From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Choosing a martial art - effectiveness?
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

Like another poster, I am trying to choose a martial art.  Some of you
will have heard from me before - when I was looking for input on sel-training
in karate.

Well I now find myself with some time to train, but rather than just settle
with shotokan karate, I thought I'd consider a wider range.

MY PRIMARY REQUIREMENT is an effective self-defence skill.  I understand that
some of you may feel that that is a lesser requirement, and I respect your
opinion - but for me, self-defence is number one.

I AM interested in mental discipline - but I don't require that from martial
art training.

I AM interested in physical fitness - but again, if a particular martial art
doesnt provide that (and instead demands supplementary fitness work) thats fine.

I am NOT interested in meditation, zen, pseudo- (or actual-) religious
philosophies.  

I want to learn an effective method of unarmed self-defence - period.


Let me give my totally biased, beginners impressions of some of the arts,
and then feel free to correct me.


KARATE - has a heavy weight of tradition behind it.  I enjoyed it.
	 However, it strikes me as being an inflexible system - in the
	 same way that nuclear weapons are inflexible.  At heart, I am
	 a pretty upright sort of guy.  I'd rather step off the pavement,
	 than fight.  I'd rather restrain, than strike.  I'd rather strike
	 a little than a lot.  I'd rather hurt than kill.

	 But - in shotokan at least - the idea was one punch was enough.
	
	 How do I perform a citizens arrest with one punch?

TAE-KWON-DO - seems to have the benefit of drawing from karate's tradition,
	 but is modernised.  (That could be a good thing or a bad thing).
	 Its kicking emphasis make it *look* effective.
	 But it also seems to be a hard art - inflexible.

	 A major plus (for me) for TKD, is its breaking requirements.  

Jiu-jitsu - Is more felxible that karate and TKD, but classes in my
	 area are few and far between.
	  Also, I wonder if there is any possibility of competition.
	
Jeet-kung-do - This, in my poor opinion, seems the ideal choice.  It seems
	 to teach the underlying principles of unarmed fighting, not just
	 a series of more or less effective techniques.  (I am sure that
	 sufficient training in karate etc, would also teach these basics,
	 but its not the same.)

	 One of the only classes in my area in JKD, is run by the Kreuses
	 brothers who were trained by a guy called Dan Inasanto (or something)
	 like that.  The Kreuses are two of a very few folks in the UK who
	 have been "licensed" by Inasanto to teach JKD.

	 JKD's major negative is the cost of lessons!

So any thoughts on this?

Oh, due to their explicit religious links, I am not interested in Aikido,
or Shorinji Kempo.  (Or at least I'm not interested in the religious aspects,
which - in most schools - seem an integral part).

Finally - I've just moved to Edinburgh University (still staying in Glasgow),
and would be interested in training during the day if anyone was interested.
Im based at the Kings Buildings, but presumably the main PE buildings
have reasonable gym facilities.

tommy