subject: The difference between Martial Arts and Self Defence [print this page] The difference between Martial Arts and Self Defence
The following is an extract from a post I posted on a forum regarding the differences between Martial Arts and Self Defence.
In my experience, most traditional martial arts don't work well in the street. In fact, it may lead to the 'over confidence' of the martial artist. Traditional martial arts were probally very effective at the time they were developed eg I think karate was developed at the time of the samuri where they needed alot of power to 'break through' the armour - but was very slow - hence not very useful now days.
Of course the exception to this is where savy martial arts instructors have altered their style to modern day situations. There are now many 'eclectic' styles which may work very well on the street - but still they are not developed specifically to this, so probally some flaws are still there where they have been 'true' to the traditional forms.
Even MMA, in my opinion, isn't great for the street, especially if your predominately a ground fighter, which is probally the last thing you want to do in a street fight ie go to ground. The difference being that MMA is a sport so the practitioners probally train harder and more often than most martial artists or self defence practitioners, also they do alot more actual 'combat' in training, ie sparring and grappling. So although their techniques may not be perfect for the street, they are physically and mentally more prepared than most.
Well I guess the point to all of this is that there is nothing wrong with martial arts, or self defence, or mma, or dance, or anything - the point is that if you want to be good at something then you have to train/practice that particular thing -- so if you want to be good at self defence and or street fighting - then that is what you have to train in, not traditional martial arts. Like Andre said, a kick to the groin will beat a fancy spin kick.
