

Add in some sort of romance about how martial arts means you don't have to hurt someone to defend your own life.

People get very uncomfortable if you tell them that in a life and death situation where the attacker is in close and it's too late to run, that you're going straight for the windpipe or a knee. Dude is trying to kill me. I'm not fucking around. How much footage do you have to see of knife attacks before you figure out that if they can walk and breathe nothing else you do is going to dissuade them?

[JulianMorrison]

They are optimized for a situation that simply doesn't occur in the modern world: rivals duelling to the death with martial arts.

[aqme28]

> It's important to keep in mind that many of the most effective self defense techniques are illegal in organized fighting competitions

How are you determining what is "most effective"? Keep in mind that if a hypothesis can't be tested, it's pseudoscience.

[S_Daedalus]

I used to think that too, but to be honest, how many good MMA fighters leave those kind of openings?

[joesmo]

Every single one that goes to the ground, so pretty much all of them. If you want to simulate real life, going to the ground is an immediate loss as the guy's buddy will hit you over the head and kill you. So not only do MMA fighters leave openings my grandma could exploit (with a baseball bat from behind), they do so intentionally! I respect the sport, but it is certainly nothing at all like real world fighting.

[mightybyte]

I would say very often. For an example, let's look at the throat strike. Any time you could plausibly punch someone in the face, it could instead be a throat strike. It takes much less force to end a confrontation with a strike to the throat than it does to the face. This seriously changes the dynamics of the confrontation. This same reasoning also applies pretty well to eye gouges.

Now consider hits to the back of the head. If an MMA fighter exposes the back of his head to you, the quickest way to end it would be a palm strike to the base of the skull: lights out. But because that's illegal fighters will be a lot more likely to go for something like a rear naked choke, taking the fight to the ground and artificially inflating the value of grappling.

And that's just three of the many illegal moves.

[trhway]

> Any time you could plausibly punch someone in the face, it could instead be a throat strike.

not really. If you look at a good boxer during a fight, you'd not see any opening for a throat strike.

Boxing, being one of the most practically efficient techniques at the "upper floor", is perceived and frequently really is missing at the "ground floor" and this is where Muai Thai comes in - basically extending the boxing for hands with the boxing for legs, as out of the many footwork styles - taekwondo, karate, kung-fu - the Muai Thai's footwork is the most similar to the boxing ideology and style.

[S_Daedalus]

That's my impression too. Gouges and the rest can create opening, and they're an edge if you're evenly matched with someone, but in the same way that sharpshooting might. It's a skill, an interesting one, but how often does a fight with pistols come down to really precise aim, rather than hitting the head or center of mass?

I think it's similar in physical combat, although some elements like the dropped elbows and kicking a downed opponent would definitely end a match faster, you have to drop them first.

[gmarx]

Those moves were't illegal (except eye gouge I think) in the early days of UFC and I don't think they decided any fights.

Still, I agree with your point that UFC shows us the best mix of skills for that particular set of constraints, not necessarily for self defense in the outside world.

Also, in sports there is always the occasional surprise new technique that dominates for a while until others train to counter it. In the early days of MMA grappling alone could win, as long as you had a finishing move (which is why early on some of the huge greco roman wrestlers could dominate a match and still lose).

[caminante]

I don't view the unified MMA rules as demonstrative of a technique's effectiveness. The rules were crafted to preserve the longevity of fighter careers. These are trained fighters on an even playing field.

Pulling off eye gouging and throat strikes are low probability and expose a fighter. Bas Rutten has a bit on these techniques, their effectiveness, and how doing either leaves an opening.

[mightybyte]

> Pulling off eye gouging and throat strikes are low probability and expose a fighter.

A throat strike is no lower probability or more exposing than pulling off a punch to the face. It's just a couple inches away...

[caminante]

  I think you are over-selling the internet's contribution. 
  The growth of MMA has been the real driver.

I think you're talking past the parent comment.

He's saying that the Internet shined a light and exposed "bullshido" martial arts. BJJ, muay thai, wrestling, and kickboxing didn't need an MMA forum to raise doubts. They needed visibility. The Internet makes the social proof easily accessible without having to buy a PPV, rent a DVD, or attend a fight. The exposure has correctly labeled many of these cultish martial arts for what they are -- ineffective combat systems.

The sad part is that for a sizeable minority, it almost takes a Youtube intervention with many videos such as this one [0] to convince them that no amount of aikido training will let them mow through a wave of attackers.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

[JulianMorrison]

Some of them are nonsense. Some of them are a knife being used as a screwdriver. A duelling art is not a sport art is not a self-defense art.

[S_Daedalus]

As an avid fencer, I couldn't agree more! My first instinct, trained into me for years with fencing has to do with scoring points on specific areas, in specific ways, not killing or surviving. It might look a little similar to the uninitiated, but it's basically night and day. Never mind that I've trained with little metal foils, sabers and epees, that probably weigh a fraction of a proper steel blade, I just wouldn't know what to do with it to literally save my life.

[JulianMorrison]

If you want to experience the difference, maybe look into any local HEMA groups.

Full weight steel swords aren't all that heavy, especially if well balanced, but they have inertia and aren't whippy and flexible.

[whiddershins]

Aikido is a great art. The video you linked to is not anything to do with Aikido.

[caminante]

Yes, the instructor's "school" isn't labeled in the video. That said, you have to admit the opening sequence shows misleading effectiveness much like that of (explicitly labeled) aikido. He's grabbing wrist control from people charging him and using the (similar?) techniques of aikido.

Aikido's heavily criticized [0] for using these attack caricatures both in practice and sales. In real life, you're not catching punches or twirling actors.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido#Criticisms

[gakada]

And where does the average young person in Hong Kong go to watch MMA? YouTube.

As a Brit, the only reason I can even comprehend your comment, is because I have read Americans talking about UFC on the internet, and watched some clips on youtube.

[Ntrails]

> And where does the average young person in Hong Kong go to watch MMA? YouTube.

If they watch MMA at all. I have no idea what the market penetration of MMA is globally but I think it's a stretch to assume that the majority of children interested in martial arts are influenced by it.

[busterarm]

Knockdown Karate is still a part of many top fighters' arsenal. K-1 was started by Seidokaikan martial artists.

That's just not the kind of thing folks are learning at their local Tiger Schulman's. Also the political drama surrounding the split of Kyokushin has caused it to virtually disappear in most areas.

[gambler]

Many people tend to forget that Gracies were partly responsible for organizing UFC1 and that self-promotion was very much the goal of their involvement.

[ProAm]

  > No sane person is going to dedicate years of their life into learning something that is a bit shit.  
  >  
  > In general the world has become a lot more factual in the last 25 years.

This statement is sort of absurd. For the sense of learning a military art form for combat yes. But there is a lot more to martial arts than fighting. Why learn Tai Chi or Yoga? If the world is more factual why are people still playing american football? Why do people join a football team when the coach is obviously garbage (after all they can tell from watching on the internet that they are not learning the best football)...

[r_smart]

>Why learn Tai Chi or Yoga?

To my knowledge Yoga has never been practiced as a form of combat. Tai Chi is rarely taught as such. To actually answer your question, look at why those things are taught: wellness.

>why are people still playing american football?

If your goal is to get rich playing sports, and you're good at your sport, then football is a great choice to make. It's one of the largest sports in the US, minimum pay is something north of $500k / year. I'm not sure why you even put this in here.

>Why do people join a football team when the coach is obviously garbage?

You've decided to pursue a career in football. Where you live there is one choice. Or, possibly, it's like why would you choose to work at Amazon these days? Short term sacrifice for long term gain (credibility gained from working there).

As a, possibly interesting, anecdote: I practiced Aikido for 10 years. Broadly painted, there are two major schools of thought in Aikido, those who want to pursue it as a traditional Japanese martial art, and those who want it to be more like the modern iteration of Tai Chi (at least as taught in the US). I was in the former camp, and was constantly frustrated with the latter. Stripping out the ideas of martial effectiveness and replacing it with new age philosophy did not result in a better promotion of wellness (not mental wellness and certainly not physical wellness) in my opinion, it just washed out the merits of the art. When you train yourself with a martial attitude, you work harder, you take your training more seriously, you develop focus, discipline, tolerance for pain. You push your limits. As your ability grows you put yourself in conflict with your ego and the nastier sides of yourself. Arrogance is a natural consequence, and you get the opportunity to temper that. It's only through doing that hard work that you can arrive at any sense of internal peace, at least in my opinion. Not just peace when you are laying in a hammock reading, but also peace in conflict.

Take away the desire for martial validity and replace it with New Age philosophy and you have a practice that creates the illusion of personal development while doing very little to actually achieve the aspirations set forth in its ideals. The time that should be spent honing your body and your personality is instead spent on an activity not much more useful than laying in a hammock reading. Fun? Yes. Intellectually stimulating? Sure. But not in line with making progress towards the stated goals.

[up_and_up]

> To my knowledge Yoga has never been practiced as a form of combat

An ancient Indian martial art that includes yoga: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalaripayattu

"The foundation of modern Asian martial arts is likely a blend of early Chinese and Indian martial arts." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts#Historical_martia...

[naravara]

I think the conflation is mostly from a confusion in terms. Old Sanskrit treatises and sketches on hand to hand combat somewhat resemble the techniques in Muay Boran, the ancient precursor to sport Muay Thai, more than Patanjali's yoga sutras that form the basis of what we today think of as "yoga."

But the term "yoga" was historically applied to many sorts of disciplines, both mental and physical. It is likely that Patanjali's sutras were largely general knowledge in ancient India as ways to stay fit and limber, basically like the calisthenics everyone does today.

So it's likely it would have been integrated as part of any physical training regimens that came out of India. So basically, the yoga techniques and postures would be part of the martial arts training in the same way push ups and jumping jacks are.

[up_and_up]

> It is likely that Patanjali's sutras were largely general knowledge in ancient India as ways to stay fit and limber

You must be referring to the Hatha Yoga Pradipika or Gheranda Samhita since PYS doesnt deal with individual asanas/gymnastic yoga whatsoever?

PYS is split into 4 parts: 1. Details regarding superconscious states (samadhi), 2. The means of practice by which samadhi can be attained, 3. the supernatural powers associated with and attained via samadhi including their dangers and pitfalls, 4. how to transcend all the lower samadhis and attain final and complete liberation.

Asanas are only mentioned in the 2nd part and in that context only really mean how to sit properly to attain deep meditation. Gymnastic yoga is nowhere to be found in the book.

[r_smart]

Interesting, thought I would argue that's not Yoga as a martial art, rather as a component of training. We don't say jogging is a martial art even though most every professional fighter has jogging as part of their regimen.

Tai Chi on the other hand used to be a martial art and essentially moved into the same space as Yoga.

[beachstartup]

i think most people in high level and professional combat sports community would say the real root cause here is MMA (specifically UFC). the internet has certainly accelerated its influence though, and given it a reach that payperview and video tapes could never have facilitated.

basically, there's only a small handful of martial arts that actually work in applied person-to-person combat without weapons. and they're all largely useless in the real world when faced with multiple opponents and/or weapons. critically, you must know all or most of these skills or else you will get taken advantage of. mma has proven that it's basically western wrestling, BJJ (which draws on judo), muay thai and kickboxing, western boxing, and most importantly, an insanely rigorous cardio and strength training program that will allow you to last even a few seconds in the ring with a real fighter.

and even then... you could get your ass knocked out in literally 2 seconds. see: mcgregor. that isn't to say it won't change in the future, but that's basically where it is now.

[arcanus]

Completely agree with the above.

> there's only a small handful of martial arts that actually work in applied person-to-person combat

Even MMA, which is billed as a sorting of martial art's effectiveness, has substantial rules that greatly limit the fighters. For instance, no groin strikes, leg stomps or eye gouges: all of which are actions I've heard are the first thing you should do in a real fight!

Not arguing they should be legal (sport is brutal enough as it is), but even MMA, while closer to "real combat", has severe limitations and arbitrary features.

> all largely useless in the real world when faced with multiple opponents

^ This, 1000x. If you get into a fight you were not planning, it is called an ambush. The most logical action is to run the hell away, or at least, use absolutely overwhelming firepower and dirty, dirty attacks. The concept of two folks trading blows is not how real fights actual progress, let alone two kung-fu masters jumping between buildings...

[wott]

I have always been amazed when I saw friends or acquaintances, who had 10 to 20 years experience of various 'martial' arts, get into bar/street fights. They would exchange never-ending low-kicks and middle-kicks, which were absolutely useless and ineffective, and, after a while, fall or be grabbed and put to the ground.

In comparison, as far as I am concerned, completely untrained (meeting twice a week in a room to hit-on-and-get-hit-by-other-people-but-not-too-much is a concept that feels alien to me), my street/bar fights never lasted more than a few tenths of second. A good old straight punch in the nose/chin with all your body weight, or a good old knee in the balls/liver/ribs/plexus (depends on the size of the bugger, but it always lands somewhere that hurts or incapacitates), or, if in a creative mood, a lift-projection-crash/crush over and under a wall and table. Opponent sleeping, problem solved, can continue heading back home or having another drink, thank you. Oh, yeah, and one very important parameter is to hit first.

I cannot run, so that's not an option and I have to solve problems in a different way (which can include me spending a night in the hospital because the "hit first" thing only works when there is only 1, or perhaps 2 opponents).

This was just to say I have never been convinced by the application of martial arts training in real conditions. Unless people turn themselves into war killing machines, which I do not consider a good thing to do and to be as long as we live in an overall reasonably civilised world.

[krapp]

>This was just to say I have never been convinced by the application of martial arts training in real conditions.

With all due respect, though, unless you know hundreds of trained martial artists and have witnessed them get into hundreds of fights, the data set by which you're judging the validity of martial arts training seems a bit small.

Like a lot of people, you seem to be confusing confusing katas with actual fighting. "meeting twice a week in a room to hit-on-and-get-hit-by-other-people-but-not-too-much" isn't about training for actual real-world combat, it's a martial art, meaning there is a study of form, balance, coordination, etc. involved. Not every martial art is even that practical in the real world (i'm looking at you Aikido.)

But everything you mention as seeming more practical and useful than martial arts? Is still martial arts. "kick them in the balls and punch them in the face" is martial arts.

[S4M]

Where do you live? In all my adult life I've never been in a street fight, and must know like one or two persons who have once.

[the_rosentotter]

I've been in a street fight. The guy attacked, I pushed him back, he came again, I tried to hit him over the head with a beer bottle. He parried with his arm, crashing the bottle, then we tangled and rolled around on the ground a bit. Thank God he was just a clueless frat kid, and his ten friends broke us apart, instead of stomping my head in. Lesson learned: Don't leave it on luck for your life and future mobility. Don't get into street fights.

[saint_fiasco]

Could that be the curse of development?

The martial artist expects that a straight punch to the face will be blocked and countered, so they don't do that, even though in a street fight against an amateur, that is the best strategy.

It's similar to beginner's luck in videogames, where an expert player can't predict the beginner's moves because they play badly, so they lose the first time.

[Jtsummers]

Modern martial arts are also a lot about the sport, not the combat. We had this discussion in my office with a few of us who've done various martial arts over the years (varying degrees of skill, dedication). A lot of martial arts are about the points in competitions. If you land a punch, it's a point. It doesn't matter how strong, it matters how quick. In BJJ competitions, the one who might win a street fight won't necessarily win the match, because they put themselves in disadvantaged positions (opponent gets points) to gain a better position for a submission (not guaranteed to happen, but they win if they do, lose if they don't, it's a gambit).

[bigato]

> Even MMA, which is billed as a sorting of martial art's effectiveness, has substantial rules that greatly limit the fighters. For instance, no groin strikes, leg stomps or eye gouges: all of which are actions I've heard are the first thing you should do in a real fight!

So you've heard. How does that prove it would be effective? - It's very hard to eye gouge. If you miss, you break your finger. If you hit, you most likely just make your opponent look away and grab your hand. - It's not easy to hit a groin strike, nor any strike, and the pain is not that debilitating in a fight, not more than a broken rib or dislocated chin.

If you don't believe me that dirty tricks don't work, you don't need to take my word on it. Take a look at bullshido.com, where you'll find more than enough evidence. Just as one example, take vale tudo fights in Brazil before they were made in a sport with "no-dirty-tricks" rules.

Dirty attacks won't save you from a single fighter, let alone a group of people.

[anbende]

Came here to say this.

I see a lot of high kicks in MMA too. I've been taught to never do that, because if the person grabs the kick (or just takes the hit) and attacks my back leg, that'll be that.

In other words, the back and forth kind of kickboxing that you see is partially a product of the fighters not being allowed to aim for disabling blows.

It's unclear to me what fights would look like and whether any other arts would rise up if the fighter protections were removed. (and I'm not sure I want to find out)

[Jtsummers]

I suspect they'd look like some of the really early UFC fights which were ludicrously brutal, and consequently banned in many US states.

[bigato]

Just like "vale tudo" fights in Brazil before it became a sport.

[jessaustin]

...eye gouges... the first thing you should do in a real fight!

Eh, if one fears for one's life, that's probably an option, but otherwise it seems like a sure ticket to prison. A good reason to avoid all avoidable "real" fights.

[r_smart]

Yeah. One thing you don't learn enough about when you train in martial arts is that you can get royally screwed by the law. If a decent lawyer convinces a judge you're a deadly weapon (and a missing eye might help support that), then it's going to go badly for you. In defense of martial arts training, the general rule is don't ever fight civilians. And of course, the confidence of knowing how to fight leaves you with much less of a feeling of having something to prove.

I worked as a bouncer for awhile, and even though I was the only one who was competent in a fight, I never had to use any of it unless I was cleaning up someone else's mess. They'd all sit there and let things get out of hand before doing something, and then I'd have to go 'fix' it.

[jff]

Hahaha, "my hands are registered as deadly weapons"

[r_smart]

Is that from something? I feel like I should recognize it. I always think of ConAir when this comes up. Clearly the best treatment of the issue possible.

[oblio]

Same for hits to the throat or the back of the neck. Decent chance that the target dies and then you're in a ton more trouble than you started with.

Going for the knees should be safe :)

[coldtea]

>Another casualty of the internet. Before the web, you would pretty much only learn about whatever martial arts were available in your area. There was no objective truth.

Yeah, thank god for the internet for giving us that.

>In the absence of evidence, comparisons between martial arts were done on a subjective level: does it look cool?

I'm not sure where you lived, but I lived in a peripheral western country in Europe, and even 10 years before the "internet" (www), we had tons of various martial arts schools available, from Kung-Fu to Tae-Kwon-Do to Thai Kick Boxing, Capoeira, Krav Maga, Tai Chi and several more varieties I don't even care about.

Infact, if anything, the golden age of such practices was mostly in the 70s and 80s (with Bruce Lee, Karate Kid, and the pulp action/karate movies).

[astazangasta]

>In general the world has become a lot more factual in the last 25 years.

Once again, there is no objective truth. The world (you, really) has adopted a new orthodoxy and become convinced it is fact.

Modern MMA was developed to showcase BJJ as developed by the Gracie family; the rules explicitly favor grappling. The idea that we can learn something about the "objective truth" about "effective fighting styles" by watching youtube videos is ridiculous.

In reality, the most effective street fighting style probably involves groin kicks, eye gouges and finger-locks, the attacks on the most vulnerable points in the human body. No one will (1) teach you these styles and (2) showcase them on television.

Furthermore, no matter what, different martial arts will appeal to different people. There are probably hundreds of styles of Chinese martial art that could be called "kung fu", including grappling styles, striking styles, throwing styles, weapon styles, etc. Different people will have differing aptitudes for each of these styles, and they will be appropriate in different situations.

There IS no best fighting style, because there is no single "fight". If someone shows up with a gun or perhaps even a sword, your BJJ or Muay Thai is useless. Similarly, if your opponent is twice your weight and only knows how to crush you with his arms, it doesn't matter that your style is not "a bit shit" like his, he will probably crush you with his arms.

[justinhj]

I trained in taekwondo and I can say we absolutely were taught the dirty techniques. Most of the class focused on physical training and traditional moves, but often a self defence section would show how to expand the basic moves to take people down and disable them. Eyes and throat were targets we practised with as well as the groin (although I seem to remember most of the likely attacks your face on the street don't really give you time to go for that area)

[r_smart]

On the street, techniques that rely mostly on inflicting pain aren't so great. This is why chokeholds and debilitating joint locks are preferable. You may not feel the pain (for whatever reason) but your arm is still broken and no longer functional. Or you're unconscious.

The weakness to BJJ is that if there's more than one person, things can get hairy for you, and the training doesn't focus on this much (or at all in most places I think).

[bigato]

>The weakness to BJJ is that if there's more than one person, things can get hairy for you, and the training doesn't focus on this much (or at all in most places I think).

If there is more than one person, things are going to get hairy anyway. Although some boxing/muay thai could help to some extent.

[r_smart]

Agreed, but coiling yourself around someone and rolling on the ground is a terrible position to be in when that someone has friends. The reality of most street fights is it's just drunk people being idiots. That usually means friends are around.

[bigato]

I'd say that not having 360 degree vision is a terrible shortcoming when your opponent has friends anyway. But also, bjj does not happen only on the ground, specially if you are talking about drunk people being idiots. Do not underestimate the power of a takedown to the cement, for example.

[r_smart]

> I'd say that not having 360 degree vision is a terrible shortcoming

Well now you're just being silly :)

>Do not underestimate the power of a takedown to the cement

I'm aware. I practiced Aikido for 10 years and BJJ for a year. BJJ doesn't really practice throwing with power, rather, it's usually a setup to disabling through grappling techniques. While I would readily admit Aikido is less martially effective overall (fairly tied to the traditional attacks & style of Japanese martial arts, which are often not practical), something that is explicitly trained for is fighting multiple opponents, throwing people into other people and throwing with power.

[bigato]

>> I'd say that not having 360 degree vision is a terrible shortcoming

> Well now you're just being silly :)

Well, I just meant that dealing with more than one opponent is a problem in BJJ as much as it is a problem in any other fighting style. It's not worse in BJJ because it has grappling and ground techniques. If you are exclusively a boxing fighter, for example, having people attack you from behind is also a big deal.

[speeder]

Kung Fu is sadly sort of ignoring the Internet.

The kung fu academy I went had self defense, routines, championship fighting and flashy presentation classes... sadly, little of it is on Internet, I saw amazing stuff there in person that I can't find on YouTube to show to people.

That said, they recently hired a krav-maga teacher too.

[igk]

Which is kind of...ok? I studied ewto wing chun, and in our small "fight club" I always came out pretty well against the boxer/kick boxers if the group. So I'd say there are definitely"effective" styles, based on anecdotal evidence. A lot also depends on what you want to learn. If you want flashy moves, do gymnastics and learn wushu. I wanted a soft, but "effective" style, a friend of mine wanted power and hard hitting, so he went thaiboxing...so people will learn what they want, as always living styles today can be archived and resurrected later, or they can morph and survive