Gamers that fight - Martial Arts catch-all

Pages

I did a search and didn't see anything for martial arts other than movies and such, so I'm creating this thread for discussion of all things martial arts, be it history, styles, or personal stories. Discuss techniques, debate viability, and share your experiences training different styles.

Background on myself:

I've done a number of styles over the years, such as the standard karate as a child, followed by Aikido and a bit of Judo. I never really liked the Japanese styles, as they don't seem to have modernized very well in real-world self-defense contexts. So, I switched to Chinese styles and began sampling various forms of Kung Fu, but it had the same problems; Hung Fut, Hung Gar, and Crane were all alright and were fantastic for fitness, but they were pretty abysmal in terms of actual modern combat effectiveness. At least the Japanese styles could be used in a ring effectively. I wanted to do Muay Thai, but I have medically-verified brittle bones and didn't want to have my ribcage shattered on a regular basis, so that wasn't an option.

I decided to try Wing Chun on a whim when I was 21. There are multiple Wing Chun schools in my city, and the first two I looked at were complete garbage. The sifus were not knowledgeable, and had a very "do not question me" mentality, which doesn't work for me. The third one I visited, however, was a world apart. The sifu, now my sifu, was incredibly knowledgeable, answered any question posed to him, and was not tied to tradition. He was and is dedicated to training competent fighters first and tradition second, and as such has no problem weaving in effective strategies into his teaching. I began training under him, and have been doing so since May 2011.

Since choosing a more permanent style, I've become more involved in the fighting and martial arts world. I'd never really considered Jiu-Jitsu before, but after being exposed to it via friends and at tournaments, it will likely be the next thing I learn after Wing Chun. Wing Chun and Jiu-Jitsu seem to complement each other well; Wing Chun has superior striking, while Jiu-Jitsu would provide me the ground-and-grappling skills that Wing Chun lacks. While my striking game is fantastic, I don't like that I'm woefully unprepared should a fight ever be taken to the ground. Judo I suspect would be useful for its throws, but I dislike its reliance on the opponent wearing a Gi/baggy clothes.

Now it's your turn. Share your stories, anecdotes, and martial wisdom!

Huh. Hung Fut in my area is led by a guy who essentially had to leave Hong Kong because he was too fond of fighting, and he is unnaturally good. I studied it for a few years in the 90's and some of his studies were quite capable, but the school went through some nasty schisms and is more geared towards less serious students now. I understand though they still have some formidable instructors and hopefully some strong students.

I've done a few years each of medieval stuff, Shotokan (under Sensei Marion Taylor), Aikido (unarmed and sword/staff, Sensei Paul Sylvain), Hapkido (Master Jong-bae Rim), Wing Chun with Silat/Escrima (Sifu Mel Rivera), Modern Jiu-Jutsu and Judo (Sensei Pat Raphael), Hung Fut (Sifu GM Yim Tai-Loi), Tien Shan Pai (Sifu Tim Dahle) and most recently about ten years of Jow Ga (Sifu Derek Johnson). Mostly I did classes for fun and to stay in some reasonable shape (sadly not working for me these last few years), but with Jow Ga I have been pretty serious about training. I have not progressed beyond a brown belt in any of these, but I could go for instructor in Jow Ga if I got my motivation going. I don't enjoy full contact much, so I mostly don't do it. (Please don't think I'm claiming to be Bruce Lee, is what I'm saying.) I enjoy forms but have a terrible time remembering them.

I would encourage anyone who feels comfortable with one type of combat (weapons, striking or grappling) to progress to a style that complements it. The Chinese styles, and those descended from them, even many of the Japanese ones) have fully functional entries for grappling embedded in their striking techniques and in forms, and the grappling styles often assume a much more brutal striking capability than is found in many modern "traditional" martial arts. (Yeah, that sentence makes sense if you've ever watched "Spiritual Aikido players" or people standing nearly on tiptoe wafting their hands through a 24 step Tai Chi form.) I find the Japanese styles more technique oriented and (for historical reasons) often limited for ease of learning, and the Chinese styles to contain every wild idea and neat bar-fighting trick ever discussed in earshot of the Sifus. (Jow Ga has a bench form for Sifus that derives from one Sifu grabbing his short bench and beating someone up with it in extremis. I believe there is another form that incorporates pulling a handrail out of a wall and using it to block with.)

I was never comfortable with my early training, but the grappling stuff and sword work were the things I was best with. Wing Chun helped me with explosive strikes and understanding patterns, but it also made it clear that my knees have some form of arthritis. (I can't do the pigeon toe stance anymore.) The Filipino stuff was the first time I saw striking and grappling and weapons fully melded, and it was a revelation. I moved shortly after starting that, though, and took the long route around to synthesizing what I learned, instead of finding a good Filipino teacher.

My advice with the Chinese stuff is to find a teacher who started out fighting. Jow Ga was formed in the early 20th century, so it's cognizant of boxing and other modern striking techniques, and it has a fighting tradition that many styles have not had over the last 50 years or so. Our instructor did years of full contact and has been a prison guard and is now a policeman, but also spent a long time fighting, ah, recreationally. But other styles including Wing Chun and Arnis/Silat/Escrima and Bando are oriented to no-holds barred fighting, rather than MMA style single-man grappling. Hung Fut is strongly combat-oriented with the right instructor.

My own suggestion would be to find an Arnis/Silat/Escrima instructor for your grappling. You'll pick it up much faster than going the traditional Jiu-Jutsu/MMA route, and it will emphatically not be neutered by rules. It's disturbingly effective. (You will however need to explain your bone situation to the instructor, and judge whether the teaching surface will be safe for you...). If you still want to do Jiu-Jutsu, find a *traditional* school, like Daito-Ryu or Yosh*tsune Waza or Hakko Ryu, where you can most learn the old ways of Jiu-Jutsu, plus Judo, plus (if you're lucky) the Modern Jiu-Jutsu variants that come out of US and other military experience in the 20th century. That would be a solid grounding in the universal principles of grappling.

I find that people get tied up in knots about their own preferences, and schools tend to get very good at a relatively small range of things while not being fully cognizant of the holes in their curriculum. I do moderately well in sparring in my school, for instance, but I've only had a few bouts where I could set up a throw or lock, and I did *very* well with those. Likewise, I've had many, many grappling training sessions that would have ended quickly if I was allowed to begin by popping someone in the face while closing (which, by the way, Modern Jiu-Jutsu enthusiastically teaches, even if you pull it in practice.) The Filipino and some Chinese schools go way past that kind of simplicity. You do need to have trust in the instructor and other students, in that situation, since that kind of training is inherently more dangerous. (You can screw up and punch someone and it's generally no problem; the first time I saw people with only a year or two experience try out a throat choke it literally raised the hair on the back of my neck.)

So for my money, becoming good at striking and good at grappling just opens the door. You then need to find an environment that ties it all together. An open-minded Chinese school or a Filipino school may be your best bets for that (although I bet your WC guys would love some grappling seminars...). But most important is to learn what you enjoy, to your satisfaction.

BTW, the styles with clothing throws, that's just for convenience for the period they were developed in. Nothing should stop you from throwing someone who is not wearing a heavy gi; your body should just do something different and send them flying. Silly to look down on it - you get a better understanding of leverage and also how clothing can help you fight by doing that stuff. And hey, maybe you'll be in a Japanese bar with a bunch of angry guys in kimonos someday. But Judo should work as well for you in a loincloth as it does in a gi or street clothes. You'll get to the point where you can knock someone over without using your arms, for example. It's the physical principles that inform the motion, not the other way around.

it will emphatically not be neutered by rules

This line speaks to be on a spiritual level. I'm not down for MMA or sport-fighting styles that avoid certain areas or moves due to the rules of the ring. I'm more the kind of guy who wants to be, as you say, "disturbingly effective". My Wing Chun club has had a few grappling seminars, so you're totally right about us recognizing that we're crap at it. I think it is very important for martial artists to recognize that whatever style they're doing is not the answer to all situations, it is merely a system that is good at what it is good at. There is always more to learn, from different people in different places, some of it better and some of it worse.

I'd never considered a Filipino approach to grappling, admittedly. I'll look into that further. My city has a very high population of martial artists, so I'd be surprised if I couldn't track down a good Filipino school. I have heard that Kali works very well with Wing Chun, due to having almost identical footwork, and therefore is less of a jump in techniques. I've watched Kali guys spar, and their grappling seems very elegant, while not losing any of its savagery.

And yeah, Judo has application outside of Gis. My dad did it for years, and I've seen him use it, both realworld and in the ring. It just doesn't speak to me, really, since it seems that while a Gi isn't necessary, it sure as hell makes things easier. But, that's just my uninformed opinion. I'm sure I'll do some of it someday and understand it better than I currently do, which is hardly at all.

Well, remember the principles - you can grab (as in clothing) or grab (as in a body part) or stick to a body part or press or fold... There's all sorts of ways that many techniques can be done, even if they are taught using clothing. For example, if you are supposed to grab the gi collar high, you can place the hand on the side and back of the neck. Or close and use the crook of the elbow instead of the hand (although small circles are more dangerous...). A guiding hand grasping the gi over the forearm can easily turn into a stick or light grab above the wrist. It's just convenience.

The cool stuff about the Filipino arts is that they seem to interrupt circles and momentum for effect. Classical grappling in India and China and Japan and elsewhere seems to have a wrestling origin, so it's lots of circles completed. I strongly suspect it's derived from competitions like the Mongolian wrestling (or at least shares similar origins). Filipino arts seem derived from blood feuds.

Filipino styles seem to take from that, but also from European sword and knife work (Spanish of course), and then they seem to have either adapted them or grafted on earlier techniques to take advantage of the motion, often *by interrupting it* instead of always completing it. This is my own interpretation, but I'm sure others will chime in if I'm way off. The Filipino styles work joints heavily and use odd angles and entries that are sneaky as heck. And they often work armed or unarmed.

If I weren't so tied to Jow Ga, I'd be doing more Filipino stuff, I think.

Hopefully there's more to it than just hitting people, Plav. I took it up initially because I didn't have a graded response to a threat. My reaction to a confrontation was to (for example) grab a chair and start battering away. I figured I needed to figure out something that was not going to land me in jail eventually.

I trained in Aikido starting in college (late 90s), and kept up with it for about 10 years. It became more of a stress/exercise outlet than anything, we were at an age where we could train 2-3 hours a day, 6 days a week. It was glorious. I was never doing it from a self-defense standpoint.

For the last dozen years or so I've studied Japanese koryu, specifically Shinto Muso ryu jo. There are also a number of attached ryu for sword, tanjo, jutte, and kusarigama. They are completely useless from a self-defense standpoint, unless you consider the somewhat universal aspects of timing, distancing, and intention. It's more of a cultural touchpoint to maintain the traditions and teachings of a centuries-old art form. It is endlessly fascinating, and also puts me in touch with some of the more interesting people I've had the pleasure of meeting.

Your text to link here...

I trained as a teenager under Sensei Zadro. The style was his own after founding his own school but had its roots from Chinese kenpo, Tae Kwon Do, Brazilian jiujitsu and Thai kickboxing. He was (perhaps still is) an advocate for running away and only using brutal force as a last resort; my memory is that as we progressed in seniority the more shoot fighting and submissions/throws/sweeps were taught as it takes training to master the timing and endurance to grapple effectively. These days I think the art is marketed as MMA as it brings in more students but the heart of school was about fusing tradition with versatility (he often talked about how early strikes and basic boxing/elbows/knees were probably the most effective response in an emergency conflict once adrenalin kicked in even though you had to learn all the kicks and palm/finger strikes to progress in seniority).

If I had the time to join another dojo, I'd probably pick up something that is easier on the knees and requires less flexibility; the pain of growing older I guess.

My favorite topic!

Let's see, I trained tae kwon do for about 18 years. Before the rise of Olympic style, 93 to about 08. Sometime in 03 I started jiujitsu, of the Brazilian variety under a student of Carlson Gracie Jr, and have been doing that ever since, though I've switched schools. In between all that I've dabbled in wing chun, doce pares arnis, judo, and sambo.

Back when I was single and could train six days a week I used to do some MMA fighting, amateur only. And also used to compete in jiujitsu regularly. Also back in those days I participated in some school to school challenge matches and a few closed doors challenge matches, some of that was remarkably dangerous now that I grew up and thought on it.

These days I'm just glad to be on the mat once week. Tae kwon do was my first love, but I'm married to jiujitsu.

The sport vs Street(TM) argument is an ancient one, back when I used to haunt martial arts forums this would be fought over for weeks. Funny enough, it's going on right now, in BJJ circles, because of the recent evolution of sport BJJ. I won't fight over it, but I do want to comment that the issue is more nuanced that on a per style basis. The trick is finding a school that caters to your needs; in terms of style, and more importantly, training methods. After nearly thirty years, I've learned that my most important aspect is aliveness in training.

I know there is a lot more to the whole street vs cage argument, but just once, I want to see an actual athlete tell me that MMA is not effective as a fighting style. The argument that street is more effective than cage is all too often undermined by the fact that the people making that argument probably couldn't do either.

Ooh, I like this topic!

I'm a first Dan Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do. I've done it for around 7 years all up. Did it for 2 years and got to Brown, then met my wife, took some time off then went back around 5 years ago and got my Black Belt last year after starting from white again. I'm about 3 months away from second Dan but I've put it on hold for a bit to do weapon training.

Since the beginning of this year I've been learning the Arnis stick and really enjoying it. We've now added the Bo to our training which we just started tonight. It feels incredible but it's going to take me a while to get used to it as I'm using a solid white oak Bo whereas the other guys are using Ratan. Mine is heavier and is great for the two handed strikes, but spinning requires a bit more effort.

Paleocon wrote:

I know there is a lot more to the whole street vs cage argument, but just once, I want to see an actual athlete tell me that MMA is not effective as a fighting style. The argument that street is more effective than cage is all too often undermined by the fact that the people making that argument probably couldn't do either.

Anything can be effective in a fight, and MMA guys fight more than many in training. But going to grapple is not always the best strategy, and it's only lately that the strike/grapple pendulum has started to swing back towards *both* instead of "close and take down". That's the context I was using.

My Sifu has done extensive analysis of police videos from the last 25 years (part of his job is to analyze officer self-defense training) and he concludes that going to ground has caused more injuries and death to officers than striking and breaking contact. In that sense, for trained police officers, grappling is less effective than boxing and evasion.

Most MMA schools in this area seem to concentrate on grappling over striking.

Also, Tengrii, I sent you a pm, did you get it? I know the new notification icon is, well, tiny.

I'm not sure I agree that "anything can be effective in a fight", if we've learned anything from the rise of the UFC, and various NHB venues before it, is that the range of effective techniques in a one on one unarmed confrontation is pretty small. Good techniques coupled with the right training methods lead to success in that context. There are of course outliers, people with extraordinary size or strength or athletic ability, but they are a small minority. If you look at what has been effective in arguably the least constrained of our experimental venues for this stuff, i.e. NHB/MMA fighting, all the fighters look amazingly similar in what they do. There's a reason for that.

I'm a little concerned about the police officer comment, I am under the impression that the main goal of police officers involved in a violent confrontation is to subdue and control. Something that falls squarely in the grappling basket rather than boxing. What aspect of boxing is applicable to the job of a police officer?

I'm avoiding my usual wall of text on the vast morass that is "self defense" and what that term means and how broad it is. But I see it coming.

Also, I think it's important to remember that there is more to grappling than just the guard position.

I think where I stand on this is that the whole "everything works" contention is almost always based on exactly zero data. And though MMA provides an imperfect laboratory for testing the effectiveness of techniques, it is at least a laboratory.

Maverickz wrote:

I'm a little concerned about the police officer comment, I am under the impression that the main goal of police officers involved in a violent confrontation is to subdue and control. Something that falls squarely in the grappling basket rather than boxing. What aspect of boxing is applicable to the job of a police officer?

Maintaining distance and remaining upright to avoid going to the ground or being tied up in locking up one person. When the officer is on the ground in contact with a suspect, he's now at a higher risk of losing his weapon to the combatant; being injured by a better fighter; being injured by a previously hidden weapon; and being injured by other participants who take advantage of his being locked up in a fight.

Again, these conclusions come from a professional setting policy for a *very* highly regarded police department, based on released and unreleased footage of thousands of police encounters from across the country. It's not ad hoc or anecdotal, it's based on a regular study done by this department yearly for the purposes of policy and training review.

Paleo, you know the gentleman involved; would you trust his judgement in this matter?

Remember, too, that submission can be obtained by other than direct physical contact. A pointed gun will generally do that job, but can't be brought into play if the officer and suspect are grappling around on the sidewalk.

It's hard to argue "trust me, this comes from an authority" so I can't say much about that. You'll have to forgive my skepticism though, there are many people in places of authority to dictate this sort of thing who have views that don't jive with reality. But your friend may very well be an exception.

I don't disagree with the various threats associated with grappling. I can state that boxing is not better suited to stopping a takedown attempt than a grappling style of some kind. High school wrestlers spend hours doing just that, as do judoka. Additionally, the technical standup is a regularly trained technique that specifically deals with creating space and standing up. But, again, there is more to grappling than the guard position. If there's one art that is well suited to dictating and controlling space within grabbing reach, it's jiujitsu, whether that is to take a fight to the ground or to keep it standing.

IMAGE(http://media.giphy.com/media/l41lXPwHWohc2kxGg/giphy.gif)

I think the distinction between self defense and ringfighting is subtle, but really just a question of intent and training. If you're willing to and train the ability to go all-out without holding back, you have self-defense skills. If you don't, and are purely training with rules, for 1v1 ring fights, then that's sport. I think that few fighters fall neatly into one category or another, with the majority being somewhere in the middle.

maverickz wrote:

I can state that boxing is not better suited to stopping a takedown attempt than a grappling style of some kind.

From my observations, this is accurate. Other styles and disciplines can have effective ways to resist takedowns, sure, but the best defense seems to be knowing how they work and specifically learning to neutralize them. My sifu teaches us takedown defenses, but he also trained jiujitsu for years and teaches us the way he learned to avoid. This is good because Wing Chun's ability to deal with groundfighting is basically to wait for a quick and merciful end; we're all about being on our feet, and have zero groundgame.

I used to do some backyard pro wrestling. Does that count?

I can take a steel folding chair to the head all day.

Robear wrote:

Paleo, you know the gentleman involved; would you trust his judgement in this matter?

I think his judgement may be a bit colored by the Texas sharpshooter phenom. And by that I mean that his sample size for testing is exactly one -- himself. And considering he is 6'7"/ 270lb.s, in very good physical shape, and largely deals with angry people with little or not actual combat training, he has a lot of factors to eliminate before he is able to get to anything approaching objectivity. And though he, himself, has practical experience, it is too individual to extrapolate to a wider audience. Or as the old Kung Fu master used to put it "an eagle can not teach a rabbit how to fight".

My point in bringing up the MMA laboratory is that it is the only one we really have that is used widely enough to have a sample group large enough for adjudicating the efficacy of style vs. style at this point. It may not be perfect and the limitations are constantly debated, but at least there is a laboratory. All of the "practical" or "street" martial artists can do is postulate or cite anecdotes. And as we have agreed upon elsewhere, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The MMA laboratory, complete with its limitations, has advanced fighting and our understanding of it far more in 20 years than over 200 years of forms based or "street" martial arts. And no, it isn't just about ground fighting. The evolution of fighting styles from BJJ to wrestling to ground and pound to takedown avoidance/stand up to stand up grappling to judo to the Jack-o-T fighting that we have nowadays has been a RAPID evolution the likes of which martial arts has not seen since probably the Chinese Warring States period and the "street" stuff is unlikely to inform that evolution much until it develops a laboratory of its own. And I don't see that happening unless someone wants to do a Bloodsport cosplay someplace in Somalia or some other Libertarian utopia. In point of fact, I would say that that MMA laboratory is a lot closer to the spirit and ethic of the era of Hong Kong challenge matches than any traditional martial arts being taught today.

Without a laboratory and experimentation (and by that I mean testing against a live opponent with malicious and harmful intent. Sparring counts for nothing.) all the practice in the world is just dancing in pajamas.

I've not done much martial arts but I would like to get my kids involved for self-defense and self-confidence. What would you suggest that would get kids involved in a martial art that they would enjoy that would start them on the path?

I did some california karate when I was like 8. That's it. My oldest daughter did a semester of Capoeira at school but because of the age range (She was 8 at the time) it was more a dance class than a real self defense course.

My two girls are 11 and 7 and my son is 5 next week.

I would start them in either boxing or wrestling, personally.

Paleocon wrote:
Robear wrote:

Paleo, you know the gentleman involved; would you trust his judgement in this matter?

I think his judgement may be a bit colored by the Texas sharpshooter phenom. And by that I mean that his sample size for testing is exactly one -- himself. And considering he is 6'7"/ 270lb.s, in very good physical shape, and largely deals with angry people with little or not actual combat training, he has a lot of factors to eliminate before he is able to get to anything approaching objectivity. And though he, himself, has practical experience, it is too individual to extrapolate to a wider audience. Or as the old Kung Fu master used to put it "an eagle can not teach a rabbit how to fight".

My point in bringing up the MMA laboratory is that it is the only one we really have that is used widely enough to have a sample group large enough for adjudicating the efficacy of style vs. style at this point. It may not be perfect and the limitations are constantly debated, but at least there is a laboratory. All of the "practical" or "street" martial artists can do is postulate or cite anecdotes. And as we have agreed upon elsewhere, the plural of anecdote is not data.

The MMA laboratory, complete with its limitations, has advanced fighting and our understanding of it far more in 20 years than over 200 years of forms based or "street" martial arts. And no, it isn't just about ground fighting. The evolution of fighting styles from BJJ to wrestling to ground and pound to takedown avoidance/stand up to stand up grappling to judo to the Jack-o-T fighting that we have nowadays has been a RAPID evolution the likes of which martial arts has not seen since probably the Chinese Warring States period and the "street" stuff is unlikely to inform that evolution much until it develops a laboratory of its own. And I don't see that happening unless someone wants to do a Bloodsport cosplay someplace in Somalia or some other Libertarian utopia. In point of fact, I would say that that MMA laboratory is a lot closer to the spirit and ethic of the era of Hong Kong challenge matches than any traditional martial arts being taught today.

Without a laboratory and experimentation (and by that I mean testing against a live opponent with malicious and harmful intent. Sparring counts for nothing.) all the practice in the world is just dancing in pajamas.

Right on! What we have in the form of MMA right now is a great laboratory for what really works in unarmed one on one fighting. There is some question as to how that applies to self defense, but in the previous context, it's a great testing ground.

Benticore wrote:

I've not done much martial arts but I would like to get my kids involved for self-defense and self-confidence. What would you suggest that would get kids involved in a martial art that they would enjoy that would start them on the path?

I did some california karate when I was like 8. That's it. My oldest daughter did a semester of Capoeira at school but because of the age range (She was 8 at the time) it was more a dance class than a real self defense course.

My two girls are 11 and 7 and my son is 5 next week.

It really depends on what you mean by self defense. Wrestling is great, easily accessible, and generally cheap. I would have to disagree with Paleocon on boxing, striking arts for kids won't go far as far as self defense. Particularly in this day of zero tolerance. I'm a big fan of grappling arts for kids for lots of reasons. Kids are naturally predisposed to wrestling so it comes easier, there is less repercussions for using in a school context, and it will be more effective because striking arts do require body mass and strength more than grappling. So, wrestling, judo, jiujitsu, anything along those lines will take kids a long way. Thy typical kids karate and taekwondo might be fun, but their utility is limited to dress up and pretend.

Because the subject of self-defense in this context always inevitably comes up. I wanted to put this here. Self defense is a broad and complicated subject. Highly dependent on the person involved, their reason, their environment, and context. And its physical aspects are only part of the issue, also involved are the mentality, planning, awareness, and many other aspects. And some of the best writing I've come across about the subject is by a guy named Marc MacYoung.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/

I realize he's selling things, but his writings are on point.

maverickz wrote:

Because the subject of self-defense in this context always inevitably comes up. I wanted to put this here. Self defense is a broad and complicated subject. Highly dependent on the person involved, their reason, their environment, and context. And its physical aspects are only part of the issue, also involved are the mentality, planning, awareness, and many other aspects. And some of the best writing I've come across about the subject is by a guy named Marc MacYoung.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/

I realize he's selling things, but his writings are on point.

Yup. And as my friend at the NYPD put it "cops don't like fights so they don't like you (when you fight)".

Self defense is 50% awareness, 30% fitness, 19% mental preparation, and 1% technique. The most dangerous and self delusional people are the folks who think that they have either the expertise (or, alternatively, the hardware) to overcome the 99% they get wrong.

Benticore wrote:

I've not done much martial arts but I would like to get my kids involved for self-defense and self-confidence. What would you suggest that would get kids involved in a martial art that they would enjoy that would start them on the path?

I did some california karate when I was like 8. That's it. My oldest daughter did a semester of Capoeira at school but because of the age range (She was 8 at the time) it was more a dance class than a real self defense course.

My two girls are 11 and 7 and my son is 5 next week.

Avoid karate, since it's very reliant on physical strength and form, and isn't great in real situations unless the practitioner is very good. Avoid capoeira, as well, since it is pretty abysmal in terms of combat (though it is excellent fitness and capoeira folks are fantastic athletes). Taekwondo isn't terrible for kids, if it is ITF (international taekwondo federation). But, as others have mentioned, america seems like a very scary place when it comes to children fighting, so for legal reasons you may want to stick to grappling styles, such as jiujitsu. Just make sure to do your research on the sensei/sifu of whatever you choose to do, to make sure they'll be taught real skills, as opposed to the school merely being an expensive daycare.

Ultimately, though, it really just comes down to what they enjoy. If they really want to do karate, let them, despite its reliance on strength. If they want to do judo, then that's fine too. Their confidence will grow much better if they are doing a style that they enjoy than it will if they do a style they do not.

Where's old man shihonage?

Benticore wrote:

I've not done much martial arts but I would like to get my kids involved for self-defense and self-confidence. What would you suggest that would get kids involved in a martial art that they would enjoy that would start them on the path?

I did some california karate when I was like 8. That's it. My oldest daughter did a semester of Capoeira at school but because of the age range (She was 8 at the time) it was more a dance class than a real self defense course.

My two girls are 11 and 7 and my son is 5 next week.

Honestly Benticore, pick something that they like doing (are excited to go to ) and let the do that (what Tengril said). Even dance accomplishes this.

At the ages you've suggested it will be more about having your kids learn to use their bodies effectively rather than a specific style or form. The "self-defense" will come more from the soft skills, awareness and avoidance vs hard skills.

+1 on the gymnastics and dance. Strength, mobility, flexibility, power and coordination will provide a much better foundation than a kid's program in martial arts. And having a scientifically coached athletic body and mind will better prepare them to be martial artists than rushing it.

Paleocon wrote:

having a scientifically coached athletic body and mind will better prepare them to be martial artists than rushing it.

The importance on this cannot be overstated. If you're physically ready for the type of things martial arts will demand of you, you'll pick it up and develop skills much faster.

Robear wrote:

Well, remember the principles - you can grab (as in clothing) or grab (as in a body part) or stick to a body part or press or fold... There's all sorts of ways that many techniques can be done, even if they are taught using clothing. For example, if you are supposed to grab the gi collar high, you can place the hand on the side and back of the neck. Or close and use the crook of the elbow instead of the hand (although small circles are more dangerous...). A guiding hand grasping the gi over the forearm can easily turn into a stick or light grab above the wrist. It's just convenience.

The cool stuff about the Filipino arts is that they seem to interrupt circles and momentum for effect. Classical grappling in India and China and Japan and elsewhere seems to have a wrestling origin, so it's lots of circles completed. I strongly suspect it's derived from competitions like the Mongolian wrestling (or at least shares similar origins). Filipino arts seem derived from blood feuds.

Filipino styles seem to take from that, but also from European sword and knife work (Spanish of course), and then they seem to have either adapted them or grafted on earlier techniques to take advantage of the motion, often *by interrupting it* instead of always completing it. This is my own interpretation, but I'm sure others will chime in if I'm way off. The Filipino styles work joints heavily and use odd angles and entries that are sneaky as heck. And they often work armed or unarmed.

If I weren't so tied to Jow Ga, I'd be doing more Filipino stuff, I think.

I had Ishinryu training as a kid, and also took 3 years in Inayan Eskrima.

The whole point of the Filipino style was to teach villagers quickly with what was able to work with whatever was at hand even if it was just your hand. So the core of it is based on reacting to angles. You learn counters to incoming attacks based on the angle of attack. So regardless of whats coming at you, knife, sword, hand it only takes small adjustments to counter. There's 3 primary styles within Inayan which are Serrada, Largo Mano, Kadena de Mano.

They tend help translate or cover the distances of a fight. Largo Mano which translates to Long Hand tends to focus on long distances and the use of Kampilan. Kadena de Mano translates to Chain of Hands and tends to be very up close with empty hands or knife. Serrada, which is most likely what you're seeing as *interrupting* translates to 'To Close'. Generally used with espada y daga (sword/knife).

Actually there's a lot of joint locks, pressure points, and nerve strikes involved across the board in the Inayan system, but Dumog the grappling side of things is based off manipulating control points like the hips and neck to be able to do joint locks. Obviously because of MMA's popularity becoming highlighted more and more.

Lot of the more grittier styles of fighting these days shown in the movies is a form of Filipino fighting styles. The typical two stick/sword back and forth you see in movies are just sinawalis which are pattern exercises. The edgier stuff like what you see in the Bourne Identity and that type is a form of Serrada, and the knife drill and work done with the knife in True Detective 2 is similar to a Kadena de Mano drill.

Granted there's tons of variations split across Arnis, Kali, and Eskrima. Still at their core is their ability to work off of angles.

Pages