Which is the best martial art to learn?

Sponsored Links
The best would have to be a Black belt in "Tire Iron" followed by a brown belt in 2 feet of black pipe ( 1" Gas tubing)

Or a Black belt in Smith & Wesson 357 Mag.
 
Guns.

And grievous violence.

Guns and grievous violence.

Guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns, and grievous violence.

:rolleyes:
 
Sponsored Links
The thing that kills me about all this amrtial arts stuff is this thing about 'you dont have to be big and strong to do it'

Ever sene the size of the guys on T.V shows who advocate this belief..?

Massive!
 
The thing that kills me about all this amrtial arts stuff is this thing about 'you dont have to be big and strong to do it'

Ever sene the size of the guys on T.V shows who advocate this belief..?

Massive!

You should watch some tapes of Royce Gracie. He's 175lbs, and is one of the most successful MMA fighters of all time. Beating guys weighing over 250lbs with ease.
 
Flippin heck, I can't believe some of the comments on this.

In all the years that I did martial arts, it was always non contact (ie not punching or kicking the hell out of somebody). Where's the gratuitous violence in that?

And size doesn't matter - I always came off better in judo cos I was smaller than most of them - lower centre of gravity wins in most cases! :D
 
If you put a gun in the hand of a thug - he becomes a more dangerous thug. Teach a thug martial arts - and he'll want to use it in his thuggish world.
Surely common sense should tell you that much.
What's wrong with a kid playing football instead of learning to kill and injure.
Why introduce violence into a kid's world?
 
If you put a gun in the hand of a thug - he becomes a more dangerous thug.
Agreed.

Teach a thug martial arts - and he'll want to use it in his thuggish world.
Surely common sense should tell you that much.
Probably true, but what you haven't considered is that thugs are not taught martial arts. The trainers are licensed, and the students are licensed, and there are police checks. If a thug slips through the net, they stick out like a sore thumb because of their aggression and lack of control, and are booted out.

What's wrong with a kid playing football instead of learning to kill and injure.
Why introduce violence into a kid's world?
A little perspective is needed here.

Firstly, I believe that all boys, at some point, get involved in a fight. Violence is inside us, not something that is introduced. Martial arts classes teach how to defend against violence, and how to use minimum physical impact in doing so. For some people it might be an outlet, and others a means of gaining confidence, but for everyone it's very healthy exercise.

Secondly, football is hardly something that is divorced from violence. Public matches have been known, historically, to attract crowd misbehaviour. There were even several attempts to ban it in the 14th-17th centuries.

You argument would make more sense if you suggested that the game of rugby not be taught. This is violence is actively taught and encouraged, and yet it's one of our most popular spectator sports.
 
I'd agree other than this bit:

You argument would make more sense if you suggested that the game of rugby not be taught. This is violence is actively taught and encouraged, and yet it's one of our most popular spectator sports.
Really Softus, just because you're a hair-combing, shrunken head kicking woofter nancy boy, there's really no need to be disrespectful to the master sport :LOL:

Regarding self defence I've always found that being a black belt boll0ck kicker has worked well for me thus far, except for one really scary occasion where I kicked a fella square between the legs and he just grimaced a bit and then smiled at me. I then resorted to my second line of defence, running away ;)
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top