Ninjitsu,Jiu jitsu,muay thai or Karate for starting a martial art?

wahmeister666

Which would be a good start?

Any details and pros and cons of each would help also

Cheers.

Peetrik

Try them all, pick the one you like

wahmeister666

Peetrik wrote: »

Try them all, pick the one you like

Suppose I could

pearsquasher

I agree, try them all .... but.....

Give yourself about 4-8 weeks with each one..... considering that you should be expecting to study your chosen art for a good few years after that.

Also.....clubs usually vary in quality as well as personality of the teachers... so you may consider trying out different teachers of the same art.

and.. if that wasn't enough... there's different types of each of the arts you listed... so you may need to investigate each style of each discipline....!!

Thats a lot of choices but you have to ask yourself, is it worth the work you may need to put in to get there? I think so....

Doug Cartel

One or two classes should be enough to get a very good feel for a school and what goes on there.

As to the pros and cons of the individual styles, it depends on what you want to get out of it. Can you give more details of why you want to do martial arts? Also, is this a list of classes that are available to you, or is it just hypothetical? You're best off picking the best class that's available, instead of picking an art and then looking for a school.

digme

wahmeister666 wrote: »

Which would be a good start?

Any details and pros and cons of each would help also

Cheers.

Jiu jitsu,muay thai for self defence ,the other 2 take too long to get anywhere

Ske_ch

I started on muay thai and I'm still going, depending on what you want. Karate is something that takes a long time to get good at, jiu jitsu is alot of throws and can be great for self defense, ninjitsu (as far as I know) has some weapons training involved aswell as some jiujitsu, but it does take time to get places, and muay thai is pretty much a combination of brute force patience, lot of fitness involved in all of them, youtube them and find out a bit about them, see what you'd prefer and what you want to get out of it

crosstrainer1

wahmeister666 wrote: »

Which would be a good start?

Any details and pros and cons of each would help also

Cheers.

its not the arts its the instructor a good instructor will make any arts worth learning

da-bres

wahmeister666 wrote: »

Which would be a good start?

Any details and pros and cons of each would help also

Cheers.

I did ninjitsu for 3 years before i realised it was the greatest scam known to man.

Do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Boxing or Muai thai

wahmeister666

Doug Cartel wrote: »

One or two classes should be enough to get a very good feel for a school and what goes on there.

As to the pros and cons of the individual styles, it depends on what you want to get out of it. Can you give more details of why you want to do martial arts? Also, is this a list of classes that are available to you, or is it just hypothetical? You're best off picking the best class that's available, instead of picking an art and then looking for a school.

These are the ones available to me.

And I'm looking for fitness more than anything,the self defence is a bonus. But to be honest,since I was about 12 I've wanted to do a martial art. I'm 21 in 20 days,so I think now is the time to learn one.

wahmeister666

digme wrote: »

Jiu jitsu,muay thai for self defence ,the other 2 take too long to get anywhere

I thought that too,especially Karate,takes forever...but I don't know too much about Jiu Jitsu or Ninjitsu,so I didn't know about them.

But yeah,self defence and fitness I'd be looking for out of it,so either of those two you suggested?

wahmeister666

Ske_ch wrote: »

I started on muay thai and I'm still going, depending on what you want. Karate is something that takes a long time to get good at, jiu jitsu is alot of throws and can be great for self defense, ninjitsu (as far as I know) has some weapons training involved aswell as some jiujitsu, but it does take time to get places, and muay thai is pretty much a combination of brute force patience, lot of fitness involved in all of them, youtube them and find out a bit about them, see what you'd prefer and what you want to get out of it

Cheers

wahmeister666

da-bres wrote: »

I did ninjitsu for 3 years before i realised it was the greatest scam known to man.

Do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Boxing or Muai thai

Haha why was that?

thefizz

digme wrote: »

Jiu jitsu,muay thai for self defence ,the other 2 take too long to get anywhere

How do you mean get anywhere?

flynny51

thefizz wrote: »

How do you mean get anywhere?

Any martial art when practiced long enough is effective, some just take longer than others. Jiujitsu, muay thai and maybe krav maga in my opinion would require the least amount of time to see a noticeable gain in self defence ability.

Doug Cartel

flynny51 wrote: »

Any martial art when practiced long enough is effective

Not true.

flynny51

Great post Doug.

When I said any martial art I wasn't talking about obscure African tribal martial arts... I'm talking about the general popular arts, karate, tkd, kickboxing, boxing, jj, bjj, judo etc.

Doug Cartel

I wasn't talking about obscure martial arts either.

OLDMAN1

in your opinion what martial arts are not effective?

wahmeister666

All fighting styles are effective,otherwise they wouldn't have survived down through the ages...so I believe that they are ALL effective to be honest

And on the topic...I'm liking the look of Ninjitsu over BJJ to be honest. Going tomorrow to Muay Thai to see what the story is anyway. But most likely will take up a second one (from those choices) and thus far Ninjitsu seems interesting to me,a lot of stuff in it,BJJ looks like too much tumbling and ground stuff,effective I know,but I like the little movements that ninjitsu has to knock the opponent off balance and stuff...and weapons training and all that.

Doug Cartel

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

in your opinion what martial arts are not effective?

Any martial art where you don't regularly apply what you've learned against a resisting opponent.

Banbh

I've done Kenpo for many years. It keeps me fit, I suspect it would prove helpful if ever I needed to apply it, I like the ritual and the dancelike elements which can be practised without investing my psych in violence, and as it is an art, I can continue to practise and receive mental and physical satisfaction from it.

If you spend a lot of time on the waterfront with international spies and secret agents or if you live in an area where the gardai don't operate, or if have a secret ambition to be a masked avenger, might be better trying something else - firearms, for example.

Doug Cartel

wahmeister666 wrote: »

All fighting styles are effective,otherwise they wouldn't have survived down through the ages...

Your reasoning is wrong here. Firstly, there are plenty of cultural reasons why styles are kept, even though they have little to no benefit in teaching you to fight; secondly, many of the arts have changed significantly since they were first codified; and third, a lot of those martial arts that have "survived down through the ages" turn out to only a be a few decades old when you start to look into them.

OLDMAN1

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Any martial art where you don't regularly apply what you've learned against a resisting opponent.

i agree 100%, but most martial arts can be trained against a resisting opponent, the problem is that a lot of instructors dont teach it that way, so i would like to ask you a question, is it the fault of the martial art or the instructor?

Doug Cartel

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

i agree 100%, but most martial arts can be trained against a resisting opponent, the problem is that a lot of instructors dont teach it that way, so i would like to ask you a question, is it the fault of the martial art or the instructor?

That's a very good question. I think it really is down to the instructor, but in some arts finding schools that train properly is like finding hens' teeth, so you have to take that into account.

Tim_Murphy

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

i agree 100%, but most martial arts can be trained against a resisting opponent, the problem is that a lot of instructors dont teach it that way, so i would like to ask you a question, is it the fault of the martial art or the instructor?

With a lot of martial arts, once you do start training it against a resisting opponent but then what you are doing will invariably start to change. Go far enough down this road and what you end up doing will bear little resemblence to the original martial art. The question of 'is it the fault of the martial art or the instructor' is pretty redundant as far as I am concerned.

I know,but I like the little movements that ninjitsu has to knock the opponent off balance and stuff

BJJ is all about little movements that knock the opponent off balance, it also has the benefit of actually working when the person isn't just standing there letting you do it.

wahmeister666

Tim_Murphy wrote: »

BJJ is all about little movements that knock the opponent off balance, it also has the benefit of actually working when the person isn't just standing there letting you do it.

Oh what I meant though,was that BJJ seems to be on the ground all the time,tumbles and grapples and submissions,etc...well the videos I watched were like that at least.

BUT having said that,I did see one where it was in the street and someone started on the BJJ fella and he had him down and choked out in a matter of seconds,so I see it IS effect as self defence and not just as a sport.

Couldn't see it working well if a mob came on you though...

E.G. you have the person in a lock on the ground while 3 or 4 kick the head of you while you're putting the other person in some kind of hold.


Anyway,thats just from a few vids I watched and the fact I'm looking for something thats good fitness (which I imagine BJJ has great fitness gain) and good self defence (which from what I said,IT CAN at times be effective)


Oh,and do you do BJJ? Yeah? No?

flynny51

Lads this whole debate is very relative. It depends on what you mean by effective. To me effective is being proficient in some combination of being able to strike, take someone down, block/parry strikes, defend against multiple attackers, defend against weapons, defend against chokes and in general having some good fighting sense.

So you don't think most of the popular martial arts would provide some combination of these?

I get the feeling on Boards.e that people think MMA/BJJ/MT are the be all and the end all of martial arts. Try not to forget that these are sports and have rules and restrictions. More importantly they don't teach self defence for a number of situations, such as against weapons or multiple attackers.

Now don't think i'm defending the likes of Aikido here, I'm not at all. I think a lot of the above is correct, about practicing against a fully resisting opponent. But I reckon most people learn a decent amount of self defence and fighting sense practicing any of the popular martial arts. If by effective we mean greatly increasing ones chances of defending against an attack then I think it's crazy to say the likes of ninpo are not effective.

cletus

I personally think the idea that you can learn a martial art that will allow you to defeat multiple opponents is crazy. try climbing into a ring and doing one full contact all out five minute round against ONE opponent. Now imagine trying to deal with five or six guys hockying you at the same time, cause they dont line up for a shot like the do in the movies


Flynny, with regards to the rules and restrictions, I know this has been said before, but do you really think that if a guy who does bjj/mma/muay thai gets in a row on the stret he is going to feel bound by the rules of the sport.

wahmeister666

flynny51 wrote: »

Lads this whole debate is very relative. It depends on what you mean by effective. To me effective is being proficient in some combination of being able to strike, take someone down, block/parry strikes, defend against multiple attackers, defend against weapons, defend against chokes and in general having some good fighting sense.

So you don't think most of the popular martial arts would provide some combination of these?

I get the feeling on Boards.e that people think MMA/BJJ/MT are the be all and the end all of martial arts. Try not to forget that these are sports and have rules and restrictions. More importantly they don't teach self defence for a number of situations, such as against weapons or multiple attackers.

Now don't think i'm defending the likes of Aikido here, I'm not at all. I think a lot of the above is correct, about practicing against a fully resisting opponent. But I reckon most people learn a decent amount of self defence and fighting sense practicing any of the popular martial arts. If by effective we mean greatly increasing ones chances of defending against an attack then I think it's crazy to say the likes of ninpo are not effective.

Well for me,effective would be a little of everything.

Anyway,what about Ninjitsu? That teaches weapon defences,etc Which is why its sticking out more than BJJ as a choice for me

arybvtcw0eolkf

wahmeister666 wrote: »

And on the topic...I'm liking the look of Ninjitsu over BJJ to be honest. Going tomorrow to Muay Thai to see what the story is anyway. But most likely will take up a second one (from those choices) and thus far Ninjitsu seems interesting to me,a lot of stuff in it,BJJ looks like too much tumbling and ground stuff,effective I know,but I like the little movements that ninjitsu has to knock the opponent off balance and stuff...and weapons training and all that.

Maybe your drawn to the 'air' of tradition behind the Ninjitsu?.

If your main concern is an effective fighting style then BJJ would score very highly above Ninjitsu.

As for tumbling around the ground, yes thats what BJJ (or Judo, Sambo, Wrestling etc) looks like to the uninitiated I guess. But any you've seen will have been two guys working for position over another who is equally as skilled. Against an unskilled opponent a BJJ or Judo practitioner won't be scrambling for too long.

Plus a lot of the chokes & joint locked associated with BJJ & Judo will work just as well standing, again esp. against an untrained opponent.

wahmeister666 wrote: »

Oh,and do you do BJJ? Yeah? No?.

It would be safe to say Tim know's a thing or three

flynny51

I'd still recommend BJJ over the likes of ninpo. It's a much more evolved martial art, very effective. Alot of what's in ninpo and more traditional martial arts is outdated and not very realistic. That being said, to say that it's not effective is wrong imo.

Flynny, with regards to the rules and restrictions, I know this has been said before, but do you really think that if a guy who does bjj/mma/muay thai gets in a row on the stret he is going to feel bound by the rules of the sport.

It's not something anyone can say for definite, it would vary from person to person whether they'd subconsciously fight the same way they do in the ring/octagon. But they certainly haven't practiced aiming for illegal MMA moves - (or at least they shouldn't have).

wahmeister666

Declan Tinkling Robot wrote: »

Maybe your drawn to the 'air' of tradition behind the Ninjitsu?.

If your main concern is an effective fighting style then BJJ would score very highly above Ninjitsu.

As for tumbling around the ground, yes thats what BJJ (or Judo, Sambo, Wrestling etc) looks like to the uninitiated I guess. But any you've seen will have been two guys working for position over another who is equally as skilled. Against an unskilled opponent a BJJ or Judo practitioner won't be scrambling for too long.

Plus a lot of the chokes & joint locked associated with BJJ & Judo will work just as well standing, again esp. against an untrained opponent.



It would be safe to say Tim know's a thing or three

Cool,cheers for the info there

arybvtcw0eolkf

wahmeister666 wrote: »

Cool,cheers for the info there

Cool :cool:

Just one more thing, Cletus touches on training for multiple opponents, believe me - he's right, its just rubbish and unrealistically to think you can effectively train for that situation.

I've done doorwork for over 15yrs and if there was a system which would equip me to deal with such a scenario I'd still be doing it now.

And weapons training?.. Really, do you need it?.

I'm in the defence forces and range practice once a year is just about all the weapons training I can stand

Twice I've fought someone on the street with a weapon.. First time was 2006, and I literally beat the sh*t out of the lad - G&P, its effective & honest

Second time I was lucky in so far as the guy was threatening a friend in Templebar and I was able to walk up behind him, put on a choke while my mate delivered a kick into the lads balls - again effective, honest & doesn't require any training :P

Oh yea, both occassions involved knives.

flynny51

cletus wrote: »

I personally think the idea that you can learn a martial art that will allow you to defeat multiple opponents is crazy. try climbing into a ring and doing one full contact all out five minute round against ONE opponent. Now imagine trying to deal with five or six guys hockying you at the same time, cause they dont line up for a shot like the do in the movies.

Defeating multiple attackers is possible. Unlikely.. But it is possible and practicing against multiple attackers would surely increase your chances of success, certainly won't harm them.

wahmeister666

Declan Tinkling Robot wrote: »

Cool :cool:

Just one more thing, Cletus touches on training for multiple opponents, believe me - he's right, its just rubbish and unrealistically to think you can effectively train for that situation.

I've done doorwork for over 15yrs and if there was a system which would equip me to deal with such a scenario I'd still be doing it now.

And weapons training?.. Really, do you need it?.

I'm in the defence forces and range practice once a year is just about all the weapons training I can stand

Twice I've fought someone on the street with a weapon.. First time was 2006, and I literally beat the sh*t out of the lad - G&P, its effective & honest

Second time I was lucky in so far as the guy was threatening a friend in Templebar and I was able to walk up behind him, put on a choke while my mate delivered a kick into the lads balls - again effective, honest & doesn't require any training :P

Oh yea, both occassions involved knives.

Oh I didn't say you NEED it,I'm just saying in general,a what if scenario (but now I assume you'd be ****ed in a mugging situation with multiple people )

Hahaha,ah nah you're right,don't NEED the weapons training,would be a nice bonus though,it'd just be cool to learn as much things as possible,you know?


Haha fair ****s man :cool:

Doug Cartel

flynny51 wrote: »

Defeating multiple attackers is possible. Unlikely.. But it is possible and practicing against multiple attackers would surely increase your chances of success, certainly won't harm them.

If you can't beat one person you're not going to beat multiple people.

Also, training to fight multiple people is very difficult, I don't think I've ever seen it done is anything that's close to a realistic manner.

cletus

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Also, training to fight multiple people is very difficult, I don't think I've ever seen it done is anything that's close to a realistic manner.

Exactly, mostly it involves the supposed multiple attackers taking turns to attack

Doug Cartel

wahmeister666 wrote: »

Oh what I meant though,was that BJJ seems to be on the ground all the time,tumbles and grapples and submissions,etc...well the videos I watched were like that at least.

To be honest, BJJ is a very specific ground style, and I think eventually, you have to supplement it with something else to get strikes and takedowns.

Things is, in training BJJ you spend a lot of time actually sparring with other people and getting a feel for how people really react in a fight. You also learn how to work through pain and exhaustion and how to deal with things going wrong. I think this stuff is just as important as the actual techniques. People who do BJJ often go on to do well in MMA, and while you might argue about rules and whatnot, it does show that they are able to adapt, and I think this comes from being used to dealing with live people.

Whatever style you pick in the end, if you want to be able to pull off the moves in real life, you'll have to have practised them over and over against an opponent who's looking to beat you. Keep that in mind.

Doug Cartel

flynny51 wrote: »

I get the feeling on Boards.e that people think MMA/BJJ/MT are the be all and the end all of martial arts.

This is clearly untrue - boards.ie has a massive Judo bias. How many unrelated threads have warped into pedantic discussions about the new rules since the start of the year? I rest my case.

p.s. OP, do judo. It's class, it's got throws and groundwork and plenty of sparring against a resisting opponent. Also in ninjutsu you have to wear a boring black gi, but in judo you get a choice of white or blue - pretty snazzy eh?

flynny51

Just because judo is practiced by more people on here and discussed more doesn't mean that these judo practitioners think it's the be all / end all. Just from reading here over the last few months the BJJ / MMA / MT guys tend to really let rip on other martial arts for not being realistic. The judo guys are just discussing judo.

I rest my case.

Tim_Murphy

wahmeister666 wrote: »

Oh what I meant though,was that BJJ seems to be on the ground all the time,tumbles and grapples and submissions,etc...well the videos I watched were like that at least.

BUT having said that,I did see one where it was in the street and someone started on the BJJ fella and he had him down and choked out in a matter of seconds,so I see it IS effect as self defence and not just as a sport.

Couldn't see it working well if a mob came on you though...

E.G. you have the person in a lock on the ground while 3 or 4 kick the head of you while you're putting the other person in some kind of hold.


Anyway,thats just from a few vids I watched and the fact I'm looking for something thats good fitness (which I imagine BJJ has great fitness gain) and good self defence (which from what I said,IT CAN at times be effective)


Oh,and do you do BJJ? Yeah? No?

Yeah, I've been doing it about 6 years or so.

The likelyhood of anything working well if a mob came on you is not great. That's just the reality of it. Unfortunately, many martial arts don't overly concern themselves with reality.

Doug Cartel

flynny51 wrote: »

Just because judo is practiced by more people on here and discussed more doesn't mean that these judo practitioners think it's the be all / end all.

I was just taking the piss.

cowzerp

cletus wrote: »

Now imagine trying to deal with five or six guys hockying you at the same time, cause they dont line up for a shot like the do in the movies.

Actually in reality they do come at ya in ones as stupid as that sounds-remember these people dont have game plans, usually they all hope there mate will do the job and join in when they have to, i've see it 1st hand on 3 occasions and many more from outside, this changes if you end up on the ground as any chicken can start laying in boots without worrying about getting hit.

flynny51

Doug Cartel wrote: »

I was just taking the piss.

I didn't recognise it because you put "untrue", "wrong", "incorrect" or "codswallop" (was my personal fav) after nearly all my posts :rolleyes:

yomchi

Just one more thing, Cletus touches on training for multiple opponents, believe me - he's right, its just rubbish and unrealistically to think you can effectively train for that situation.

hmm dare I square against a fellow mod?

You can train for any situation, that doesn't mean it's going to save your skin but like training for one opponent it may give you enough understanding to create space to get the hell out of there.

I've trained in scenarios where multiple attackers are present, believe me it's great fun but with some of the training that it entails it's full on as much as it can be. What did it teach me? The odds are seriously stacked up against multiple attackers and you are going to get hurt, but it's about reducing the odds as opposed to being Bruce Lee in the iconic nunchuk scene of Enter the Dragon.

JMO

theboxingclinic

brilliant thread. really enjoyed reading it. very some very informed information, and some not so informed. in my opinion, for what it is worth your best off mixing striking and grappling. boxing/bjj, muay thai/sambo or what ever. im presuming most fights will start standing up and if your a good striker then the only person going to the ground will be your opponent (presuming your trained and he isint), if it does go the ground and you are trained then you will control the guy very easily so your pretty well covered no matter what happens.
if your in a situation where you are attacked by a group or a guy with a knife then the 100 meter sprint would be the best martial art in this scenario.
with regard to practicality of some of the martial arts, id be rather wary of any martial art that focuses on punching from the hips ;-). however some of the tradational martial arts have moved with the times, some styles of karate are now more combat related and thus more effective. i know liam og of k2c would be very aware about progressing some of the more tradational martial arts to make them relevant to todays culture.

cletus

Yomchi, I think that the only thing that training for multiple attackers can realisticlly teach you is exactly what you have said, your odds are greatly reduced.

Personally i feel that the odds are so far reduced that the returns gained from this training, when stacked against the effort and time required, coupled with the actual statistical chances of finding yourself in that situation, make it not worth your while.

I'd prefer to spend my improving my game

With regards to the earlier comment about the bias towards bjj/mma, I would say in response that many of the people here who train in both of them, have experience in other martial arts, and its only on starting something like mma that they begin to think of their previous training as ineffective

HammerHeadGym

Hey OP, Ive done all the arts you mentioned, for a minimum of 2 years.

They only one I'd recommend for self defence, fitness, confidence, or value for money in terms of time spent is Muay Thai.

For socialising, anachronstic pleasure or submitting to the whims of a bully who has never fought, pick any other one at random.

cletus

apologies hammerheadgym, edited for severe stupidity

yomchi

cletus wrote: »

Yomchi, I think that the only thing that training for multiple attackers can realisticlly teach you is exactly what you have said, your odds are greatly reduced.

Personally i feel that the odds are so far reduced that the returns gained from this training, when stacked against the effort and time required, coupled with the actual statistical chances of finding yourself in that situation, make it not worth your while.

I'd prefer to spend my improving my game

With regards to the earlier comment about the bias towards bjj/mma, I would say in response that many of the people here who train in both of them, have experience in other martial arts, and its only on starting something like mma that they begin to think of their previous training as ineffective

This type of training is of course undertaken by people who actually might find them selves in a 'tits up' situation, door men, Gardaí, ambulance personnel and the like, or for anyone that just wants to do it for that matter.

The other side of it is that multiple attackers doesn't necessarily mean 10 plus crazy dudes swinging like 90 at you. It can mean more than one, meaning possibly two. Statistics will always side with the facts that most assaults are carried out by more than one person, or are at least within the company of more than one person. Therefore the chances of being in the middle of multiple attackers is going to be increased, especially if your work brings you into such environments.

Hmm about it not being worth your while, that's subjective of course and can be applied to anyone who might want to participate in any activity, take Airsoft for example. Are you ever going to really need training to take over an occupied house from an armed gang, probably not, but the crack of doing it is mighty and is a good test of ego

EDIT: That last paragraph is not intended for Makikomi for obvious reasons