Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: So many styles...which is the best?Hard to say!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    182

    So many styles...which is the best?Hard to say!

    For those interested in "real situation" efficiency of different styles...I wanted to share those two websites

    http://crane.50megs.com/index6d.htm (have a look it's very interesting,page after page,shaolin too...)

    http://members.aol.com/Thaiboxing2000/ (from a Muay Thai lover..)

    Let your comments,opininons on this thread,

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,755
    Is there a "best" style or just a style that you personally prefer to train in? All styles can be used depending on how you train them.

    g

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,500
    You can go on and on about styles, but it really comes down to the individual and how the individual thinks of it. If he really loved TKD, nothing will stop him from loving TKD. This is the same for every single style in the world.

    I am reading about how the kung fu fighter defeated the MT fighter by using knees and elbows. The article later indicates that kung fu must learn MT, namely for its utilage of elbows and knees, something many other TMA don't do. But in fighting, where does it specify what you can and cannot use? In a fight, you can count on me throwin elbows and knees when I have the chance. I've never trained in MT. I guess I am saying, fighting is fighting. Don't let your pride hold you back or you might end up worse than if you never would have taken martial arts classes. Just do something you love and enjoy, don't worry about how it stacks up to other styles.
    Becoming what I've dreamed about.

  4. #4
    It depends what you want out of your training.

    If you just want to be fit Shaolin forms are perfect.

    Wing chun is great for stand up fighting.

    Wushu is great for the art part.

    Boxing is good for both fitness and stand up.

    BJJ is good if you like rolling around in your undies with other "men"
    Just kidding.

    Hung gar. Well everyone knows my opinion about that. lol

    I do not agree that any system or style of training has the potential to produce good fighters.

    Good teachers combined with dedicated students produces good fighters when the schools focus is on fighting and it is a practical art. Many times neither is the case.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,114
    i'm personally of the opinion that a generally violent and criminal lifestyle is the best producer of good fighters. if you don't believe me, you're welcome to conduct your own research.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by mortal

    I do not agree that any system or style of training has the potential to produce good fighters.

    Good teachers combined with dedicated students produces good fighters when the schools focus is on fighting and it is a practical art. Many times neither is the case.
    Yes, I agree that it is the teacher and the student. I don't think it has much or anything to do with a style. If you want to learn fighting, fighting is it's own style. A student has to have that fighting instinct and can build on it with learning body mechanics and timing that he learns from a good teacher. You can be in the shittiest "fighting" martial art and still be a good fighter if you know how to fight. Remember, I am not talking about the ring. If you want to fight well in the ring, do a tournament martial art.
    Becoming what I've dreamed about.

  7. #7
    I agree about the ring arts.

    Certain shitty martial arts are not going to make a truly good fighter. Some of the shitty arts have no structure and only theoretical techs.

    A good example of a technique that does not work is the shaolin/wushu backsweep. I had that basic down very well but when it came to sparring, it goes against too many other principals of fighting. It just looks good and you need good athletisim to do it well. Fighting. NO.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,114
    i see lots of contradictions whenever this issue comes up.

    let's say your stance is "any martial art is good, the deciding factor is the work you put into it". on the surface that's easy to agree with. but a lot of people who swear by that principal also warn people against going to "sham" MA schools. if efficacy is independent from the style being studied, then who cares if the style itself was pulled out of some guy's ass? after all, lineage doesn't reflect teaching ability. just because a guy learned from a revered teacher doesn't me he can actually teach at all; and just because a guy made something up doesn't mean he's a bad teacher, either.

    also, since every style incorporates its own exercises and training methods, subscribing to that philosophy is the same as saying that really any specific repeated series of movements will eventually turn you into a great fighter, if you think of the movements as being martial. and lots of people have lots of ideas about which martial arts are actually "martial" at all. where do you draw the line? more importantly, people need to realize that if they're drawing a line at all, then they don't actually subscribe to that philosophy to begin with.

    the other stance is obviously that certain MA's will better prepare you for a "real" fight than others (i put "real" in quotes because 95% of the time this imagined fight never really happens, but that's another issue entirely...). so the obvious question is, which is best. and there's absolutely no objective way of finding out.

    that was the purpose of the mixed martial tournament at first, but now there's a general consensus in the TMA community that ring fighting isn't an actual reflection of real-world self-defense (of course, the MMA community has reached the opposite consensus). and there's no practical (not to mention moral) way of studying specific martial arts and their efficacy in the real world. a bunch of anecdotes, sure, but nothing meaningful or objective. so one is left to guess... and shockingly, all MA students (if they're willing to answer the question at all) guess that, if their style isn't the best, it's certainly up there.

    so to the question "which martial art is best (for fighting)?", i would say, maybe there isn't one, and if there is one, we don't know what it is, and we never will. what i can say is that the various philosophies of fighting tend to be extensions of broader philosophies of life... so find one that matches with your general beliefs, and that's that.

    right wing nutjob? krav maga. tree hugging hippie? aikido. white guy who wishes he were black? boxing. white guy who wishes he were chinese? hung gar. white guy who wishes he were chinese but doesn't want to admit it? wing chun. meat-eating slut who wishes he were a vegetarian eunuch? shaolin. you get the idea.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    182
    Of course there is not any "universal ultimate style" and everyone can find his pleasure depending on personalities,ambitions...I agree with that and my intention is not to judge,or to claim that i know the ultimate truth.

    But a conversation is made of arguments,counter arguments,which wont lead us to any kind of universal truth but to a simple and enjoyable entertainment!Between fools in a way because i think none of us intends to kill anyone like in the old times,and the only actual way to fight is in the ring or in the street(but my experience after living two years next to one of Paris's worst guettho proved me that even the best fighter once in the street has not a chance between 4 guys armed with knifes or worst with hand guns!)Nothing funny or entertaining there,just poverty,lack of education,and pessimism(and stupidity).

    In the first web site which seems to be very objective and general,i found that the two major arts,efficients in the ring,were MT and sanshou.Of course everyone knows about BJJ but i'm not found of these grappling stuffs,even if it's very efficient i must say.So there is this race between Chinese and Thai arts,which could never end and also depends on the skills of the different fighters.

    I now recall these words of Bruce Lee himself(approx) who said that many so called masters would be out of breath after 2 minutes of fight(some photos on the site where you see this Chinese master holding a king of low position with his hands wide appart in front of the Thai boxer ready to strike...but also a counter exemple with these two Shaolin Monks that nobody could hurt).I also must admit the power of the Thai round kick and elbows,as well as its hard training.Personnally i keep on believing in MT as the most efficient in any situation as a stricking art,and i would be curious to see amateur fights between young non asian students of different styles.

    Yea,as today we don't do street fight(i like to live lol)well at least not in Paris Ghettos,neither do i hit somebody weaker than me to keep my face,i am still convinced that to test your abilities you have to go into the ring(amateur have good protections and rules).There you can see what you know and what you thought you known!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    281
    The best MA is I think the one that fits you best in a number of ways..

    First of all physically - everyone has different body type and condition with various limitations that may have been aquired throughout life (injuries, illness etc) and certain types of martial art will suit different people.

    For example look at athletics.. you never see a short stocky high jumper - they are always tall and skinny! Long distance runners also tend to be skinny (but all heights), sprinters are more often stockier and bulging with leg muscles. Shotputters are built like tanks.. etc etc. These athletes do what best suits their body types. As a kid I was in an athletics club and initially I was made to try all types to see where my natural ability lay and in the end the coaches decided that sprinting was it - I found in the past that for the same reason an MA that favoured kicks over upper body work suited me quite well.

    Age will also be a determining factor - its unlikely you'll be doing many flying kicks or full contact MT when you are 80 (unless you are a badass )

    On top of physical suitablity there is simply finding an MA that interests you most, one that inspires you - this can be a result of the style itself or of the teacher or probably both.. or even just from seeing it in a movie!

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Da/XiaoHong Chuen
    By dogchow108 in forum Shaolin Gong Fu
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-15-2006, 03:06 AM
  2. Themes, Styles, and Functions
    By doc in forum Discussion Forum Updates
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-31-2005, 01:21 AM
  3. 2 styles
    By green in forum "Ask The Gang!" The Community Shaolin Hotline and Requests for Information
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-20-2004, 05:05 PM
  4. Styles incorporated into Shaolin
    By Uwe in forum "Ask The Gang!" The Community Shaolin Hotline and Requests for Information
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-29-2003, 09:17 PM
  5. Styles taught at different schools?
    By harry_the_monk in forum Shaolin Gong Fu Schools
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-12-2003, 05:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •