Martial arts for self-defence for rookies - the experts need to be more frank I think.

Before UFC was Bushido and this was style v style.
The guy who always won was a Sumo wrestler who would take all the strikes, eventually grab hold of them, turn them around and fall on his back bringing their head over the top and slamming on the floor for a KO.
I'm surprised we see no Sumo's in MMA or perhaps they are barred.
 
dmpoole said:
Before UFC was Bushido and this was style v style.
The guy who always won was a Sumo wrestler who would take all the strikes, eventually grab hold of them, turn them around and fall on his back bringing their head over the top and slamming on the floor for a KO.
I'm surprised we see no Sumo's in MMA or perhaps they are barred.
Click to expand...

We certainly used to in the 90s. They basically didn't last long.
 
Back when UFC style first started when Tank Abbott was 'da man' i saw a muay thai fighter pitted against a sumo. It still makes me wince when i remember the thai boxer mauling the sumo to the ground and repeatedly elbowing him in the face until he was all but unconscious. Hee totally destroyed the sumo.
Any skilled fighter should be able to overcome a sumo wrestler with a well aimed striked to certain parts of the jaw. Body shots may not work due to excess blubberage, but precise strikes to places where nerves cannot be toughened, especially to guys who aren't so agile and speedy in the ring.

Lol @ remembering Bushido. There were a few american boxers, Trevor Burbank was one, who fought the Bushido no. 1 (forget his name but he wore purple trunks and was Japanese (naturally)). Burbank didn't even know the rules when he stepped into the ring, got kicked in the thigh, moaned, jumped out the ring and buggered off!
LMAO....class.
 
Keith Hackney (White Tiger Kenpo style) took on a Goliath of a man who was dubbed a Sumo Wrestler, although it was obvious he wasn't, in UFC4. Annihilated him... Broke his own hand in the process though.

He's also the one who pummeled the Odd Job lookalike in the groin several times :o
 
Last edited:
Dj_Jestar said:
Keith Hackney (White Tiger Kenpo style) took on a Goliath of a man who was dubbed a Sumo Wrestler, although it was obvious he wasn't, in UFC4. Annihilated him... Broke his own hand in the process though.

He's also the one who pummeled the Odd Job lookalike in the groin several times :o
Click to expand...

Didn't stop that Odd Job lookalike (Joe Son) taking part in a gang rape, clearly Keith didn't pummel him enough!
 
KatanaDV20 said:
When demo'd to us the instructors have the "bad guy" on the floor in like two seconds.

But I cant help being extremely sceptical. I havent asked if any of those black-belts have been asssualted. A long time ago I was attacked while abroad on my way back from a club. It happens **SO FAST** and with such ferocity that you seriously dont know whats happenin.
Click to expand...

When your instructor shows you this defence against being punched he already knows the person punching him was going to punch him, the person punching him is just going to throw a single punch he's not going to try any form of combination, he's not going to actively resist after throwing the punch - the whole demonstration, whilst looking nice, is just role playing.

You're probably right to be skeptical - the reality is that unless your practicing something where you're actively training against a resisting opponent then what you're learning may well not be effective when you put it into practice against resisting opponent for real. Sort of like homeopathy and evidence based medicine - homeopathy will make various claims but provide no evidence for their effect, evidence based medicine required claims to be proven.

If you're going to learn a martial art i.e. learn to fight then part of your training should actually involve fighting and putting the skills you've learned into practice for real. Without this you've got no idea what will and won't work.

Boxing, Muay Thai, Judo, brazilian ju jitsu will help with this as will anything else where the training involves proper sparring (and not just tapping each other for points).

Have a browse through bullshido.com and do please treat martial arts with skepticism as there are a lot of dodgy instructors out there and a lot of misconceptions/general BS.
 
dowie said:
When your instructor shows you this defence against being punched he already knows the person punching him was going to punch him, the person punching him is just going to throw a single punch he's not going to try any form of combination, he's not going to actively resist after throwing the punch - the whole demonstration, whilst looking nice, is just role playing.

You're probably right to be skeptical - the reality is that unless your practicing something where you're actively training against a resisting opponent then what you're learning may well not be effective when you put it into practice against resisting opponent for real. Sort of like homeopathy and evidence based medicine - homeopathy will make various claims but provide no evidence for their effect, evidence based medicine required claims to be proven.

If you're going to learn a martial art i.e. learn to fight then part of your training should actually involve fighting and putting the skills you've learned into practice for real. Without this you've got no idea what will and won't work.

Boxing, Muay Thai, Judo, brazilian ju jitsu will help with this as will anything else where the training involves proper sparring (and not just tapping each other for points).

Have a browse through bullshido.com and do please treat martial arts with skepticism as there are a lot of dodgy instructors out there and a lot of misconceptions/general BS.
Click to expand...
Learning a martial art is not necessarily about learning to fight. There is much, much more to martial arts than fighting. Some, as posted before in this thread, use it for as a spiritual thing. Others just to keep fit. The primary lesson in martial arts is to avoid conflict at all reasonable cost. MMA and muai Thai etc are the 'martial arts' that actively encourages you to engage in conflict, and are also the ones restricted by sporting regulation.

Which is the same argument being thrown at traditional martial arts.

Also to add, all martial arts involve 'real time' training. My (ex)roomate came back from his grading black and blue. He had to defend himself whilst being attacked by 4 other men. All much more experienced than him. When I did karate every week we'd do contact sparring (amongs those who agreed to do it) and every week we'd have welts and bruises.

In short, those who claim that traditional martial arts just involve slow motion scripted play-by-play tuition are being as, if not more, naive than what they say those who think they are useful in combat are.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
Learning a martial art is not necessarily about learning to fight.
Click to expand...

No it is, that is exactly what a martial art is - a way of fighting. Whether that be in competition or in order to defend yourself.

You might as well say learning to dance is not necessarily about learning to dance. There is much more to dance - some people use it to keep fit etc... which is true. But the aim of learning to dance is, rather obviously, learning to dance.

So yes while some people believe in spiritual nonsense and others simply do want to get fit if those are their goals then fair enough the choice of style might be largely irrelevant.

In short, those who claim that traditional martial arts just involve slow motion scripted play-by-play tuition are being as, if not more, naive than what they say those who think they are useful in combat are.
Click to expand...

Yep very naive tbh...

Judo is a fantastic traditional martial art as are boxing and muay thai. tbh.. anything that involves training against a resistant opponent is useful so if your karate classes involved that then fair enough - most don't however.
 
dowie said:
No it is, that is exactly what a martial art is - a way of fighting. Whether that be in competition or in order to defend yourself.

You might as well say learning to dance is not necessarily about learning to dance. There is much more to dance - some people use it to keep fit etc... which is true. But the aim of learning to dance is, rather obviously, learning to dance.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd agree with that, years ago I used to go to a boxing class which was solely to keep fit. Sure they had a few ex-pro's coaching, but they never really showed or drilled anything, it was just an hour circuit hitting the bags and plyometrics. The only time the coaches intervined was when someone was doing something wrong enough to hurt themselves. The class started for the reitred pro's to keep fit and just grew from there with no intention of training up fighters, and I assume other places like this exist too.

dowie said:
Judo is a fantastic traditional martial art as are boxing and muay thai. tbh.. anything that involves training against a resistant opponent is useful so if your karate classes involved that then fair enough - most don't however.
Click to expand...

This makes more sense, but I'd say it depends how the opponent is resisting. If they arn't doing things people are likely to be doing on in an actual fight then the usefulness is going to be limited. Then when you come to an actual fight you're going to expect people to do something different which could leave you worse off than not knowing anything at all.
 
Hasn't karate and kung-fu and all that faded away yet due to the popularity of MMA?

Here's my tuppance worth.

I don't know why anyone would waste their time on the "pyjama stuff" for self defense. I think if you're in a real fight all the complicated technical movements usually flies out the window. Watch some real life handgun fight videos for example, even with police as soon as the adrenaline rush hits most of the technical stuff dissapears, they don't bother aiming, it's just point shooting as fast as you can while moving for cover.

Same with fist fights, just get in as many brutal hits as fast as you can. Just start smashing them in the face or kick their legs, get them off balance, get them on the ground, then choke or arm bar them. You know... MMA stuff, tried and tested.

Kicking above waist height, wrist locks, blocking and all that ?? waste of time.

All you need:

A. keeps your wits about you to begin with
B. Lots of aggression.
C. A few basic powerful moves that rely on gross motor skills only. Boxing + thai boxing + grappling, like a few people have said already.

e.g.
Cross to the face
Very hard leg kick
More punches when they are on ground.


Wrist locks wtf??? get real.

And you have to practice FULL POWER to over-ride your CNS's natural inclination to slow down your movements at the last second. From the way I see karate/kungfu people train they are encouraging that reaction.
 
kwerk said:
Blah
Click to expand...

You are a cretin at times. The fact is that one of the few violent encounters I've been in in the last few years was quickly resolved by a kick in the ribs and a wrist lock. Bouncers from a nearby pub stepped in and stopped the guy getting violent after I let him go (I'm not much of a fighter, and didn't let go for half a minute or so, mainly out of fear) but the fact is that those two moves, thrown out in the panicky, uncontrolled state I generally enter when faced with confrontation of any kind, saved me a pasting and allowed me to carry on with my night unmolested.

And before you start cracking on about it being a temporary measure, how the moment I'd let go I would have been smashed had help not been there, It would have been incredibly easy for me to break his wrist, elbow or shoulder from that position - and I'm certainly not over-endowed with physical strength, it's just a simple matter of applying pressure in the right places, which even you can understand.

On top of that, if I'd been doing krav maga, MMA, boxing or any other combat art you deem worthwhile, the outcome of this and any of the other encounters I've had would have been the same. The ones I got away with, I still would have got away with. The others, most I'm afraid, I would have been creamed either way. The fact is that you're projecting opinions based on assumption and dismissing any evidence to the contrary as unworthy of notice, and that's what makes you a cretin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom