10 ms·

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 object

by gakada 10y ago

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.

speeder 10y ago
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.
arcanus 10y ago
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.
- gakada 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    > 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.
- mightybyte 10y ago
  > 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.
  - S_Daedalus 10y ago
    I used to think that too, but to be honest, how many good MMA fighters leave those kind of openings?
    - mightybyte 10y ago
      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.
      - caminante 10y ago
        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.
- busterarm 10y ago
  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.
- caminante 10y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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.
        10y ago
- gambler 10y ago
  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 10y ago
> 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 10y ago
  >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.
beachstartup 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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...
  - anbende 10y ago
    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)
igk 10y ago
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
coldtea 10y ago
>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 10y ago
>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.
- r_smart 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    >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.

by gakada 10y ago

speeder 10y ago

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.

arcanus 10y ago

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.

gakada 10y ago
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 10y ago
  > 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.
mightybyte 10y ago
> 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.
- S_Daedalus 10y ago
  I used to think that too, but to be honest, how many good MMA fighters leave those kind of openings?
  - mightybyte 10y ago
    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.
    - caminante 10y ago
      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.
busterarm 10y ago
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.
caminante 10y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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.
      - 10y ago
gambler 10y ago
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 10y ago

> 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 10y ago
>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.

beachstartup 10y ago

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 10y ago
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...
- anbende 10y ago
  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)

igk 10y ago

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

coldtea 10y ago

>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 10y ago

>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.

r_smart 10y ago
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 10y ago
  >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.