Ihmishylje's forum posts

#1 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@stonyman65: I'm sure, but the problem with many of these arts is that they often have to be watered down when taught to the general public. The dilemma that remains is that how useful is it to train an extremely deadly technique when you can never really try it in sparring or sometimes even in drills to really know you've mastered it? And even so, if you're not a soldier, how useful are these techniques to begin with? Perhaps in the U.S. it might be a little different, but in most parts of Europe, for example, you can't just maim or kill your attacker because "they started it." Even the police typically must not cause any more damage or inconvenience than is absolutely necessary.

To most people, my advice would be to pick an art that seems interesting or fun to you personally, and intrinsically. By which I mean not as a means to learn to protect yourself, but because it's fun to train the art, or to compete in it, or whatever. As a result, you will get into better shape and maybe even learn to defend yourself a little bit in some situations. Even if you're a professional boxer and you can beat the shit out of pretty much anyone you would ever meet on the "street", it doesn't make you bulletproof, knifeproof, or immune to prosecution.

#2 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@zevvion: I meant no disrespect to your hobby. It's a competition sport, and a very technical one (yet not to the point of absurdity). Technically calling it "grappling" would be more accurate than calling it "wrestling" but I didn't mean it as an insult, just to explain it to the layman. Perhaps this is also a matter of cultural context -- from my point of view, wrestling is an olympic sport, and thus practiced by the very elite of athletes. Also, where I'm from there's a half-joke-y tendency to call everything and anything that includes grappling "wrestling", i.e. Daitoryu would be "knife wrestling."

But I do think it's a little bit of bullshit to say that the best man always wins. In competition there are very good reasons for why weight classes exist. On "the street", there are numerous factors that play into a situation, mostly weaponry and dumb luck. But that's not a slight toward BJJ, just a general observation.

@monetarydread: My point was that BJJ can be a lot more dangerous than people tend to think. It's nowhere near boxing-levels of insanity, but if you break your shoulder joint, that might end up being a permanent disability. Of course, it's all about how carefully you train, but in the heat of the moment stuff can happen.

#3 Edited by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@cookiemonster: If you want something where you have a low chance of injury, maybe go for something that's "self-defence" oriented and doesn't have sparring. These are typically, arguably, less effective, due to the lack of sparring. Sparring is almost always done with a rule-set to protect the participants, so even in "omfg so reals street defence" arts you will have sparring that more or less resembles sports martial arts. Nevertheless, even with rules and careful participants, injuries can happen (and minor ones eventually will, if you take it seriously enough and stick with it for a while).

I would say there's no martial art that is completely safe or injury free. Maybe Tai Chi or something comes close. Most sports carry a risk of injury however, so you will have to evaluate this for yourself. This is true of most sports, however. You can injure yourself doing yoga, after all. And even martial arts that don't have sparring, that rely on drills (joint locks etc.), can be dangerous if done carelessly or too fast.

I can give you a brief recap of the few martial arts I've tried or practiced for some length of time.

BJJ - Fun, if you like wrestling on the ground. Because that is most of it. Yes, it includes other things too, but if your main interest is wrestling on the ground, go for BJJ. No kicks or punches (in sparring or competition anyway), but sparring can still be very dangerous, particularly for joints, but your face may take damage too. Personally and anecdotally I consider it more dangerous than arts that have strikes.

Boxing - You will get punched in the head a lot. If you've ever wondered what it would be like to get brain damage, go for boxing. Unlike what you might think, it's an endurance sport, and a very demanding one. The most demanding training sessions, from an endurance point of view, I've ever experienced in martial arts, have been in boxing.

Daitoryu Aiki-Jujutsu - This is similar to Aikido (never tried Aikido myself) in the sense that there is no sparring and focuses almost entirely on joint locks. It is the parent sport from which Aikido originated, and includes numerous very difficult and very lethal techniques (it was designed by the samurai for the battlefield, not self defence -- the intent of many techniques is to kill or maim your opponent) that were scrapped when the more streamlined and self-defence focused (and some would say, less effective) Aikido was developed. Central concepts are "jujutsu" (fighting based on the mechanics and physics of the human body) and "aiki" (mental focus and ability to react to your opponents reflexes and use them against them). Most if not all techniques are based on the idea that your opponent has a weapon. If you like Japanese history and culture, and very esoteric martial arts, try Daitoryu.

Escrima - only tried this briefly, so not a lot to say, but lots of fighting with sticks and knives. You first learn to fight with sticks against sitcks, unarmed techniques are only learned later, because the assumption is that your opponent is armed, and fighting an armed opponent unarmed is very, very difficult. The group I was in didn't have "proper" sparring, but a kind of free-flow drill session every now and then. If you like getting stabbed (with a dull knife) try Escrima.

Judo - Similari to BJJ (it is the origin of BJJ anyway) but the focus is more on wrestling while standing up. Lots, and lots of throws. If you like being thrown to the ground often and violently, then go for Judo. Practice and sparring includes ground game similar to BJJ, although this is less of a thing in competition. Judo is one of the most physically intense competition sports out there. Like most japanese arts, includes the idea of using your opponent's strength and motion against them. In reality, this is not always so effectively employed.

Savate - French kick boxing, that includes strikes from boxing, and kicks with shoes (so no elbows or knees, like muay thai, for example). Very technical, lots of fun, but you may end up being kicked in the head a few times -- shoes on. A competition sport, so of course includes sparring. If you like getting kicked in the head, try Savate.

Systema - Russian self defence martial art supposedly developed from CQC training of Russian special forces. Some teachers, more than others, focus more on the sort of "bullshido" mysticism often attached to the art. Very fluid system with no particular rules or techniques. Just "ideology" on how to fight or how to train fighting. Quite different from many sports martial arts. More focus on singular heavy strikes and takedowns than sports tend to be. Employs a similar ideology to most japanese arts (like aikido, most forms of jujutsu, judo) that you should use your opponents motion against them. May include sparring, but relies mostly on free-flow drills. If you are interested in militant shit and weird Russian ideas, try Systema.

Of course, it all depends on your teacher/sensei/coach and the group in general, so you should always shop around before you settle on one, and not make your choice purely on what sounds cool on paper.

#4 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -
@deerokus said:

I love cultural differences like this. I live in the suburbs of the the biggest city in a small country, Scotland. It would be actively weird and creepy to drive someone you're going on a date with around. And you know, alcohol.

I guess that would be going off topic so I will drop it..

Yeah, I definitely get what you're saying. I live in a city that has probably the best public transport in the world (Helsinki -- bigger than Edinburgh but smaller than Glasgow), and the thought of needing a car for dating is AMAZING. It just blows my mind that someone would even have that thought floating in their head.

I get that, if you live in a rural area, whether it's the U.S., Scotland, or Finland, you'll need a car for everything. But at that point you wouldn't be asking whether you need a car for dating either, would you? If you didn't have a car in a place like that, dating would be the least of your worries. I know somebody already brought this point up, but still.

As for the OP asking people out, always go for it. I get that it can be terrifying in the beginning, but there is literally no downside to doing so. Later in life, you will only regret not trying. I cannot emphasize this point enough.

#5 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

Helsinki, Finland

#6 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@rm082e: Yeah, I guess you're right. Thanks for the advice!

#7 Edited by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@rm082e: I get your point, and I was aware of the role parts play in PCs, it was the second rig I had built. The parts I chose were the (most expensive) ones I could afford. I was aware (or mistaken?) that they would be on the lower mid-range. They were definitely not the cheapest nor least powerfult parts. I might have been able to shave off a bit from that price tag by shopping around, but not anything significant. Hardware, like everything else, is very expensive here.

I'm definitely not comfortable upgrading a PC every couple of years. When I got my PC three years ago, my previous PC was from '04. That PC was of a similar power range (or perhaps slightly more powerful) and equally expensive (as far as I can remember). I hate almost everything about PC gaming, I guess, except the better graphics, exclusives, and potentially cheaper games. The trouble is, I guess I'm a "softcore" gamer, I don't play that many games. I buy a few games a year, mostly story-driven one, and I buy them when they come out because they're usually games I've been waiting for for years. If I were patient and smart enough to wait, I'm sure I'd save more money on games on the PC. On the other hand, I'd have to spend that money (or a lot more) on the PC itself. It would have to be upgraded, and it would hog a lot of power, which is expensive as well. I've bought some games on Steam sales, but I usually don't get around playing them.

But I'm nevertheless bummed out about getting into the new console generation anyway. If I buy a PS4, that'll mean lesser graphics, and sometimes poor optimization from PC-centric games, and lack of access to the games that only come out on PC, or the potential of a cheaper game. On the other hand, I probably can't afford a "proper" PC, and even if I could, I'd probably rather choose to spend that money on something else, and not have to deal with games that just won't work, and all the other shit that comes with a PC.

#8 Edited by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@robotdragon said:

you got ripped off on that PC rig.

could have built a cheap but decent one for cheaper than that.

amd's fx8350 are cheap but beasts in price-performance for cpus and have a high roof for OC as well, if you get lucky and can OC it to 5ghz, you just yourself a cpu worth twice than what you paid, and their mobos are cheap too, getting ram for them are cheap as well, only expensive part would normally be the GPU.

Maybe, but how much better would it have been and for how much cheaper? For the sake of comparison, where I live, a 500GB PS4, without any games, costs over $600.

I'm not trying to argue, if you can link me to a decent PC build, I could check what the individual parts cost over here. I'd much rather play games with better graphics, but at some point I have to decide whether I want games to run without any hassle or if I want to spend extra money on the PC experience.

I have other interests, I don't spend all my money (or time) on games. I'm still not sure if the average PC gamer is wealthy (I certainly am not) or if they just don't have to or want to spend money on anything else.

Edit: Also, I don't want to OC anything. It'll just use up more power -> increase in utility bill -> not worth it. Also, more fans, noise, etc. I'd rather give up some performance for a quieter machine that doesn't use up as much power.

#9 Edited by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

I feel like part of the problem with PC games like the Witcher 2 is that they're designed to look really nice on the higher settings, but if your PC can't run that, and you have to use lower settings, the games start to look like garbage. At the same time, most console games can't reach graphical fidelity like that on a technical level, but they optimize the lower graphics well enough, and use an appropriate art style to cover up the rest.

I'm sure the Witcher 2 on medium settings is technically better looking than any console game from last gen, but that's not what it looks like to me. I'd probably rather have less stuff on screen, if it looked better and had a better draw distance. I've been recently playing Red Dead Redemption and that game looks gorgeous despite its age. It still looks much more impressive than GTA V, and I guess that's more due to how the environments etc. are designed than how much power they're able to get out of the console.

#10 Posted by Ihmishylje (413 posts) -

@oursin_360: You might be right, I don't know. My psu is a chieftec 500W 80+, I figured that would have been enough, given how much the individual components supposedly require.

The Witcher 2 ran kinda ok on medium settings @ 720p. I finished the game, it's a great game. But I couldn't really get it to run smoothly on any settings. Except like everything on low at 480p or something, but at that point I might as well just play it without a monitor.