In the 1950's movie "The Fastest Gun Alive", Broderick Crawford portrayed the bad guy. He claimed to be the fastest gun alive but was taunted by an old timer in the saloon who claimed "no matter how fast ya are, there always someone faster'n you". In the end, the story's central character, Glen Ford, out draws and kills him.
Which art is "better" is an age-old question that is the center of much discussion by people who are focused on a specific martial art. So many bad martial arts movies show one dojo sending its best guy to another school for a showdown to settle it once and for all. Of course, it only answers the question of who had superior skills on a given day. YouTube is full of clips that pit experts from different arts against each other in an attempt to address "the big question".
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu vs. Karate, Aikido techniques vs. those of BJJ, the permutations are too numerous to count. Regardless of the outcome of an given competition, such match ups can never settle the issue for the same reason that Broderick Crawford's loss in the gunfight didn't prove who was the fastest gun alive (you have to keep "proving it"). Even within an apparently "no holds barred" match like the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the championship is elusive even to skillful competitors such as Randy Couture and Chuck Liddell.
Part of the answer to the question is that it depends on your frame of reference. It involves asking oneself "what is the goal for martial arts training?" Is it so that you can enter a bar, pick a fight and kick someone's butt or are you interested in how your training can help the lives of others? Even if you could knockout someone in a bar, does that prove you are "better than they are" or does that make you the just fastest gun in the West...that day? In reality most of the popular martial arts have virtues AND limitations. Judo has rules that prevent striking but an accomplished practitioner, such as Karo Parisian, can definitely do substantial damage by throwing a person directly on his head, even if he had to take many punches to "get inside". Striking arts such as Shotokan or Jeet Kune Do, can be very effective in self-defense.
However, if taken to the ground by a skillful opponent, all of these techniques would be rendered useless. Even MMA has specific rules of competition, which exclude certain blows and even if they were allowed, how would these techniques hold up against an expert with a knife, not to mention the fact that "Smith and Wesson always beats four aces". Many arts focus on one-to-one competition, but how would these arts hold up with multiple attackers? If one's goal is to dispatch (kill) an opponent, then joining the Special Forces might be the most appropriate choice.
To summarize, to answer the question "which art is the best" we need to look at ourselves objectively and ask "what are the core beliefs that provide the framework for this comparison?" The answer is that the best martial art is the one that gives you what you are looking for. Under the right circumstances and in the hands of the right person, each art can be effective in self-defense. For those interested in an intense physical workout, Judo or Jiu Jitsu can give you a real run for your money. If you are not as interested in grappling, an art like Karate, or Jeet Kune Do may be what you are looking for.
No comments:
Post a Comment