Most Complimentary Styles?

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
The biggest problem with boxing, as I see it, isn’t that you can’t generate the power to knock someone out with just boxing technique, but that people tend to be able to better predict what they know, and if what you know is hands/leg movement (not kicks/knees), you’re less likely to get that auto-reaction going to deal with it. [/quote]

uuhhhh… what the fuck does this mean?

And you can’t knock someone out with boxing technique? really? My balls must be showing on this one.[/quote]

You’re so dumb.
Haven’t you seen all those movies? Boxing is completely inefficient and useless.
People get punched hundreds of times in the face and they keep going.
Yup!

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I would have to say Shalin Kung Fu and Aikido. Though you might risk getting DQed in your MMA fights for accidentally killing people.[/quote]

I don’t think shaolin kung fu in itself is very impressive.
It’s the people who practice it since the age of five and train 8 hours a day, every day that are impressive.
[/quote]

I think your sarcasm detector is broken. ;)[/quote]

Kung Fu is totally under-rated these days, especially in the US, probably because of the combination the Mc Dojo, and it not being a favorite of the MMA crowd for a variety of reasons (the gloves interfere with a lot of the moves, and it is designed to kill, not earn points being two of them). I know a couple of real tough-shit Kung Fu guys who do very old-school, full contact training, and the speed and power they generate in amazing. And they really learn how to take a punch.
[/quote]

Hey, don’t get me wrong, a good Kung Fu teacher can definitely teach you something about power generation, balance, and body conditioning. And there are styles of kung fu which tend to focus more on real world effectiveness (like Wing Chun). But many Kung Fu systems were designed specifically to deal with other Kung Fu systems, and many also never cross train (so only ever train against their same style). So, when faced with someone who does not do that particular system of Kung Fu, a lot of the stuff they practice isn’t going to work.

From everything I’ve ever seen, Shaolin Kung Fu is more about acrobatics and iron body stunts than it is about actual combat effectiveness. And, while Aikido does have some useful joint locks, is great at teaching someone how to fall safely, and is good at teaching someone how to use the opponent’s force against them, most Aikido isn’t really all that realistic in it’s training and would take a very, very long time to get good enough to be able to use effectively in a real situation/MMA fight.

Also, no system teaches you how to take a punch better than western boxing, because that’s all they do, give and take punches.

[quote]
That said, stand-up fighting in the real world is about generating a ton of power, and making contract without getting hit, and most old-school styles, taught seriously, teach it well. My vote would be either a traditional kick-your-ass Shotokan, or Mui Thai for stand up, and Judo or Jujitsu on the ground.

The biggest problem with boxing, as I see it, isn’t that you can’t generate the power to knock someone out with just boxing technique, but that people tend to be able to better predict what they know, and if what you know is hands/leg movement (not kicks/knees), you’re less likely to get that auto-reaction going to deal with it. Just like the best way to kick-ass in a low-level Tae Kwon Doe tournament (hell, probably most Tae Kwon Doe) is to get in close and hammer away with boxing, because 99% of Tae Kwon Doers will be way outside their comfort zone when they can’t throw high/long kicks.[/quote]

Firstly, if you know what you are doing it shouldn’t matter whether they are familiar with boxing techniques or not. I can tell most people where I am going to hit them, with what technique and they still can’t stop me from landing the punch. Of course, there are those who I can’t do this to, so I also know how to get around that problem if it should arise. Good boxing training isn’t just about how to throw punches, but also how to apply those techniques against a fully resisting opponent.

Secondly, even if the average person is familiar what boxing punches look like on television, that doesn’t mean that they’ve hardwired the appropriate defensive responses to be able to defend against them actually being thrown at them.

The average person is probably familiar with a double leg takedown, but most would not be able to stop a skilled wrestler from taking them down with one.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

The biggest problem with boxing, as I see it, isn’t that you can’t generate the power to knock someone out with just boxing technique, but that people tend to be able to better predict what they know, and if what you know is hands/leg movement (not kicks/knees), you’re less likely to get that auto-reaction going to deal with it. Just like the best way to kick-ass in a low-level Tae Kwon Doe tournament (hell, probably most Tae Kwon Doe) is to get in close and hammer away with boxing, because 99% of Tae Kwon Doers will be way outside their comfort zone when they can’t throw high/long kicks.[/quote]

What the FUCK are you saying? I’ve read that post 3 times over now and it still doesn’t make sense.

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

The biggest problem with boxing, as I see it, isn’t that you can’t generate the power to knock someone out with just boxing technique, but that people tend to be able to better predict what they know, and if what you know is hands/leg movement (not kicks/knees), you’re less likely to get that auto-reaction going to deal with it. Just like the best way to kick-ass in a low-level Tae Kwon Doe tournament (hell, probably most Tae Kwon Doe) is to get in close and hammer away with boxing, because 99% of Tae Kwon Doers will be way outside their comfort zone when they can’t throw high/long kicks.[/quote]

What the FUCK are you saying? I’ve read that post 3 times over now and it still doesn’t make sense.
[/quote]

Took me a few tries to understand it, I think what he’s trying to say is that the problem with boxing is that it just deals with punches and that a boxer is unprepared to deal with kicks and knees.

I personally think boxing is great for self defense, and is under-utilized in MMA.

[quote]kmcnyc wrote:
Ill smile and just say go to a better Judo school.
[/quote]
Yeah, as I said, no grappling expert here. Anyhow, the little experience I have with judo, I made at one of the best clubs in town (measured in gold medals, that is).

That may be. As I said, Newaza is ok. Still, you can’t deny the fact that a whole lot of stuff (think ankle locks, heek hooks, guillotine chokes, kneebars…) is simply prohibited in Judo. Quite a disadvantage - even if you don’t intend to use it, if you don’t know it, you might well be screwed.

Again, no expert here. Just my experience. Personally, I haven’t seen big throws work in a no-gi clinch where there’s elbows and knees involved. Not even from pretty decent Judo players (AFAIK). Also, there’s little actual Judo takedowns to be seen in MMA - that is, none that can’t be found in wrestling or BJJ.

Can’t argue that one. That’s what MMA is all about, after all, isn’t it?

Again, I need to disagree. Granted, a spinning hookkick won’t quite cut it, but a stomping kick to the knee (thing Win Tsun), a Thai-Lowkick or a Mae-Geri (front kick for the non-karate guys) to the groin can work out nicely, even with little space to operate in.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I may have misinterpreted it, but I believe that Aussie Davo’s statment on judo was in relation to self defense, not particularly MMA.
[/quote]

Alright.

[quote]
In a self defense situation, gi training is ok because odds are the other person will be wearing clothing. And that’s why I like Judo as a self-defense art as opposed to BJJ for grappling- Judo concentrates more on takedowns instead of groundfighting, which can be very dangerous or impossible depending on the situation.[/quote]

Well, Geoff Thompson was dead on target when he postulated the 4 B’s against groundfighting as a means of self defense:

Biting
Butting
Bottles and
Buddies

He also stated that training with a Gi is indeed useful in regions where people tend to wear jackets.

Anyhow, I was talking MMA. No jackets, no 4 B’s. Lot of fights end up on the ground.

Yeah, me too. Played some during summer and torn a side band at the ankle. Still don’t have full ROM in the ankle. Tough luck, I suppose, … sucks anyways.

why do you only have to pick 2?

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Kung Fu is totally under-rated these days, especially in the US, probably because of the combination the Mc Dojo, and it not being a favorite of the MMA crowd for a variety of reasons (the gloves interfere with a lot of the moves, and it is designed to kill, not earn points being two of them).
[/quote]
Um… Full-contact Kung Fu (as in Sanda) does use gloves, you know… Kinda like full contact kickboxing, completed by takedowns. There’s a point system and everything.

I don’t doubt there’s Kung Fu guys that can punch or take a punch. But then I know Aikido guys that can… Basically, it all comes down to the fighter. The range of techniques isn’t all that decisive. After all, you can only throw a punch in so many ways.

Hm. Now I could argue against Shotokan and Judo being called “traditional”, withboth being younger than like 130 years, but that’s not the point. Point is, when doing Shotokan you better find an instructor who actually had some fights. Sounds obvious, but the Shotokan guys I know limit themselves exclusively to no-contact pointfighting. I think it’s important to know what it’s like to be hit when training for self defense.

Don’t get me wrong, I know that gloves change everything, but fighting is stress. Full contact fighting teaches you to deal with fear, insecurity and aggression. All things that will definately be coming after you in a self defense situation.

Also, from a more down-to-earth point of view, getting hit in the head in sparring will teach you avoid blinking when a fist’s coming your way.

Prediction is a way to failure, IMHO. That’s what the whole Mushin idea is all about, in the end. In a delf defense situation, you better don’t make assumptions or predictions - just react to what is actually happening.

Having said that, when people see Sly boxing in “Rocky”, it ain’t exactly going to prepare them for actual fights, you know… even from watching real boxing matches, you can only learn so much. The average Joe Shmoe wouldn’t even be able to block a jab if you told him what’s coming.

Glad you said low-level ;).
There’s enough (IMHO unjustified) TKD bashing going on around here.

[quote]admbaum wrote:
why do you only have to pick 2? [/quote]

I’m going to make a wild assumption here and guess you’re not a professional fighter.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

Now, not being a pro means you probably have some work to do - earn money to pay the house, feed the kids, … That somehow limits the time you can spend on training.

Going a step further, it’s a save bet your training consists of more than technique work only. I don’t know, strength training mabe or some conditioning work. Maybe even distance running. Again, less time for technique.

Mastering - or even beginning to understand - any martial art will take time. Lots of time. I’d even go so far and say that there’s no martial art that can be mastered in a lifetime. There’s always something you can improve, a detail you can work on.

Practicing two martial arts will effectively halve the time you have available for learning each of them. Put differently, you’re not going to be just as good in any of them as the guy who sticks to what he’s doing.

Any art you’re adding will further generalize (is that a word?) your skill-set, as opposed to specializing it. You’ll end up having absolute no clue about absolutely everything.

You just need to draw a line and focus on what you’re doing, or you’ll end up being inferior in everything you do.

IMHO, 2 styles is a lot… I’d probably have asked for 2 techniques…

[quote]admbaum wrote:
why do you only have to pick 2? [/quote]

Im not a professional fighter, so my time is quite limited in training. Also, Im a poor college student and don’t exactly have the funds to train in many different styles.

Im also just starting out so trying to learn 5 or 6 different styles at once is probably gonna overwhelm me, so I want to start by learning how to strike well, and how to grapple well and how I can use those two styles together. So one of each seemed like a good place to start.

Don’t get me wrong, Im not aiming for mediocrity, once I feel comfortable I wouldn’t mind expanding my skill set.

Feel free to give me your opinion on which styles work best together regardless of how many it may be. I may be able to train in them later on, Im just asking for a good place to start.