Martial Arts & Boxing

If there is a competition between karate, judo, kung fu, tae kwondo , kick boxing etc. masters who will win ?

Also consider martial arts which I have not mentioned like Kraav Maaga of Israel etc. Please also give the reasons for your answer.
By competition I mean plain fighting with no rules thrown in. In such a scenario which is the most practical one for a street brawl , assuming no guns are used ?

Easy question to answer.

(And sorry, there are always rules, although I do promise to answer your question in a rule-free setting.

Eventually).

The short answer is: "who would win, a badminton player, discus thrower, chess master, or curling pro?"

Silly question, right? Obviously, the chess master will win a chess match, but not do well at discus. (Unless he is a master of both).

The longer answer is basically the same. It all depends on one factor.

The rules. (I know.....but give me a chance).

Since you have said "masters", we know that they are all in shape, dedicated, and skilled in their own art.

Under Judo rules in a Judo venue, no one is going to beat the Judoka.

Similarly, the Judoka would not have a chance in a kick boxing tournament. He is, obviously, not a kick boxer.

Even with very similar styles, there is no debate. A pro kick boxer would be demolished by a pro boxer. In a Queensberry rules boxing match.

Even 'though the kickboxer knows how to box very well, he is not used to Queensberry rules. The boxer lives by them. The boxer only trains his hands, day after day. He would win every time.

Obviously, the boxer would lose in a kick boxing match. The kick boxer would nail him with one good kick that he is not used to dealing with. Game over.

Are they any exceptions? Not if both fighters are of the same weight class, age, and athletic/skill level. If you skew any of these, it could certainly make a difference.

Cross training will obviously make a difference as well. (I.e. a Judoka who has also studied boxing).

Now, if you meant by your question some kind of "no holds barred" street brawl in which experts from these styles duked it out, it gets no easier to declare a winner.

First of all, you would have to find martial arts experts willing to fight such a battle. Most people with the discipline and intelligence to become experts in any of these fields would certainly be reluctant to engage in such a foolish undertaking.

They might get hurt. Or badly hurt their opponent. If you check out the history of such matches, it is not very pretty.

This was one of the criticisms of the first UFC fights. The quality of the fighters was certainly less than first class, with the exception of the Gracies, who were the stakeholders.

And, even if you could find people willing to risk injury in such a gladiatorial contest, the main event battle would still be the rules. Whose rules would be used?

Jack Dempsey once destroyed a wrestler. (He insisted on Queensberry rules). No chance for the wrestler.

Gene Lebell once destroyed a boxer. (The latter was wearing his huge puffy boxing gloves, and Gene was allowed to wrestle). No bare knuckle fight here, and no surprise.

Examine any sport/exhibition/entertainment "ultimate fight spectacle", and you will find that they have lots of rules.

UFC, for example, has 32 declared fouls! (So much for "no holds barred"). The cage/fence venue favors wrestling.

The ancient Greeks and and Romans kept wrestlers and boxers separate, because they knew that each discipline was entirely different. In the MMA world, we have UFC, Pride, K1, etc. with different rules to feature different styles.

And finally, in a "fight for your life" street battle that truly is, hypothetically, without any rules, the outcome would be no clearer. Since there would be no rules, the winner would be the one with no scruples who would be prepared to strike first, use dirty tactics, or preferably catch the other by surprise. Moreover, there would be a large factor of luck, as whoever got to use his most powerful tool first would win.

In a military situation, no one in their right mind would use any martial art (including Krav Maga) except as an absolute last resort. The fact is, hand to hand combat went out long ago.

Modern military training focuses on modern weapons and intelligence. If for some incredible and unfortunate reason, every weapon a soldier had was lost, stolen or broken (highly unlikely), then the next step would be to use a makeshift weapon.

Hand to hand is the absolute last choice.

That is why the best self defense training schools teach people to avoid trouble in the first place, run if possible, and fight as the last resort.

Of course, the military trains hand to hand, as they must be ready for anything. But it is a different kind of hand to hand. It is dirty, and again, anything will be used as a weapon. A stick or pencil is a far more lethal than your hands.

There has been a lot in the press recently about the police and their Tasers. If all their hand to hand training were so effective, not one of them would need to resort to 500,000 volts, now would they?

True military training will win over all the sport techniques mentioned, because the only rule is to win. This applies only in a military setting however, because in everyday life, there is conscience, litigation, and incarceration.

And even with military training adapted to self defense in civilian life, those latter three factors are powerful. Krav Maga teaches that in a life or death situation, you are not going to care how much damage you're going to cause, therefore cause as much damage as possible and then escape without prolonging a fight. Military hand to hand and weapons techniques are taught.

That sounds great, but again, in a non-military civilian setting, there are rules. Law is the rule, and it varies depending on region.

You could find yourself with a second far more serious fight to win. The one in court. Even if you are right,what seemed obvious to you on the street may be less obvious to judge and jury. If the other person can convince the court that you went beyond a reasonable response, you could be the one found guilty of assault.

Yet another competition clouded by....rules. (Ouch).

By now, you are probably frustrated, and shouting "what about in an all-out war, a non-civilian battle man to man. Just tell me would have the best chance at winning?"

Well, even that would be governed by international ROE (Rules of Engagement).

(Sorry. Here is the 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual's (MCRP 3-02B) “Continuum of Force” guidelines:

* Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
* Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
* Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
* Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
* Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.

Well, you have to admit that despite being a pain in the kung fu, I have given you a pretty good overview of why rules are the main issue.

But, I did promise to play your game.

And, I will do so.

I know you are not going to be satisfied with some silly logical answer, and let's be honest, these kinds of questions are fun to consider.

So here goes. I will (finally) thank you for your patience, and make at least an honest attempt to pick one of these disciplines as a "winner".

(Drum roll, hushed crowd, kung fu fighters poised to kick me in the head, etc.)

Based on my training and expertise, I am confident that this final judgment would meet with the approval of any military or martial arts expert.

And the winner is.....

I would pick the chess champion. They are crafty devils, and the brass sets could really do some damage.

Cheers!

Jump kick knockdown in karate competition