Valera Progib wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

I'll be honest. Unless you're dealing with someone who literally does not know how to fight, boxing is worthless. Most wrestling you'd get training in is a close second. Even some of the stuff you look at as worthless, like recreational Aikido can safely neutralize a boxer or wrestler.

For example, people who thing Boxing is a martial art, and not a competition sport, with very strict rules that simply don't apply when you've taken a boot to the shin.

Do you ACTUALLY believe this...?

I know it.

Boxing is specifically designed, and has evolved for a competition environment.

Actual combat is not about a fairly adjudicated arena. Boxing, actually does set, false goals for the user. And, they actually do approach live combat like they're in the ring.

Beyond that, it is an incredibly limited form. It cannot deal with opponents who redirect your inertia (so, Aikdio, or Judo), it can't deal with opponents who focus on ground fighting (Judo, again), it can't deal with martial styles that focus on range (like Taikwando.) In short, it's only really useful when you're facing off against someone who does not know what they're doing.

Have you done any Boxing or Muay Thai?

Boxing cant deal with Taikwando?

I am speechless tbh. I think it's best if i delete my account.

Exactly. Boxing will dominate taekwando. Person arguing otherwise needs a reality check. Boxing is the most straightforward and effective form of self defense in the world. 1x1 it will get dominated by grappling arts, but nonetheless it is the most effective.

Valera Progib wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Valera Progib wrote: »

Bro, all this “bushido, kenpo, kung fu, win chun, krav maga, systema, aikido” is just “exercise” or “fitness” nothing to do with real fighting or martial arts sports.

Krav Maga and Systema are both practical martial arts. Krav Maga started out as an IDF hand-to-hand form, and Systema is Russian in origin. Those aren't, "exercise," or "fitness." Systema is, "I have a ballpoint pen, and some who needs an involuntary tracheotomy."

Saying that those are flashy or irrelevant is like saying US Marines were trained to be flashy and don't know how to stand in a real fight. Or, you know, that cops don't know how to fight.

Valera Progib wrote: »

Everyony that tries to teach you some “secret techniques” is just liar. You will see once in a liftime in a street fighting someone doing a tornado kick and actually hitting anyone.

For reference? No credible instructor will go out there and couch what they're teaching you as, "secret techniques." Nice strawman, you need help burning it?

Valera Progib wrote: »

If you want to do something proper go and do some boxing (super simple, straightforward and most effective and best time/skill ratio out there) or/and submission wrestling of any kind.

I'll be honest. Unless you're dealing with someone who literally does not know how to fight, boxing is worthless. Most wrestling you'd get training in is a close second. Even some of the stuff you look at as worthless, like recreational Aikido can safely neutralize a boxer or wrestler.

Valera Progib wrote: »

Fancy names and claims are usually a mask for being useless. People doing fake martial arts usually quit after first fight...

For example, people who thing Boxing is a martial art, and not a competition sport, with very strict rules that simply don't apply when you've taken a boot to the shin.

Also, fun to remember that sometimes those "fancy names," are just, you know, normal names, that aren't in English.

Valera Progib wrote: »

Don’t get me wrong, there are loads of really effective martial arts: kudo, kyuokushin karate, boxing, thai boxing, judo, wrestling, ***, brazilian jiu jutsu etc. You can also check how many UFC fighters have krav maga background or “shaolin kung fu” (this one is just ridiculously funny).

I wouldn't recommend learning Karate unless your goal is to fend off Samurai in 18th century Okinawa. It has applications, and you can take the stuff you learn there elsewhere, but it was very specifically designed to counter a lot of the contemporary Japanese martial training. Hell, one of the first strikes you learn in Karate is, specifically, designed to neutralize drawing a Katana. Go for the thigh? Yeah, right. You're blocking their arm movement.

Judo works. Modern police hand-to-hand in the US is based heavily off of Judo. It's not really the same martial art anymore, and simply saying, "yeah, take Judo classes," isn't going to have great results. But, it's a good foundation to build from.

Valera Progib wrote: »

Just imho with some common sense.

Okay, here's some actual common sense. Don't train to win a fight. No, really. You're not in an arena. This isn't a competition. No points awarded for putting on a good show. Train to either create an opening and get out, or to neutralize your attacker. Boxing will not do that. You'll just flail at someone in a vain desire to bloody them up, and then wonder how that "worthless Aikido" guy tossed you around like a rag doll.

Here's some less common sense that's worth knowing, but I suspect you don't understand:

Many martial arts exist with both practical and recreational variants. This is especially true of stuff like Judo, or Taikwando, where there are practical versions that will turn your average opponent into paste. There are also a lot of schools that teach variants as a recreational exercise.

Krav Maga is headed this way. The civilian variant lags about 15 years behind the military one, and is rapidly turning into a far more family friendly martial art that you can train kids in without needing to worry about liability. At the same time, the practical version is continuing to be updated, and it's out there. You're not going to find it, as frequently, in the yellow pages, but the IDF is still using it.

When a martial art has both variants, these are different martial arts. They look similar, they may sound similar, they'll have the same terminology. One of them is an immediate threat that can end your life, the other one is what you're mocking. Understanding that these things can, actually, kill you, is a good start to backing off, calming down, and not throwing up such an aggressive front, before wondering how they fractured your arm.

“Reactional aikido” neutralising a boxer - that must be the stupidest thing I have seen in my life. If you honestly think that Aikido is ANyWHERE effective you should get a reality check. About 15 years ago I had went to a mixed summercamp with ***/aikido and oh boi the laughs we had when people with 7 years aikido experience spent 99% time of sparrings on the floor thinking why their techniques are not working...

Systema is “magic” and was never taught in any Russin military it is a blatant lie.

Deadly martial arts do not exist. Kick someone in the groin is not deadly it is just low. Preassure points do not exist.

If you are from UK I will be super happy to prove my words against your aikido masters. Continuing this conversation here is just stupid. I am ready to prove my words, are you ready to prove yours?

Biro123 wrote: »

I've found, from training in different martial arts that they are only really adept at defending their own martial art. For example when learning, say taekwondo, you only train with other taekwondo practitioners who spar under the taekwondo ruleset. Now although the traditional art includes plenty of punches, hand techniques and defences against them, they are very rarely used due to the usual sparring and competition rules. So taekwondo practitioners are generally very bad a doing these techniques - and therefore only learn to defend against bad punchers.

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

I'll be honest. Unless you're dealing with someone who literally does not know how to fight, boxing is worthless. Most wrestling you'd get training in is a close second. Even some of the stuff you look at as worthless, like recreational Aikido can safely neutralize a boxer or wrestler.

For example, people who thing Boxing is a martial art, and not a competition sport, with very strict rules that simply don't apply when you've taken a boot to the shin.

Do you ACTUALLY believe this...?

I know it.

Boxing is specifically designed, and has evolved for a competition environment.

Actual combat is not about a fairly adjudicated arena. Boxing, actually does set, false goals for the user. And, they actually do approach live combat like they're in the ring.

Beyond that, it is an incredibly limited form. It cannot deal with opponents who redirect your inertia (so, Aikdio, or Judo), it can't deal with opponents who focus on ground fighting (Judo, again), it can't deal with martial styles that focus on range (like Taikwando.) In short, it's only really useful when you're facing off against someone who does not know what they're doing.

Have you done any Boxing or Muay Thai?

I'm not going to get into the current argument over what is/is not a "valid" Martial Art. In my experience, if a person is an avid student of their chosen martial art, and puts in the work to perfect their chosen fighting style, then those martial arts are usually very effective in a wide range of hand-to-hand combat applications. In my experience, my years of training in Oyata Ryukyu Kempo served me far more effectively than the Marine Corps combat fighting style.

While there are some martial arts that are superior to others, most of those arguments are subjective, and widely biased in favor of the martial art that the individual is currently taking or is a fan of. Whether one martial art would win over another, is also a widely subjective argument, and "victory" almost always depends entirely upon the individuals in question. How hard did they train in their respective arts? How much natural talent does one have? How much will to win does one opponent or the other have? How intuitive are their instincts, and how crisp are their reflexes and counters?

But calling one martial art or the other "fake" or "flashy showmanship" is doing nothing more than stroking already latent aggressiveness in order to ignite or keep a heated argument going.

Further, to call Kung fu (Shaolin or not) into question, is to show your own ignorance. Kung Fu/Gung Fu is a class of many martial arts styles that are some of the oldest in the world. To simply rip up thousands of years of training, discipline, and mastery of these fighting styles just to inflate your own ego, without any evidence that their ineffective, is simply a foolish stance to take.

But I digress.

In reference to what I quoted; comparing Boxing to Muay Thai is like comparing apples to pocket lint.

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

The_Patriarch wrote: »

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

I'll be honest. Unless you're dealing with someone who literally does not know how to fight, boxing is worthless. Most wrestling you'd get training in is a close second. Even some of the stuff you look at as worthless, like recreational Aikido can safely neutralize a boxer or wrestler.

For example, people who thing Boxing is a martial art, and not a competition sport, with very strict rules that simply don't apply when you've taken a boot to the shin.

Do you ACTUALLY believe this...?

I know it.

Boxing is specifically designed, and has evolved for a competition environment.

Actual combat is not about a fairly adjudicated arena. Boxing, actually does set, false goals for the user. And, they actually do approach live combat like they're in the ring.

Beyond that, it is an incredibly limited form. It cannot deal with opponents who redirect your inertia (so, Aikdio, or Judo), it can't deal with opponents who focus on ground fighting (Judo, again), it can't deal with martial styles that focus on range (like Taikwando.) In short, it's only really useful when you're facing off against someone who does not know what they're doing.

Have you done any Boxing or Muay Thai?

I'm not going to get into the current argument over what is/is not a "valid" Martial Art. In my experience, if a person is an avid student of their chosen martial art, and puts in the work to perfect their chosen fighting style, then those martial arts are usually very effective in a wide range of hand-to-hand combat applications. In my experience, my years of training in Oyata Ryukyu Kempo served me far more effectively than the Marine Corps combat fighting style.

While there are some martial arts that are superior to others, most of those arguments are subjective, and widely biased in favor of the martial art that the individual is currently taking or is a fan of. Whether one martial art would win over another, is also a widely subjective argument, and "victory" almost always depends entirely upon the individuals in question. How hard did they train in their respective arts? How much natural talent does one have? How much will to win does one opponent or the other have? How intuitive are their instincts, and how crisp are their reflexes and counters?

But calling one martial art or the other "fake" or "flashy showmanship" is doing nothing more than stroking already latent aggressiveness in order to ignite or keep a heated argument going.

Further, to call Kung fu (Shaolin or not) into question, is to show your own ignorance. Kung Fu/Gung Fu is a class of many martial arts styles that are some of the oldest in the world. To simply rip up thousands of years of training, discipline, and mastery of these fighting styles just to inflate your own ego, without any evidence that their ineffective, is simply a foolish stance to take.

But I digress.

In reference to what I quoted; comparing Boxing to Muay Thai is like comparing apples to pocket lint.

QFT

And what rebuttal do you offer to what I said?

starkerealm wrote: »

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

The_Patriarch wrote: »

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

I'll be honest. Unless you're dealing with someone who literally does not know how to fight, boxing is worthless. Most wrestling you'd get training in is a close second. Even some of the stuff you look at as worthless, like recreational Aikido can safely neutralize a boxer or wrestler.

For example, people who thing Boxing is a martial art, and not a competition sport, with very strict rules that simply don't apply when you've taken a boot to the shin.

Do you ACTUALLY believe this...?

I know it.

Boxing is specifically designed, and has evolved for a competition environment.

Actual combat is not about a fairly adjudicated arena. Boxing, actually does set, false goals for the user. And, they actually do approach live combat like they're in the ring.

Beyond that, it is an incredibly limited form. It cannot deal with opponents who redirect your inertia (so, Aikdio, or Judo), it can't deal with opponents who focus on ground fighting (Judo, again), it can't deal with martial styles that focus on range (like Taikwando.) In short, it's only really useful when you're facing off against someone who does not know what they're doing.

Have you done any Boxing or Muay Thai?

I'm not going to get into the current argument over what is/is not a "valid" Martial Art. In my experience, if a person is an avid student of their chosen martial art, and puts in the work to perfect their chosen fighting style, then those martial arts are usually very effective in a wide range of hand-to-hand combat applications. In my experience, my years of training in Oyata Ryukyu Kempo served me far more effectively than the Marine Corps combat fighting style.

While there are some martial arts that are superior to others, most of those arguments are subjective, and widely biased in favor of the martial art that the individual is currently taking or is a fan of. Whether one martial art would win over another, is also a widely subjective argument, and "victory" almost always depends entirely upon the individuals in question. How hard did they train in their respective arts? How much natural talent does one have? How much will to win does one opponent or the other have? How intuitive are their instincts, and how crisp are their reflexes and counters?

But calling one martial art or the other "fake" or "flashy showmanship" is doing nothing more than stroking already latent aggressiveness in order to ignite or keep a heated argument going.

Further, to call Kung fu (Shaolin or not) into question, is to show your own ignorance. Kung Fu/Gung Fu is a class of many martial arts styles that are some of the oldest in the world. To simply rip up thousands of years of training, discipline, and mastery of these fighting styles just to inflate your own ego, without any evidence that their ineffective, is simply a foolish stance to take.

But I digress.

In reference to what I quoted; comparing Boxing to Muay Thai is like comparing apples to pocket lint.

QFT

And what rebuttal do you offer to what I said?

Woah, simmer down. QFT stands for, "Quoted for Truth." That's, literally an, "I agree with what this guy said, and repeated it for emphasis." Not, IMUSTKILLTHEMALLANDSALTTHEFOODCOURT!

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

The_Patriarch wrote: »

Uriel_Nocturne wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Aelakhaii_De_Mythos wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

I'll be honest. Unless you're dealing with someone who literally does not know how to fight, boxing is worthless. Most wrestling you'd get training in is a close second. Even some of the stuff you look at as worthless, like recreational Aikido can safely neutralize a boxer or wrestler.

For example, people who thing Boxing is a martial art, and not a competition sport, with very strict rules that simply don't apply when you've taken a boot to the shin.

Do you ACTUALLY believe this...?

I know it.

Boxing is specifically designed, and has evolved for a competition environment.

Actual combat is not about a fairly adjudicated arena. Boxing, actually does set, false goals for the user. And, they actually do approach live combat like they're in the ring.

Beyond that, it is an incredibly limited form. It cannot deal with opponents who redirect your inertia (so, Aikdio, or Judo), it can't deal with opponents who focus on ground fighting (Judo, again), it can't deal with martial styles that focus on range (like Taikwando.) In short, it's only really useful when you're facing off against someone who does not know what they're doing.

Have you done any Boxing or Muay Thai?

I'm not going to get into the current argument over what is/is not a "valid" Martial Art. In my experience, if a person is an avid student of their chosen martial art, and puts in the work to perfect their chosen fighting style, then those martial arts are usually very effective in a wide range of hand-to-hand combat applications. In my experience, my years of training in Oyata Ryukyu Kempo served me far more effectively than the Marine Corps combat fighting style.

While there are some martial arts that are superior to others, most of those arguments are subjective, and widely biased in favor of the martial art that the individual is currently taking or is a fan of. Whether one martial art would win over another, is also a widely subjective argument, and "victory" almost always depends entirely upon the individuals in question. How hard did they train in their respective arts? How much natural talent does one have? How much will to win does one opponent or the other have? How intuitive are their instincts, and how crisp are their reflexes and counters?

But calling one martial art or the other "fake" or "flashy showmanship" is doing nothing more than stroking already latent aggressiveness in order to ignite or keep a heated argument going.

Further, to call Kung fu (Shaolin or not) into question, is to show your own ignorance. Kung Fu/Gung Fu is a class of many martial arts styles that are some of the oldest in the world. To simply rip up thousands of years of training, discipline, and mastery of these fighting styles just to inflate your own ego, without any evidence that their ineffective, is simply a foolish stance to take.

But I digress.

In reference to what I quoted; comparing Boxing to Muay Thai is like comparing apples to pocket lint.

QFT

And what rebuttal do you offer to what I said?

Woah, simmer down. QFT stands for, "Quoted for Truth." That's, literally an, "I agree with what this guy said, and repeated it for emphasis." Not, IMUSTKILLTHEMALLANDSALTTHEFOODCOURT!

Oops.

I apologize. In my experience on the internet, that abbreviation usually means "Quit *** Talking".

That is entirely my fault and my misunderstanding, and I will erase my reply to you, as it was made in error.