From: sterner@che.udel.edu (Craig Maurice Sterner)
Subject: Re: Choosing a martial art - effectiveness?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Delaware/Department of Chemical Engineering
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:10:00 GMT

In article <31037@skye.dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) writes...
>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