9 ms·

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual c

I was a great believer in karate as a combat sport for many years. The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. Karate has value in combat, but it’s certainly not as effective as I originally thought. I took my son to do karate training for a year and watched the classes and honestly it seemed pretty worthless to me as a way of learning to fight/defend yourself. Most of the training rituals id say are more akin to tai chi or dancing…. doing katas is pretty much pointless. We left the karate club. Most martial arts training seems to me to be tangential to actually training the student to actually win a fight. If your goal is for your child to learn to fight, then do boxing or kickboxing or Brazilian jiu jitsu.

fastball 5y ago
I was always under the impression that Karate wasn't particularly useful for combat / self-defense. Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense.
- bloniac 5y ago
  That or boxing or kickboxing or wrestling or bjj. Those are the only truly effective combat sports. Perhaps judo too.
  - datameta 5y ago
    It is the confidence in being able to defend oneself that leads one to avoid having fights intitiated with them by virtue of how they comport themselves in a relaxed unthreatened manner. To top it off, training in something like muay thai will get the kid a great headstart on leading a fit lifestyle. Never done an aerobic activity more tiring or sweat inducing.
    - bloniac 5y ago
      Ah yes I forgot Muay Thai… that’s the real deal for sure.
      - datameta 5y ago
        Oh you pretty much covered my point with kickboxing and the rest :) Only adding a specific one from my experience.
  - weimerica 5y ago
    The only push-back I have on BJJ (as I practice both KM and BJJ) is that there is a huge sport-orientation whereas KM, assuming trained competently, is a combative system such that you'll often get a "practice this slowly and carefully because you can and will cause damage to your partner." Personally, I have a little harder of a time training BJJ for the reason that everyone thinks it is the best for real-world defense but the reality is many moves open you up to serious maiming in a combative environment. Take for example the typical "get past the guard" move, I most always have the option in a true fight of grabbing your knees and splaying them outward leaving you with an unfortunate convalescent leave, perhaps permanent injury. More generally, if you're going for true-blue self-defense any sporting-oriented art is good but not great - you'll do well against an untrained assailant, which is likely a good chunk of the threat model.
    - jerednel 5y ago
      perhaps im misunderstanding but just pushing someones knees apart when you are in their closed guard just wouldn't work. and given the presence of the electric chair and the twister i'm not sure that any approach to passing guard would necessarily be disallowed unless you are striking.
- anon_tor_12345 5y ago
  >Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense i'm not big on martial arts or even mma but for some reason i've seen this argument in various places often enough that i've also seen the appropriate response: if that were true then all of the most successful mma fighters would be krav maga experts. in actuality not a single one practices krav maga. the proof is in the pudding.
  - askvictor 5y ago
    I'm similarly not into MMA, but I wouldn't think it's a good system to determine real-world performance of a martial art. Most people aren't going to be pitted against high-level fighters in a ring; they'll be out on the street. It comes down to why you're learning the martial art, and to some degree, what your threat model is.
  - GloriousKoji 5y ago
    Maybe because MMA is a sport and not an actual life or death combat? I'm sure if they allowed things like throat jabs, eye stabs, crotch shots and immediate joint dislocation upon grapple we'd see a lot more krav maga techniques.
    - Silhouette 5y ago
      This is a popular argument but it doesn't work if you think about it for a while. Put a good striker in a fight with someone who isn't a good striker. The skilled fighter would evade most of what the unskilled fighter threw at them. There isn't even much need for blocking and covering if most of what is coming at you isn't making significant contact in the first place. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't land a punch on the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to land an extremely precise strike to a vulnerable area now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have more power and accuracy and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? It's the same with grappling. It's true that a joint lock can be devastating and that's why we usually disallow most of them in combat sports, but to be applied reliably you need some control over the area around the joint. Put a good grappler in a fight with someone who isn't a good grappler. The good grappler is going to control the position better. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't get a good position to control the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to apply an effective joint lock now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have a better position to work from and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? MMA is a sport and an MMA match isn't like a "real" fight for all kinds of reasons but simple, efficient, effective techniques such as you see in MMA matches are a good foundation for "real" fighting too, even if you might choose to add other types of training as well for use outside the controlled environment.
- paulmooreparks 5y ago
  There isn't a single art that I'd call "karate." There are many styles, and they have many schools and lineages. The style I studied was taught for free in the sensei's basement, and it was, to put it bluntly, a rather brutal art. Not many parents would be into it (all of the students were adults in my dojo). Not to take anything away from Krav Maga and similar styles. There's just a lot of variation in what is called karate.
tlear 5y ago
Most of the karate schools in US are just after school daycare for kids. There are good clubs, but you have to research them. Most Kyokushin clubs will teach you quite a bit Foundation of modern karate was in the era when every boy in Japan did Judo in school. Every accomplished karate teacher at the time also was a decent judoka. For example Oyama who founded Kyokushin was a great grappler, many Natinal level judoka also trained karate. You have to train grappling or you might as well not bother training at all.
vnorilo 5y ago
The street effectiveness of a MA is a function of time spent sparring, something that is prevalent in the arts you mention, in addition to coverage of standing and ground game. Strikers will have just a brief window of opportunity before grapplers take them down. On the other hand, even super effective grappling art like BJJ becomes pretty useless if you face two assailants.
- datameta 5y ago
  Against two assailants, if there is no chance to escape the fight through words or running, the best deal is to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible to the more confident of the two. The other will usually lose the fire. Speaking as a stand-up striker. Ymmv.
  - vnorilo 5y ago
    Agreed - what I was trying to convey was that BJJ is a very good bet for defending yourself one on one, but if you face multiple assailants it is useless. A good striker may stand a chance against two or three aggressive drunks (untrained, not methodical) with the strategy you described.
    - datameta 5y ago
      From the small amount of grappling I know in comparison I fully agreed with you. One can't hope to effectively control two bodies at once. Focusing on person one makes you a great target for the other(s). However knowing some good ground game to supplement striking would at least help knowing how to avoid being taken down.
- boxed 5y ago
  All martial arts are pretty much worthless against multiple attackers though. If you're Mike Tyson you could probably do well against two, but then the odds go down sharply at three, four, etc. It's just math.
  - 5y ago
99_00 5y ago
To train to win a fight you need sparing. Full contact sparing in boxing, kickboxing, or even karate has dangers. A practitioner has to work up to full contact sparing in a controlled way. And even then there is risk of brain damage. I'm not up to date with the latest science, but I wouldn't risk my child's brain on something as unimportant as winning a fight. On the other hand, with grappling sports like wrestling, judo, BJJ, you can start sparing the first class. And the risk of brain injury (I assume) is less than every other contact sport. So your child will get more time sparing. Which would translate to better real life fighting skill. In the end, by being in some sort of combat sport your child will probably lose interest in winning fights on the street or playground. Every time they show up to class they are defeating others and being defeated. It loses its emotional charge and they don't need to prove themselves to random people.
- jbverschoor 5y ago
  They don’t have to compete in full contact. Uncontrolled bjj will break your arms, elbows etc easily
  - 99_00 5y ago
    Yes, I agree. By full contact, I meant in the sport sense (rules allow for physical impact) not in the sense that full force should be used.
- unishark 5y ago
  Full-contact always implies dangers, hence the need to differentiate it from light sparring or whatever. I once read somewhere that high school wrestling has the highest career-ending injuries of any major sport, at 40 percent. Football was closer to 30. But I agree head injuries are a far bigger concern than elbow/knee etc. And making striking arts safe tends to make them unrealistic. So grappling sports like Judo are a much better combination of self-defense and safety.
- wincy 5y ago
  I cracked a rib within the first two weeks of BJJ. Dude rolled his elbow into my ribs and all his weight went to that spot. Hurt for months. I didn’t sue and they didn’t charge me anything. That was my BJJ experience at 32
giardini 5y ago
bioniac says >"Most martial arts training seems to me to be tangential to actually training the student to actually win a fight...If your goal is for your child to learn to fight..."< But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever? Doing so would require teaching things (s)he does not fully understand and are emotionally unprepared for, e.g., maiming or killing someone. [OTOH if you want to teach that to a child, then teach him how to be a doctor b/c doctors know how the human body works better than almost anyone else and how best to turn it off.] Instead set other goals: self-confidence, pride, athletic skill and endurance. I would first explain the role MA plays and constantly emphasize avoidance of hostile situations. IMO teaching anyone (including children) good evasion/escape is more useful than MA and more fun.
- bloniac 5y ago
  You are precisely correct. In most cases parents are happy with “self defence theatre” in which the parent feels they’ve done the right thing, in which the child feels confidence because they falsely believe they can defend themselves. Most parents I think would be reluctant to have their children really learn to fight/defend themselves. When parents tell me their kids are doing karate, and if they are interested in my thoughts, then I ask them, “exactly why are they doing karate? Do you know? What’s your true goal?” And if their real, true goal is self defence then I gently explain there’s better options than karate.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever? I teach my girls to fight. My intention is 1. to keep them out of fights 2. to make sure they can escape or win any fight someone else forces upon them. Play dumb, hide your worries, try to talk yourself out, if it doesn't work hit, grab and twist or kick with the intent to cause severe pain. Then shout and run. An armed society is a polite society and I do my part. If an assailant get hurt I can live with that. The bloke I gave a beating some 25 years or so ago actually became a better person as far as I could se.
  - 5y ago
mathattack 5y ago
* If your goal is for your child to learn to fight, then do boxing or kickboxing or Brazilian jiu jitsu.* Yes and I’d add wrestling.
- renox 5y ago
  Yes as a former judoka I think that it's nearly useless in the real world, what if your opponent wears a no sleave tee-shirt? You've never trained for such situation! In one to one, wrestling can be useful but against two opponents it's useless too..
  - mathattack 5y ago
    I think beating two opponents is a myth at best for any Art - especially if they know what they’re doing.
codingdave 5y ago
I don't know many parents whose goal is for our children to learn to fight. We want them to be strong and healthy. To learn to have fun exercising, to learn control and the ability to listen to others, learn from others, and work with others. Martials arts is great for all that. So are other sports and activities. I've studied martial arts for 20 years of my life - never did I have a goal during that time of learning to fight, but I loved practicing, and loved the community of people I spent time with in those years.
- bloniac 5y ago
  >> I don't know many parents whose goal is for our children to learn to fight. Try asking parents whose kids do karate. I’m guessing a large number of them will say “self defence”, especially parents of girls.
  - watwut 5y ago
    1.) You are guessing. 2.) If you need to explain yourself to strangers who demand to be explained why your kid does this or that sport, you will say something simple and socially acceptable. Neurotypical people wont start explaining in nuance. 3.) No one ever asked me why my kids do dancing or swimming. It is simply not question anyone asks normally.
    - zepto 5y ago
      You are right that ‘why’ is rarely asked directly - it seems like a blunt interrogation. But, it’s quite common for people to ask questions like ‘how did they get into that?’. Also, why does it have to be a ‘stranger’ asking the question? Again I agree that would be odd, but it doesn’t seem odd for a friend to be curious. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817729
      - watwut 5y ago
        > But, it’s quite common for people to ask questions like ‘how did they get into that?’. No, I never had that question asked about dancing nor swimming or any other sport. I think it can possibly come out if someone finds the sport to be odd, but at this point Karate is not an odd sport. It is extremely common sport.
okuboheavy 5y ago
You don’t teach kids karate so they can learn how to fight. You teach kids karate to learn self control, self confidence, discipline and the value of not fighting.
- timbit42 5y ago
  What do you teach them for self-defense?
  - okuboheavy 5y ago
    You teach them karate for self defense. The best defense is not being in a fight. As soon as a fight starts you’ve rolled the dice. No matter how good you are at karate or any martial art you can still get your ass kicked. That is the most useful thing karate teaches you. It’s a sport and a practice. Real life isn’t like the movies.
2wrist 5y ago
I am not the biggest karate fan, I did it growing up. But it is just one way to think, to move, act and react. All martial arts give you a different flavour, they teach you different things. There is not one style that rules them all. Tai Chi as you mentioned, in Lee style and others is way to move and flow. To think and be. Unsurprisingly it is a foundation for Kung Fu (grappling, striking etc.) and the foundation for weapon styles. So a kata/form is a way to train yourself to move a particualar way. I appreciate that a 'stylised dance' may not be to everyones taste. But it is training your body and your mind to move a particular way. To react a particular way. To encode a way of holding yourself, of moving through space. Similar to Tai Chi being a foundation to a sytsem of fighting. So too is karate. You can augment it with Aikido, Judo, JuJitsu. You can add weapons too. The point is they all have value, (Samba and Systema look class) when you are younger you chase that outer excitement of testing yourself against others, I guess as you get older you start to think more about how to move and flow and think and be. Sometimes there is a need to be violent, but I am not sure if that is what a child should be taught. Self defence is not just what a martial art is for, it is so much more than learning to hurt someone else. IMHO.
watwut 5y ago
> The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. MMA is not an actual combat situation. A lot of what makes fighting style effective in real combat is simply not allowed in MMA (for good reasons). Things like: - attacking your penis and trying to cause injury there, - attacking your throat and trying to cause injury there, - sticking fingers into eyes, - trying to break knee by kicking where it breaks. Obviously it is not taught in any of those sports. Because they are sports.
- theflyinghorse 5y ago
  These arguments have all been beaten to death I'm afraid. General consensus is that a boxer who actually gets to punch and be punched by another human being will be far more effective at any of the eye gouges/throat attacks etc than someone who does not have sparring as a focus. Or just try to imagine a situation where someone who doesn't constantly train sparring can kick a knee of a kickboxer who does spar a lot and gets kicked a lot.
  - giardini 5y ago
    >"General consensus is that a boxer who actually gets to punch and be punched by another human being will be far more effective at any of the eye gouges/throat attacks etc than someone who does not have sparring as a focus."< Consensus? Has someone done an actual survey or a study? If you train, you will probably fight as you train. The techniques that you learn and repeat are the patterns that your brain will follow under stress of combat. BTW how does the typical MA fighter respond to someone who picks up a metal pipe (2x4, rock, knife, gun) and proceeds to attack the MA fighter? I would hope that (s)he would do the reasonable thing: get the hell out of the area! Avoidance & evasion are the most useful "martial arts".
    - theflyinghorse 5y ago
      > Consensus? Has someone done an actual survey or a study? Oh god no, there are no studies as far as I know. But what I refer to consensus is the general feeling one gets by browsing martial arts forums. There used to be a great forum on this very subject - bullshido. For years and years folks have discussed these exact questions of effectiveness of deadly martial art techniques. > Avoidance & evasion are the most useful "martial arts". Goes without saying!
harimau777 5y ago
Personally, I think that MMA has demonstrated the importance of sparring and grappling. However, I think that the value of MMA itself is less clear. MMA has been hurt a lot by the dominance of UFC. A lot of the details of UFC's rules distort its similarity to actual combat. For example: wearing gloves, fighting on highly padded floors, lenient rules on fighters circling each other, forbidding kicks and knees on the ground, fighting shirtless, etc. MMA also overlooks a lot of aspects of combat: - Situational awareness and deescalation - Responses that are appropriate for less forceful situation (e.g. control techniques) - Use of weapons - Defense against weapons - Strategies against multiple attackers Finally, I think that there is some survivor bias. Even if MMA is the ideal martial art for young fit males with an aptitude for athletics, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is ideal for people who are less physically or athletically gifted.
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  The early UFC, when it was owned and run by the Gracies, was probably as close as we're ever going to get to a "real" fight in a sport-based situation. And by that, I mean it was mostly two guys rolling on the ground, one of whom might have known what he was doing. I think that's fairly comparable to most bar fights a person is likely to encounter. Your point about weapons, situational awareness, and so on are well taken. Krav Maga claims to focus on those areas, and they generally admit that it won't make you as good at one-on-one fighting as BJJ, but will make you more likely to survive a fight where someone might stab you in the neck while you're trying to sink in your gogoplata. I don't know it that's accurate, but it makes sense. I also appreciate that, from the videos I've seen, Krav Maga stresses that the best self defence technique is enough cardio to run away.
denton-scratch 5y ago
Katas are a way to practice movements so that they become instinctive. They are performed quite slowly and deliberately, which means that at every stage of the movement you have to maintain balance and poise. It also means that practising katas strengthens your musculature. I tried tai chi for about 6 months. For us beginners, it was mostly katas, and I routinely came away with aching muscles. Advanced students used tai chi for sparring, and the instructor occasionally came in with swords, and did a rather alarming performance. As a kid I learned judo. That was mostly wrestling; but to advance, you had to do some kata work. I didn't find judo katas nearly as stretching as I later found tai chi katas; but I was 10 when I learned judo. I was 50 when I tried tai chi, and not very fit; so that might explain my different experiences. Karate was something that rough boys bragged about; it was clear to me that it was a technique for hurting people, so I stayed clear.
jollofricepeas 5y ago
I disagree. Vale Tudo came before MMA and had the most effective value for actual combat situations. - No rounds - No hand wraps and gloves - No resets to standing for “non-action” - Attacks to prone opponents The problem is that there’s a big gap between “sports martial arts” rules and “self defense.” Sport BJJ is just as bad as karate for self-defense because there’s lot of new movements that just don’t make sense when you’re attacked at a frat house or walking home late. Old school BJJ grappling (Carlson Gracie) with a focus on self defense is literally the best thing for smaller people, women & children because there’s a focus on: - minimizing damage to yourself - escaping and reversing compromising positions - having MULTIPLE options to either kill, break a bone or put your attacker to sleep - (if needed) striking with elbows and knees.
- coffee_addict 5y ago
  > The problem is that there’s a big gap between “sports martial arts” rules and “self defense.” The "sport" aspect is the most important part for becoming an effective fighter. And being an effective fighter is paramount for self-defense situations. The "sport vs self-defense" argument is a false dichotomy anyways. If my "sport" consists of me wrestling resisting humans to the ground, controlling all of their limbs, and potentially putting them to sleep, then my "sport" is an extremely effective form of self-defense.

fastball 5y ago

I was always under the impression that Karate wasn't particularly useful for combat / self-defense. Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense.

bloniac 5y ago
That or boxing or kickboxing or wrestling or bjj. Those are the only truly effective combat sports. Perhaps judo too.
- datameta 5y ago
  It is the confidence in being able to defend oneself that leads one to avoid having fights intitiated with them by virtue of how they comport themselves in a relaxed unthreatened manner. To top it off, training in something like muay thai will get the kid a great headstart on leading a fit lifestyle. Never done an aerobic activity more tiring or sweat inducing.
  - bloniac 5y ago
    Ah yes I forgot Muay Thai… that’s the real deal for sure.
    - datameta 5y ago
      Oh you pretty much covered my point with kickboxing and the rest :) Only adding a specific one from my experience.
- weimerica 5y ago
  The only push-back I have on BJJ (as I practice both KM and BJJ) is that there is a huge sport-orientation whereas KM, assuming trained competently, is a combative system such that you'll often get a "practice this slowly and carefully because you can and will cause damage to your partner." Personally, I have a little harder of a time training BJJ for the reason that everyone thinks it is the best for real-world defense but the reality is many moves open you up to serious maiming in a combative environment. Take for example the typical "get past the guard" move, I most always have the option in a true fight of grabbing your knees and splaying them outward leaving you with an unfortunate convalescent leave, perhaps permanent injury. More generally, if you're going for true-blue self-defense any sporting-oriented art is good but not great - you'll do well against an untrained assailant, which is likely a good chunk of the threat model.
  - jerednel 5y ago
    perhaps im misunderstanding but just pushing someones knees apart when you are in their closed guard just wouldn't work. and given the presence of the electric chair and the twister i'm not sure that any approach to passing guard would necessarily be disallowed unless you are striking.
anon_tor_12345 5y ago
>Krav Maga is the martial art that I've always thought of as actually useful for self-defense i'm not big on martial arts or even mma but for some reason i've seen this argument in various places often enough that i've also seen the appropriate response: if that were true then all of the most successful mma fighters would be krav maga experts. in actuality not a single one practices krav maga. the proof is in the pudding.
- askvictor 5y ago
  I'm similarly not into MMA, but I wouldn't think it's a good system to determine real-world performance of a martial art. Most people aren't going to be pitted against high-level fighters in a ring; they'll be out on the street. It comes down to why you're learning the martial art, and to some degree, what your threat model is.
- GloriousKoji 5y ago
  Maybe because MMA is a sport and not an actual life or death combat? I'm sure if they allowed things like throat jabs, eye stabs, crotch shots and immediate joint dislocation upon grapple we'd see a lot more krav maga techniques.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    This is a popular argument but it doesn't work if you think about it for a while. Put a good striker in a fight with someone who isn't a good striker. The skilled fighter would evade most of what the unskilled fighter threw at them. There isn't even much need for blocking and covering if most of what is coming at you isn't making significant contact in the first place. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't land a punch on the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to land an extremely precise strike to a vulnerable area now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have more power and accuracy and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? It's the same with grappling. It's true that a joint lock can be devastating and that's why we usually disallow most of them in combat sports, but to be applied reliably you need some control over the area around the joint. Put a good grappler in a fight with someone who isn't a good grappler. The good grappler is going to control the position better. Now take out the rules. If the unskilled fighter couldn't get a good position to control the skilled fighter before, why would you expect them to suddenly be able to apply an effective joint lock now? And why wouldn't the skilled fighter also be able to do the same but better since they still have a better position to work from and the unskilled fighter still has weaker defence? MMA is a sport and an MMA match isn't like a "real" fight for all kinds of reasons but simple, efficient, effective techniques such as you see in MMA matches are a good foundation for "real" fighting too, even if you might choose to add other types of training as well for use outside the controlled environment.
paulmooreparks 5y ago
There isn't a single art that I'd call "karate." There are many styles, and they have many schools and lineages. The style I studied was taught for free in the sensei's basement, and it was, to put it bluntly, a rather brutal art. Not many parents would be into it (all of the students were adults in my dojo). Not to take anything away from Krav Maga and similar styles. There's just a lot of variation in what is called karate.

tlear 5y ago

Most of the karate schools in US are just after school daycare for kids. There are good clubs, but you have to research them. Most Kyokushin clubs will teach you quite a bit Foundation of modern karate was in the era when every boy in Japan did Judo in school. Every accomplished karate teacher at the time also was a decent judoka. For example Oyama who founded Kyokushin was a great grappler, many Natinal level judoka also trained karate. You have to train grappling or you might as well not bother training at all.

vnorilo 5y ago

The street effectiveness of a MA is a function of time spent sparring, something that is prevalent in the arts you mention, in addition to coverage of standing and ground game. Strikers will have just a brief window of opportunity before grapplers take them down. On the other hand, even super effective grappling art like BJJ becomes pretty useless if you face two assailants.

datameta 5y ago
Against two assailants, if there is no chance to escape the fight through words or running, the best deal is to do as much damage as possible as quickly as possible to the more confident of the two. The other will usually lose the fire. Speaking as a stand-up striker. Ymmv.
- vnorilo 5y ago
  Agreed - what I was trying to convey was that BJJ is a very good bet for defending yourself one on one, but if you face multiple assailants it is useless. A good striker may stand a chance against two or three aggressive drunks (untrained, not methodical) with the strategy you described.
  - datameta 5y ago
    From the small amount of grappling I know in comparison I fully agreed with you. One can't hope to effectively control two bodies at once. Focusing on person one makes you a great target for the other(s). However knowing some good ground game to supplement striking would at least help knowing how to avoid being taken down.
boxed 5y ago
All martial arts are pretty much worthless against multiple attackers though. If you're Mike Tyson you could probably do well against two, but then the odds go down sharply at three, four, etc. It's just math.
- 5y ago

99_00 5y ago

To train to win a fight you need sparing. Full contact sparing in boxing, kickboxing, or even karate has dangers. A practitioner has to work up to full contact sparing in a controlled way. And even then there is risk of brain damage. I'm not up to date with the latest science, but I wouldn't risk my child's brain on something as unimportant as winning a fight. On the other hand, with grappling sports like wrestling, judo, BJJ, you can start sparing the first class. And the risk of brain injury (I assume) is less than every other contact sport. So your child will get more time sparing. Which would translate to better real life fighting skill. In the end, by being in some sort of combat sport your child will probably lose interest in winning fights on the street or playground. Every time they show up to class they are defeating others and being defeated. It loses its emotional charge and they don't need to prove themselves to random people.

jbverschoor 5y ago
They don’t have to compete in full contact. Uncontrolled bjj will break your arms, elbows etc easily
- 99_00 5y ago
  Yes, I agree. By full contact, I meant in the sport sense (rules allow for physical impact) not in the sense that full force should be used.
unishark 5y ago
Full-contact always implies dangers, hence the need to differentiate it from light sparring or whatever. I once read somewhere that high school wrestling has the highest career-ending injuries of any major sport, at 40 percent. Football was closer to 30. But I agree head injuries are a far bigger concern than elbow/knee etc. And making striking arts safe tends to make them unrealistic. So grappling sports like Judo are a much better combination of self-defense and safety.
wincy 5y ago
I cracked a rib within the first two weeks of BJJ. Dude rolled his elbow into my ribs and all his weight went to that spot. Hurt for months. I didn’t sue and they didn’t charge me anything. That was my BJJ experience at 32

giardini 5y ago

bioniac says >"Most martial arts training seems to me to be tangential to actually training the student to actually win a fight...If your goal is for your child to learn to fight..."< But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever? Doing so would require teaching things (s)he does not fully understand and are emotionally unprepared for, e.g., maiming or killing someone. [OTOH if you want to teach that to a child, then teach him how to be a doctor b/c doctors know how the human body works better than almost anyone else and how best to turn it off.] Instead set other goals: self-confidence, pride, athletic skill and endurance. I would first explain the role MA plays and constantly emphasize avoidance of hostile situations. IMO teaching anyone (including children) good evasion/escape is more useful than MA and more fun.

bloniac 5y ago
You are precisely correct. In most cases parents are happy with “self defence theatre” in which the parent feels they’ve done the right thing, in which the child feels confidence because they falsely believe they can defend themselves. Most parents I think would be reluctant to have their children really learn to fight/defend themselves. When parents tell me their kids are doing karate, and if they are interested in my thoughts, then I ask them, “exactly why are they doing karate? Do you know? What’s your true goal?” And if their real, true goal is self defence then I gently explain there’s better options than karate.
skinkestek 5y ago
> But do you really* want your child to learn to "win a fight" or to "fight"? To what degree? Any fight whatsoever? I teach my girls to fight. My intention is 1. to keep them out of fights 2. to make sure they can escape or win any fight someone else forces upon them. Play dumb, hide your worries, try to talk yourself out, if it doesn't work hit, grab and twist or kick with the intent to cause severe pain. Then shout and run. An armed society is a polite society and I do my part. If an assailant get hurt I can live with that. The bloke I gave a beating some 25 years or so ago actually became a better person as far as I could se.
- 5y ago

mathattack 5y ago

* If your goal is for your child to learn to fight, then do boxing or kickboxing or Brazilian jiu jitsu.* Yes and I’d add wrestling.

renox 5y ago
Yes as a former judoka I think that it's nearly useless in the real world, what if your opponent wears a no sleave tee-shirt? You've never trained for such situation! In one to one, wrestling can be useful but against two opponents it's useless too..
- mathattack 5y ago
  I think beating two opponents is a myth at best for any Art - especially if they know what they’re doing.

codingdave 5y ago

I don't know many parents whose goal is for our children to learn to fight. We want them to be strong and healthy. To learn to have fun exercising, to learn control and the ability to listen to others, learn from others, and work with others. Martials arts is great for all that. So are other sports and activities. I've studied martial arts for 20 years of my life - never did I have a goal during that time of learning to fight, but I loved practicing, and loved the community of people I spent time with in those years.

bloniac 5y ago
>> I don't know many parents whose goal is for our children to learn to fight. Try asking parents whose kids do karate. I’m guessing a large number of them will say “self defence”, especially parents of girls.
- watwut 5y ago
  1.) You are guessing. 2.) If you need to explain yourself to strangers who demand to be explained why your kid does this or that sport, you will say something simple and socially acceptable. Neurotypical people wont start explaining in nuance. 3.) No one ever asked me why my kids do dancing or swimming. It is simply not question anyone asks normally.
  - zepto 5y ago
    You are right that ‘why’ is rarely asked directly - it seems like a blunt interrogation. But, it’s quite common for people to ask questions like ‘how did they get into that?’. Also, why does it have to be a ‘stranger’ asking the question? Again I agree that would be odd, but it doesn’t seem odd for a friend to be curious. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817729
    - watwut 5y ago
      > But, it’s quite common for people to ask questions like ‘how did they get into that?’. No, I never had that question asked about dancing nor swimming or any other sport. I think it can possibly come out if someone finds the sport to be odd, but at this point Karate is not an odd sport. It is extremely common sport.

okuboheavy 5y ago

You don’t teach kids karate so they can learn how to fight. You teach kids karate to learn self control, self confidence, discipline and the value of not fighting.

timbit42 5y ago
What do you teach them for self-defense?
- okuboheavy 5y ago
  You teach them karate for self defense. The best defense is not being in a fight. As soon as a fight starts you’ve rolled the dice. No matter how good you are at karate or any martial art you can still get your ass kicked. That is the most useful thing karate teaches you. It’s a sport and a practice. Real life isn’t like the movies.

2wrist 5y ago

I am not the biggest karate fan, I did it growing up. But it is just one way to think, to move, act and react. All martial arts give you a different flavour, they teach you different things. There is not one style that rules them all. Tai Chi as you mentioned, in Lee style and others is way to move and flow. To think and be. Unsurprisingly it is a foundation for Kung Fu (grappling, striking etc.) and the foundation for weapon styles. So a kata/form is a way to train yourself to move a particualar way. I appreciate that a 'stylised dance' may not be to everyones taste. But it is training your body and your mind to move a particular way. To react a particular way. To encode a way of holding yourself, of moving through space. Similar to Tai Chi being a foundation to a sytsem of fighting. So too is karate. You can augment it with Aikido, Judo, JuJitsu. You can add weapons too. The point is they all have value, (Samba and Systema look class) when you are younger you chase that outer excitement of testing yourself against others, I guess as you get older you start to think more about how to move and flow and think and be. Sometimes there is a need to be violent, but I am not sure if that is what a child should be taught. Self defence is not just what a martial art is for, it is so much more than learning to hurt someone else. IMHO.

watwut 5y ago

> The arrival of MMA proved the true effectiveness of each of the martial arts in an actual combat situation. MMA is not an actual combat situation. A lot of what makes fighting style effective in real combat is simply not allowed in MMA (for good reasons). Things like: - attacking your penis and trying to cause injury there, - attacking your throat and trying to cause injury there, - sticking fingers into eyes, - trying to break knee by kicking where it breaks. Obviously it is not taught in any of those sports. Because they are sports.

theflyinghorse 5y ago
These arguments have all been beaten to death I'm afraid. General consensus is that a boxer who actually gets to punch and be punched by another human being will be far more effective at any of the eye gouges/throat attacks etc than someone who does not have sparring as a focus. Or just try to imagine a situation where someone who doesn't constantly train sparring can kick a knee of a kickboxer who does spar a lot and gets kicked a lot.
- giardini 5y ago
  >"General consensus is that a boxer who actually gets to punch and be punched by another human being will be far more effective at any of the eye gouges/throat attacks etc than someone who does not have sparring as a focus."< Consensus? Has someone done an actual survey or a study? If you train, you will probably fight as you train. The techniques that you learn and repeat are the patterns that your brain will follow under stress of combat. BTW how does the typical MA fighter respond to someone who picks up a metal pipe (2x4, rock, knife, gun) and proceeds to attack the MA fighter? I would hope that (s)he would do the reasonable thing: get the hell out of the area! Avoidance & evasion are the most useful "martial arts".
  - theflyinghorse 5y ago
    > Consensus? Has someone done an actual survey or a study? Oh god no, there are no studies as far as I know. But what I refer to consensus is the general feeling one gets by browsing martial arts forums. There used to be a great forum on this very subject - bullshido. For years and years folks have discussed these exact questions of effectiveness of deadly martial art techniques. > Avoidance & evasion are the most useful "martial arts". Goes without saying!

harimau777 5y ago

Personally, I think that MMA has demonstrated the importance of sparring and grappling. However, I think that the value of MMA itself is less clear. MMA has been hurt a lot by the dominance of UFC. A lot of the details of UFC's rules distort its similarity to actual combat. For example: wearing gloves, fighting on highly padded floors, lenient rules on fighters circling each other, forbidding kicks and knees on the ground, fighting shirtless, etc. MMA also overlooks a lot of aspects of combat: - Situational awareness and deescalation - Responses that are appropriate for less forceful situation (e.g. control techniques) - Use of weapons - Defense against weapons - Strategies against multiple attackers Finally, I think that there is some survivor bias. Even if MMA is the ideal martial art for young fit males with an aptitude for athletics, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is ideal for people who are less physically or athletically gifted.

thomascgalvin 5y ago
The early UFC, when it was owned and run by the Gracies, was probably as close as we're ever going to get to a "real" fight in a sport-based situation. And by that, I mean it was mostly two guys rolling on the ground, one of whom might have known what he was doing. I think that's fairly comparable to most bar fights a person is likely to encounter. Your point about weapons, situational awareness, and so on are well taken. Krav Maga claims to focus on those areas, and they generally admit that it won't make you as good at one-on-one fighting as BJJ, but will make you more likely to survive a fight where someone might stab you in the neck while you're trying to sink in your gogoplata. I don't know it that's accurate, but it makes sense. I also appreciate that, from the videos I've seen, Krav Maga stresses that the best self defence technique is enough cardio to run away.

denton-scratch 5y ago

Katas are a way to practice movements so that they become instinctive. They are performed quite slowly and deliberately, which means that at every stage of the movement you have to maintain balance and poise. It also means that practising katas strengthens your musculature. I tried tai chi for about 6 months. For us beginners, it was mostly katas, and I routinely came away with aching muscles. Advanced students used tai chi for sparring, and the instructor occasionally came in with swords, and did a rather alarming performance. As a kid I learned judo. That was mostly wrestling; but to advance, you had to do some kata work. I didn't find judo katas nearly as stretching as I later found tai chi katas; but I was 10 when I learned judo. I was 50 when I tried tai chi, and not very fit; so that might explain my different experiences. Karate was something that rough boys bragged about; it was clear to me that it was a technique for hurting people, so I stayed clear.

jollofricepeas 5y ago

I disagree. Vale Tudo came before MMA and had the most effective value for actual combat situations. - No rounds - No hand wraps and gloves - No resets to standing for “non-action” - Attacks to prone opponents The problem is that there’s a big gap between “sports martial arts” rules and “self defense.” Sport BJJ is just as bad as karate for self-defense because there’s lot of new movements that just don’t make sense when you’re attacked at a frat house or walking home late. Old school BJJ grappling (Carlson Gracie) with a focus on self defense is literally the best thing for smaller people, women & children because there’s a focus on: - minimizing damage to yourself - escaping and reversing compromising positions - having MULTIPLE options to either kill, break a bone or put your attacker to sleep - (if needed) striking with elbows and knees.

coffee_addict 5y ago
> The problem is that there’s a big gap between “sports martial arts” rules and “self defense.” The "sport" aspect is the most important part for becoming an effective fighter. And being an effective fighter is paramount for self-defense situations. The "sport vs self-defense" argument is a false dichotomy anyways. If my "sport" consists of me wrestling resisting humans to the ground, controlling all of their limbs, and potentially putting them to sleep, then my "sport" is an extremely effective form of self-defense.