site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   2135 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 6, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anybody familiar with Systema? Looks like such a cool martial art.

I would recommend BBJ or Judo if you're older than 30 as a hobby. Martial arts for self defense are overrated, and should be treated as a last, and absolute final solution only used after you've ran and are literally being fighting for your life.

Grappling is easier on your body long term, and sparring is more fun (personal preference obviously).

I agree with the other posters that MMA has pretty much won the sports category of martial arts, and a lot of these other martial arts can't compare, but also it's a lot rougher on your body to actually practice.

As Crowstep mentionned, if your goal is min-maxxing fighting ability, then the answer is simple: MMA. Because if anything was found to be better than MMA, it would get integrated into MMA. But you might have a preference for sports, aesthetic, or for something that suits your body better for any reason, that's fine. Whatever the martial art, what matters most is that it trains with relatively free-form sparring against a resisting opponent. Martial arts with a significant sport scene tend to be better about this than most. Be wary of any school that doesn't spar or spars only with and against a heavily restricted moveset, because their techniques are "too deadly". Even if you are maximally charitable and assume that the technique was actually very deadly and actually useful, if you have never practiced it in sparring against a resisting opponent you cannot rely on it in self-defense.

And the likelihood of the maximally charitable scenario is low; you can be certain that people who made a living from knowing how to fight for real in the past found a way to spar to keep their skills sharp and relevant. The traditional martial arts scene was, in the 20th century, invaded by countless frauds, as there are reasonable sounding arguments as to why someone who supposedly knows how to fight might not be able to demonstrate that they, indeed, know how to fight. By now, these countless charlatans have their own "lineage" behind them, so credentialism has failed in that space. A black belt means essentially nothing without knowing what getting it meant.

But for the specifics of Systema, it has a bad reputation. It used to claim it was special forces HaRdCoRe training, but after MMA basically called everyone's bullshit, it seems most Systema schools rebranded themselves as something more soft and semi-meditative like Aikido to avoid the embarassment of admitting how little what they teach is relevant to fighting.

Because if anything was found to be better than MMA, it would get integrated into MMA.

Are there any (effective) strategies that are banned on the basis of risking death or permanent injury? I'm pretty sure MMA has at least a few rules on sportsmanship that might lose in a true Thunderdome competition.

The early ruleset I believe only restricted biting, gouging and strikes to the groin. These techniques are likely effective, but also don't exactly reflect on a martial arts' effectiveness much, you don't need to be a god of fighting to know how to kick someone in the nuts or that kicking someone in the nuts works. Most of those are also not game changers, in the sense that they are not going to nullify effective techniques. For instance, you can bite and gouge try to hit the groin of someone choking you out, but they're unlikely to get him to relax his choke, so the result is that you still lost the fight, he could have still killed you if he had wanted but also now he also has to get medical attention for a gnarly bite mark. Early MMA competitions allowed even stomping, and the result was still that martial sports dominated, usually in the order of how unrestricted their allowed moveset was (ie: taekwondo, with its moveset heavily restricted to encourage acrobatic kicks (high kicks, spinning kicks), would do poorly compared to muay thai, which allowed puches, kicks, knees elbows and clinching). The problem with strategies that are too dangerous to practice on resisting opponents is that if they exist, they still wouldn't be "effective" because what you haven't practiced in a realistic environment you cannot hope to use with adrenaline flowing when it actually matters. And in effect, they don't tend to be really much more effective than those you can actually practice.

For instance, yeah, I'm pretty sure someone giving me a full power strike to the throat would be effective. But so is a punch to the jaw, and boxers practice punches to the jaw against people constantly, as opposed to the "too deadly to spar" karate master who only does his throat strikes in the air. And defending against both of them is pretty similar, a boxer defending himself from punches to jaw is not leaving his throat an exposed target either.

Martial arts is a solved problem. The optimal fighting style is MMA.

Any style that can't prove itself in the octagon isn't worth looking at, if your goal is to actually fight.

Surely that's not one style but rather a combination of wrestling, BJJ, muay thai, Western boxing, etc., with exact proportions depending on individual background and probably also baseline aptitude and preference.

Yeah that's probably a better way of putting it. In any case, any style that isn't intensely stress-tested on the mat/in the ring isn't worth bothering with. Judo may not be a huge part of MMA since the fighters don't wear clothing beyond shorts, but judoka do fight competitively (although there is definitely a groundfighting gap there that BJJ fills).

Hmeh. MMA does impose certain parameters that do not generalize. Like the octagon itself - flexible walls and a soft floor.

But I agree that competitive fighting is a good heuristic for detecting nonsense martial arts.

And it's one-on-one, and you can't grab your opponent by the clothing, and you have no shoes on and no stomping is allowed. All this means that grappling is generally more efficient in the octagon than it's in a real fight, where ending up on the ground is much more dangerous.

Although I should read more about the new meta now than 12-6 elbow strikes are legal again.

And I agree that competitive fighting is a good heuristic for detecting nonsense martial arts.

It is not quite that simple. MMA is the best in terms of actually learning how to fight, but the very elements that make it so good also means it carries a massive risk of injury compared to most other martial arts.

Traditional martial arts may well have a steeper initial learning curve while also having fewer useful things to teach. But a good Karate, Taekwondo, or Jujitsu club will still improve your fighting abilities compared to someone with no formal training.

So there is a real tradeoff in terms of risk and reward here. And that is before we get into people who practice martial arts mainly because it looks cool.

But a good Karate, Taekwondo, or Jujitsu club will still improve your fighting abilities compared to someone with no formal training.

I don't think that's right. Karate is basically worthless. Spending most of your time on kata and drills that have no correspondence to actual fighting, and then 'sparring' by playing what is essentially tag with your hands and feet. The same is true of Taekwondo (with a weird reluctance to use their fists). Brazilian jujitsu is absolutely valid, but the traditional Japanese kind is closer to aikido (the bullshittiest of bullshit martial arts) than anything that resembles fighting.

Not learning to fight while thinking you're learning to fight seems like a dangerous combination. Far better to practice the mystical ancient art of running away and phoning the police.

Anything that doesn't involve punching, kicking, grappling, throwing, pinning or submitting a resisting opponent is basically dancing. And if you're gonna learn to dance, at least make it a style with hotter girls like salsa.

But if learning to fight means risking injury, well yeah. Fighting is hurting the other guy. That's a pretty inescapable tradeoff.

Karate is basically worthless.

Unless you're generational talent Georges St-Pierre.

It has a wide reputation as bullshitto. I watched a few videos years ago where this older Russian guy touting Systema was dodging attacks and somehow debilitating his opponents without as much as touching them. "He was doing something I can't understand," said his opponents.

Unconvincing.

It's just another sambo flavor, isn't it?

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats