Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoodoof | Hacker News Reader

Related but at a tangent - after a lifetime of interest in karate I came to realise that most of the stuff taught at karate is not practical.

Katas and karate punches and kicks - most of this better thought of more as dancing or ceremonial. A bit like Tai Chi - except that Tai Chi claims no real world martial value.

The myth remains however of karate being great self defence training.

Our local karate club is packed with ever more kids going every week to learn pointless moves, with parents thinking the kids are learning to defend themselves.

View on HN

I've done some form of boxing, grappling /judo or martial art for 30 years. I taught physical skills- use of force, to law enforcement for 6 years. For 5 years I worked in a violent custodial environment. Some young people entering that work-place had never faced an angry man, never been in a real fight. For them that "martial arts" environment is a reasonably safe and accessible place to start. I agree that it is no substitute for actual combat/use of force training but I wished some of them had at least gone to the local Y or a regular basis. The 6 month "entry to service" training was not sufficient, nor was 3 days a year skill updates. Perhaps the biggest issue with "martial arts" is the misunderstanding some people arrive at they can start a fight and win, and not get hurt. That their theoretical skills will enable them to prevail without pain. That is dangerous and un-helpful.

Boxing, judo, grappling and wrestling all are more practical than karate.

The core issue with karate is that it is loaded with formal or ritualistic representations of fighting. Karate kicks, punches and blocks are all hopelessly unusable when fighting a boxer for example, who is trained to defend their head and hit their opponents head hard and fast. By contrast, few, if any, karate stances are explicitly defending the head from being hit. The more extreme examples include holding the fist at the hip - a truly useless place for a fist to be during a fight.

If only the boxer can get at the distance of his hands without having something broken or crippled.

Primary head defense in most karate stances is distance.

You should watch Royce Gracie in early MMA competitions (before grappling became regularly studied by most competitors). He completely dominated everyone, no matter what discipline.

Distance did not help. At best, a punch or kick or two were thrown, and then the grappler was able to close the distance, and then anyone who didn't study grappling (or at least wrestling) was at a massive disadvantage, and the fight quickly ended in the grappler's favor.

What you would recommend as a more practical form of self defense training for those not working in a high-risk environment?

Boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, Krav Maga, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, MMA, Judo.

Systema?

This.

BJJ is probably the most useful for self-defense (personal opinion), but it's also the most complicated to learn. It covers ground fighting better than wrestling or judo, which is where many situations will eventually end up. If I had to pick one, excluding MMA (which is basically a combination of everything listed), I would make it this.

Wrestling and judo for takedowns and takedown defense. Judo is more complicated and difficult to learn than wrestling (imo), but, depending on your age and physique, wrestling may be of limited use to you (a 50+ year old will likely have trouble applying many of the wrestling takedowns). A lot of what you'd need from these two would be covered in a BJJ school anyway, just with less time and focus spent on those areas.

Boxing and kickboxing to learn how to defend yourself from strikes. Again, depending on age and phyisque they may otherwise be of limited use, since an older or smaller person is unlikely to be punching with knockout power, and would run a higher risk of breaking bones in their hands when striking.

An MMA school would tend to cover all of that, but they may be more focused on competition than self-defense, which will affect what they teach you and how you train. Same problem with BJJ schools - a lot are more concerned with tournaments than self-defense, which can change the focus of your practice considerably.

Boxing for as long as you can remain standing, wrestling after that.

Basically, if you're not actually fighting, you don't know how to fight. It would be like learning how to program, except you've never actually written a program before.

Ninjutsu is the hackers' martial art - it's full of clever exploits of the body based on a very good understanding of the physics involved. It emphasizes practicing real fighting situations.

Is there any schools today teaching real Ninjutsu?

There should be at least several around still, depending on where you're located.

If you're in Australia, this group seems legit (I used to train with them years ago): http://www.tesoma.com

There are questions about the validity/lineage of much ninjutsu taught - caveat emptor...

Not sure if it's popular elsewhere but Ju-Jutsu training has been pretty intensive and helpful - not sure if it helps in a real fight through, but I guess with a few years of regular training you are better off - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ju-jutsu

If you want self-defence, my impression is that world-wide Krav Maga is generally a form that manages to hold a high standard across different locations and instructors. But as always, practice will never be any better than the instructor and the students he or she accepts.

In general, any martial school that focuses not on competition, can be good (the set of techniques are not really that different, they're all ways for one human to break another human - physics and biology dictates what falls out as efficient).

Judo can be efficient self-defence in a club that tries to focus on the early martial arts curriculum (but generally fails miserably at teaching strikes and kicks). One benefit of judo is that it (should) teach good ukemi (how to fall) - I usually say that knowing ukemi is knowing how to block the ground. A large number of real-world injuries come from hitting your head on the ground or on the curb, so being able to get up (and run away) from being thrown to the ground is a good start. Not to mention some grappling can go a long way if you find yourself in an intimate situation that you only too late realize is turning into an attack. This also holds for brazilian ju-jutsu (which despite it's name is more like early judo practice, than traditional ju-jutsu) -- but I've yet to see many bjj dojos that have a reasonable focus on throws and efficient ukemi (which makes sense, if you focus on a sport that does mostly take-downs and not throws).

That said, most big martial arts can be great for self-defence, if the instructors have an interest and are competent in self-defence. But practising real-life self-defence isn't really pleasant - so doesn't go well with typical "martial arts for exercise" type programs.

My understanding of Krav Maga is that it's more or less formalized mixed martial arts.

I studied Tang Soo Do for many years, and the really useful self defense techniques were not taught until I got my black belt, and we started learning techniques from different martial arts.

This teaching was deferred primarily because the useful techniques can be extremely dangerous to practice (strikes to the throat being a good example, and grappling techniques where you maximize leverage with the intention of breaking bones).

See my other comment on how techniques aren't all that different due to physics and biology.

MMA can mean many things; I usually read it as the modern circus that is UFC etc - a sport.

Krav Maga is self defence (or self offence, it's pretty violent; it's for situations where you'd be justified in using lethal force, not for "scuffles"). It's simple, and has a curriculum that's built around survival; you'll typically see something that looks a lot like Krav Maga in any martial arts self defence class (if it's any good). And you can typically find "krav Maga" techniques in any martial art. For example one of the first techniques thought in taekwondo is the straight front kick, the first movement of the kick is lifting the knee - so you start practicing a knee to the groin as a white belt. But sadly you could become a fifth Dan in taekwondo and not even realize that, because of the sorry state of self defence in a lot of taekwondo dojangs.

My point in calling it formalized MMA (by which I mean the literal definition of the acronym, mixed martial arts) was that rather than the techniques being passed down by tradition (like tang soo do, kung fu, aikido, etc), it was built up by mixing and matching techniques from various art forms with the explicit goal of a brutal, effective form of self defense.

Taekwondo, I think, long ago parted ways with any intention of being an art of self defense, if that intention was ever there to begin with.

The competitive element of judo is a pro and a con. Executing a technique against someone actively trying to resist is very educational and good for your training - it shows what works (vs practicing with someone who just lets you throw them). But trying just to win has its own drawbacks and leads to weakness and a very narrow focus.

I agree that the sport part of judo can be a benefit, but not because of the competition aspect; but because the sport mindset led to efficient and safe techniques that can be practiced at "full force".

Two typical examples are: tomoenage that in its original jujitsu form was a kick to the groin, but in judo is a foot to the hip; first you can't go and kick your practice partners full force to the groin (without them wearing protection - hence you can't really practice the actual technique) , and second if you kick someone in the groin they'll roll up, and the throw becomes ineffective (although you could argue that a good kick or two to the groin is usually quite enough. But only if you actually hit. A good landing on the head is also quite effective). And ipponseionage which in a jujitsu variant involves crossing the arms in an elbow lock, hoping to break the lower arm in the throw - but also becomes a slower and less efficient technique.

So the safe set of judo techniques makes for very good sparring practice. But it won't prepare you for a thumb in the eye or a bite to the face. Or being stomped on the head while grappling.

I'll just add that HN is probably not the best place to ask that question, and also that you're probably very rarely get an unbiased answer. The overwhelming majority of practitioners view their own art through rose-colored glasses, especially if they've had little or no personal experience studying other marital arts.

Arnis / Escrima / Kali can be useful for this.

One of the unfortunate lessons I learned early on in real life, is that "self defense" systems which only cover one-on-one fighting (eg the Tae Kwon Do schools I've seen) are close to useless in real life. eg in a bar fight, or a group of drunks decides to pick on you when you walk past. I'd studied Tae Kwon Do for about fours years before discovering this (the hard way doh!). :/

With Ninjutsu and Arnis (at least some schools), training for combat against multiple opponents is a core part of it. So, less likely to suck in real world situations.

As for what makes practice "self defence" as opposed to "martial arts" -- there really shouldn't be any contradiction - "martial arts" really is about fighting, maiming hurting and killing people. Or it was. But of course there are lot of other benefits to what is good "martial arts" training - soundness of mind and body etc.

But if what one wants to learn is primarily "self defence", then one has to, unsurprisingly, practice self defence. Practice the type of situations you want to defend yourself from. I could probably link to videos all day, but eg: this one with Phil Thompson explains some of the basics (despite the cheezy intro):

"Protect Self Defence on TV3's Pacific Beat Street" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLkKE-gSuj0

Some more snippets with Thompson:

"Self-Defence Seminar with Phil Thompson - The Passive Stance" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9cU6yGSgB8

"Self-Defence Seminar with Phil Thompson - Wrist Grabs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlI3rzsml_g

There's also something to be learned from military martial arts, like (this is more typical Martial Arts wanking, so to speak, but I really love this guy):

"Systema Demonstartion on Korean Special Forces" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfHfua9ku4s

Note, don't put too much emphasis on the "Systema"-bit, DK Yoo probably holds high level dan grades in more martial arts styles than I even know about. That said, Systema is a very interesting style - developed by and for the Russian/Soviet special forces with inspiration from traditional Russian wrestling and judo -- it's a surprisingly soft style for a modern military martial art. Like man other styles, if you can find a good instructor/dojo I'm sure it can be a perfectly fine approach to self defence. But as Thompson says above, it's not the physical techniques that are the hard part.

The reason I call out Krav Maga (developed from practical self defence in the Warsaw ghettoes, and evolved by the Isreali military and special forces) is that it is modern (as in new), it has a pretty reasonable and well-functioning system of grading instructors - so if something "really is" Krav Maga, it's a bit easier to know a little about the quality of the training - unlike, say "karate" or "jujutsu" - or "taekwondo" (which encompass everything from the funny stuff that is in the olympics to more traditional stuff that is closer to the founder's original vision [ed: note that the second two videos with Thompson is from a taekwondo seminar, so there are obviously still places where you can practice taewkondo and actually learn something useful]) - and the general civilian training (to the best of my knowledge) has a strong focus on self-defence - practising actually useful stuff like verbal assault, multiple attackers, situation awareness and so on.

It very much is a system for self defence, while most other things one could practice ends up being "martial arts with self defence added on". Personally I prefer that, I don't really enjoy practising just self defence - not to mention the fact that I'm not entirely convinced there are enough situations that are dangerous enough that I really need to defend myself violently, and yet not so dangerous that I won't simply be stabbed to death or shot -- that's its really worth the effort to practice all that much with the aim of self defence.

But practising any kind of physical confrontation for fun will boost confidence, and give one a better idea of when a situation is dangerous, and how it might be dangerous.

I like watching MMA because it pits all the various styles against eachother with a minimum set of rules. This way, it becomes very apparent which styles work and which don't.

Predictably, more practical and direct styles like boxing and grappling form the bread and butter for most participants and make up the majority of fights. But interestingly, very high-level practitioners of traditional styles, such as karate and taekwondo, are actually extremely effective, and among some of the best fighters in the sport.

I suspect a lot of the fake and impractical looking techniques in e.g. karate are actually useful, but only when practicing at a very high level. I also suspect that this may be by design - to weed out thugs and impatient pupils from the ranks before teaching actually useful martial technique.

I used to train kung long fist.

I was training a kati (kata in Chinese) that was very flowery (literally, the name of the routine had the word "flower" in it).

It felt useless and so I asked the teacher what some weirder moves were used for...

First thing he was pleased I asked, most students doesn't. Then he showed me... it was just brutal, several moves were bone breaking grappling moves designed to be used as counter attacks.

I suspect most practitioners don't know this because people don't want to learn this grossly violent stuff, and so teachers don't make and effort to teach what exactly they are learning, and several of the moves were risky and opportunistic, not the thing a newbie can pull off in actual combat.

What you see as pointless is in fact good conditioning of the mind and body, something that reduces anxiety in the parents and boosts confidence in the kids. Anyone who learns a martial art with the intention of getting into fights, well, is an idiot.

You need to take a long view of the martial arts, instead of a short one. Two years of practice won't teach you jack shit. A lifetime of it can be very fulfulling.

Many people have difficulty seeing the benefits in kata training, but it really is one of the best ways to learn to apply techniques correctly.

As for practicality, what does that even mean? Do you frequently need to punch people in the teeth?

Yea, a lot of it is more comparable to doing dancing, gymnastics or exercise for fun, but I wouldn't call it 100% pointless.

There's good evidence that there is usefulness in karate for self defense. Lyoto Machida is an MMA fighter who at one point was #1 in the world in his weight class, and he uses a lot from karate (he has a lot of karate heritage as well as training). He won a fight a fight via crane kick, which is a technique from vs a former #1 LHW and HW fighter, I found it on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSGQ_FRs3k

For self defense it's also probably useful to do routine exercise, stretches, etc., so in that sense it's also probably helpful.

Boxing, wrestling, and submission-style training such as jiu jitsu are the most effective hand to hand combat techniques, but even then it's still not entirely practical. Humans are evolved to fight with weapons, so it's all kind of pointless anyways. I once saw a little girl quickly dispatch a scary-looking guy with pepper spray.

I don't do any martial arts stuff, but I those going to the MMA gym that talk shit to those that do karate is just the pot calling the kettle black, aside from being immature.

for what it's worth, there are a bunch of combat tai chi practitioners out in the world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcc0jNJwgJA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HQnuWY13ac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iw4xFD-47Q

It's sad to see so many people think that Tai Chi is just meditative shadow boxing. It's really more about fluid/soft and hard movements, developing an intuition for how your opponent will move and using an attacker's force against them.

I've seen people finding it very useful as an influence in HEMA where 9/10th of the difficulty lies in reading your opponent to know when and how they will attack.

It's also immensely useful for demonstrating the importance of footwork, as the last video you link to (by the English-speaking Wing Chun instructor -- even if his style isn't "really" Tai Chi) shows very beautifully.

This is not true at all. Your life-long interest in karate apparently includes 0 practical knowledge. I doubt you have even watched a youtube video from a karate tournament.

The modus operandi in karate is "Immoblize your enemy as fast as possible". Immobilize in this context means kill or knock out and ASAP means instantly. There is nothing more vicious out there than Kyokushin.

It is my understanding that there are two ways of how karate is taught, as a sport and as a practical martial art, with majority of clubs being the former case.

I think Judo and Aikido are more practical. They focus more on grappling and emphasize the redirection of the opponent's force.

Most people are better off learning combat systems aimed towards personal defense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krav_Maga

Krav Maga - much more practical than karate.

Aikido doesn't have a reputation as "something you'd use on the street". Krav Maga may be good if you get a real teacher and not some guy who's seen videos on youtube.

Judo maybe, aikido no. As an aikidoka myself, I train it because it's a good workout with good people, and it's incredibly subtle and difficult to make work even in a controlled training environment. Pretty much the opposite of what someone genuinely concerned with self defense would want.

For self defense (which I am not interested in), something brutal and simple will be better. In fact, the brutal-er and simpler the better. Learn how to get hurt badly and still keep going for defense. Practice groin and throat strikes for offense.

Judo is much simpler than aikido, but not hugely brutal. Still, if I were suddenly required to try and defend myself with some aspect of my martial arts training (unlikely), I'd be much more likely to call on my judo than my aikido.

Focus on practicality in martial arts is kind of boring, and is largely irrelevant for most people unless we're talking about boosting confidence. And then, best not let your confidence convince you that violence isn't likely to hurt or kill you.

Possible counter-examples to this are Stephen "Wonderboy" Thompson [0] and Lyoto Machida [1]. There are probably more, but these are examples of two very successful MMA fighters whose backgrounds are based on Karate and whose MMA fighting styles are apparently very Karate-like so it can't be completely useless.

(Disclaimer: I am a complete layman.)

Also, for those advocating Aikido: how many Aikido guys excel in MMA? (Only a slightly rhetorical question--I could very well be wrong.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Thompson_(fighter)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyoto_Machida

MMA isn't fighting, it's a sport. The one interesting thing to come out of it from a martial arts perspective, was Gracie challenging the idea that grappling wasn't an effective strategy even against people with a lot of striking experience. But it has rules, it's one-on-one, no weapons ... it has very little to do with real-world fighting.

That said, someone that's been boxing for a few years is more likely to win against someone who has no form of fight training. But he might not win against someone who's been in regular fights the past few years.

People that actually fight, do so to win. That usually means two, three on one, bringing a weapon against someone that's unarmed etc. Being able to choke someone out doesn't help all that much if his buddy is going to knife you in the neck while you're doing it.

As for Aikido, I love Aikdo. And if trained for self-defence, it could probably work well enough - but that requires training in an environment where you have people around you to that know how to use the attacks your trying to defend against. I've rarely seen an Aikido dojo with people that are good at kicking, kneeing, punching and elbowing people. It's not even that often you'll see people with a decade of real judo practice under their belt. Without a few decades worth of such experience, it becomes impossible to truly practice Aikido techniques with an aim for self defence. If nothing else, there's a strong tradition for practising defence against multiple attackers in Aikido.

On the other hand, in terms of being fit, clear of mind, of freeing oneself from the idea that one has something prove, letting go of ones pride -- those are things that can certainly get one out of fights. And situational awareness and not being a moron is probably 99% of the key to successful self defence.

After all, if you know you're headed to a fight, you'd be better off going the other way, or pre-emptively calling the police, or getting some help - so that the fight can be avoided.

As for Karate - it can certainly be a good foundation for self defence. But there are numerous styles, and numerous ways of approaching Karate. If your focus in competition sports, it's unlikely you'll end up great at self defence.

Many real fights are one on one without weapons. I think MMA synthesizes such a fight relatively well, with the exception of usually cluttered or cramped environments and wearing real clothes.

As for situations with several opponents, possibly with weapons, I don't think there is a style that will save you here except the old run-fu.

Most "real fights" that are "one on one without weapons" can be avoided. Fighting for pride, or fun, isn't self-defence. [ed: Not to mention the fact that a "cluttered environment" is an environment rich in weapons. Be that bottles, knifes, fire axes, bar stools, bricks or metal pipes etc.]

Shotokan?

I studied it for a few years as a kid, and came to a similar conclusion but had assumed it was that particular flavour of karate being an overly formalised, functionally ceremonious, branch emphasising discipline, flexibility and strength over fighting prowess.

A foundation, rather than an end-product if you will.

Aikido is far better in that regard.

Edit: I mean that it's more usable in real life.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Sorry I'm not pointing to "evidence" but what you are saying is like laser tag guns are far better than AK-47.

The context here is self defense. Not fighting in bars, gang melees, or whatever. Part of that is avoiding fights by defusing confrontations. Another aspect is defense with controlled escalation. First, you get out of the way. If that's insufficient, you trip them. If that's insufficient, you take them down. If that's insufficient, you incapacitate them.

There are many schools of Aikido. I studied in an American dojo that incorporated street-fighting skills. Also substantial work with staff and wooden sword.

kyokushin is pretty practical. no katas they just beat the shit of each other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com