confused?you will be!

[captain]

over the past few days,i have read all sorts of conflicting ideas/theories about the best martial art or self defence.
the gracies say that close the distance and then ground/
grapple them.another "ex doorman" said.you only need a
good punch,armlocks wont work.then someone else says,
a punch might cause more trouble than it's worth,lock them
up!
i believe you hould have both.perhaps wck with somthing else.
but,just when you think you're on the right path [ie.not wasting
your time learning something useless]another "expert" says
something that causes doubt.i would imagine that some of this
is business lead,but any thoughts out there??

Russ.

[reneritchie]

Martial arts have very little to do with self-dense, and can in fact be counter-productive. If someone is interested in SD, I would recommend they start by reading something like this (recommeded previously by our own brilliant ANerlich):

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/0671535110

[rubthebuddha]

considering how fast some folks i know are who study escrima/silat, i can believe that. i think it all comes down to training, at least in close range. i'd say real close range goes to the knife guy, and as the range increases, the advantage swings to the gun guy.

[namron]

Guns can kill over a distance of 100's of metres.

Gun wounds are shot for shot far more deadly than knives.

Advantage gun.

[namron]

Aahhhhh a little of everything.

Sounds like mixed martial arts debate looming. Bring It on.

Seriously Captain as you know, I think once you scrape off all the BS that comes with marketing most styles will try to round out there styles with at least some augmentation.

ie: grapplers will learn strikes, strikers: locks and groundwork.

To not cover different ranges of combat is an insular backward way of thinking.

Most of the debate then becomes what 'core' style do you stick to, as most arts these days pick and borrow techniques from other specialists to round out their system.

The more tools in the toolbox the better.

[rubthebuddha]

namron -- you're missing the point about ranges. long range and even medium, i'd give advantage to gun hands down. short range between a good marksman and and a good silat player, and my money's on the silat player. the gunfighter may get a shot off, but unless it's an immediate kill or disable, the silat player will have him cut up more ways than a whole team of doctors can fix, and he'll be on the ground with a minute or less before he bleeds out.

the reason? a gun typically has only one direction of force -- straight ahead. if the target is to the side, the effort to re-aim a gun can be a hair too much. a knife, on the other hand, presents several different options in which it can do it's damage. hence my previous comment about close range vs. long range. in long-range combat, a person who steps two feet forward and to the right from where they are standing is virtually the same target, barring new obstacles. in close combat, when a person steps two feet forward and to their right presents an entirely different target -- one that has just possibly flanked the gunman and is about to go to town. to follow someone with the barrel of a gun in close range combat is a difficult proposition. with a blade, it's much simpler.

[rubthebuddha]

btw, captain, sorry for hijacking your thread.

[namron]

rubthebuddha, although I see where your coming from I still dont buy it.

Its a bit like the knife vs empty hand scenario, where my money would be on the person with the weapon.

There is a reason the armed forces use guns as their primary weapons and not knives, its because they are more efficient killing tools.

[reneritchie]

A while back I was reading over some police statistics (forget for when/where), but it was interesting to note that, from a distance of 25' or more, gun shots did not have a high hit rate (often missed completely due to officers in stress states and targets in motion); at the same time, when a target was hit within 25', those armed with knives could often still close the distance and stab the officer.

Guns may have longer range and their wounds may be more severe, but gettings stabbed is a [lousy] way to end up 'winning' such an encounter.

[captain]

"martial arts has very little to do with martial arts".wow,rene,that
comment hit me hard!then,besides aerobics,or improving your
social life,what is self defence.i assumed that most people got into
ma for their own safety.and that was the intention of my original
thread.why do some say:"only work on a good punch,the rest is
bs".while others say:"work on grappling,a punch may only annoy
the situation".
russ

[captain]

that should have read self defence,not martial arts![its all the
sugar you see!!]

[reneritchie]

Russ,

Get Strong's book or something similar. Self defense is very different from martial arts. Self defense is mostly mental. They involve mind-setting, modelling, and a lot of self-knowledge and self-awareness.

You wake up to find someone holding a gun on your child and telling your wife to tie you up.

You're ordering your morning egg mcmuffin when someone opens up on the cash counter with a submachine gun.

You get off on the wrong exit on a highway and suddenly notice gang graffiti everywhere.

Someone jumps into the back of your car, pulls a gun and orders you to drive to a more remote location.

There are many things you need to know about yourself in such situations; about what you are and are not prepared to do (and it can involve the pain and sacrifice of others, not just yourself), the elimination of ego and machismo (which, through 'hero factor', can get even a good fighter shot dead), the elmination of self-blame and recrimination.

Self defense a very, very serious subject that involves not very much martial arts, and is something many martial arts teachers and experts, despite claims to the contrary, often know little about.

[yuanfen]

Rene sez:
Self defense a very, very serious subject that involves not very much martial arts, and is something many martial arts teachers and experts, despite claims to the contrary, often know little about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree in part disagree in part. For martial arts learning which emphasizes only techniques- agree- unreliable in real self defense.

But if you learn some arts specially wing chun in great depth- the awareness, alertness, quick judgement, sharpening of fight/flight
reflexes are heightened- because the "self" in self defense is also shaped.

I know that there are good self defense books out there. Authors, policemen. ex military folks and others summarizing their experiences. But they may or may not have had exactly the same experience that you might face. No harm reading that stuff- but
good martial art will develop the self which will be a major variable in a problematic situation. Of course IMO.

Joy Chaudhuri

[old jong]

I am in total agreement with Rene on this subject.
Even if a good martial art system (when mastered to a certain level) can be very helpful in some kinds of situation,self-defense should be seen as a very serious subject. It goes a lot more "deeper" than actual physical techniques or the never ending and futile schools/methods debates we have here or elsewhere.

[old jong]

Joy said: " But if you learn some arts specially wing chun in great depth- the awareness, alertness, quick judgement, sharpening of fight/flight
reflexes are heightened- because the "self" in self defense is also shaped."

You are talking about something no theory books could teach. I believe it is the little something extra that very patient and serious practice can give to a practitioner. It could even show you the way out of a probable danger spot instead of pushing you into it .