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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Anybody familiar with Systema? Looks like such a cool martial art.
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.
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.
Oh, a bunch. Eye pokes are the big one, there are tons of circumstances where it's optimal to risk your fingers to threaten their eyes. Biting, gouging, small joint locks/breaks, attacking the throat, and using the clothing/hair round out the list. That's pretty much all of them though. If it isn't banned, and isn't done, you can kinda just assume it's not effective at scale. IE any head-kick that you're not already seeing generally doesn't pencil out the risk vs reward of a one shot knockout vs catching a nasty cross or overhand during your recovery.
More options
Context Copy link
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 "useful" 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.
So tl;dr: In theory yes, but having techniques too deadly for sparring or competition is essentially an unfalsifiable claim, which is extremely convenient for charlatans. And some of these charlatans are very convincing. Some might even believe themselves.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link