One style.

[gregimotis]

Hitting you opponent first may be unwise as they judge may decide you were the aggressor....It is often difficult to find good Muay Thai instruction in the US...

Both are valid points, but not directly relevant to the question.
'Hit first, hit often' is a time-tested strategy in fight winning - whether the legal system approves is a different question.


In any case if I was pressed to choose an MMA 'style', I'm going with BJJ (wrestling a close second) for the reasons already listed and:


A good grappler in his range should be able to handily defeat less trained opponents considerably larger than himself.

[aseepish]

There's no such thing as a general confrontation, unless you're the type who's getting into fights every night. Then you might be able to say in nine fights out of ten X set of techniques from style Y served me best. But the point is you don't know if the next confrontation you get into is going to be with a quick tempered idiot with little or no skills or training thowing wide clumsy punches or with a hard-core criminal who just got out of federal prison who is going to wait until he and his buddies can blindside you and stab you to death.

The styles you mentioned are all great at what they focus on and training in any of them will give you an athletic advantage. But what you need for "success" is more than just style or technique - it's a mindset. It's familiarity with ALL ranges/phases of combat (including weapons and multiple attackers). It's the ability to deal with the adrenaline rush. It's not what you train necessarily, but HOW you train.

MMA-related arts are great. You get the wonderful benefit of being able to train at an intensity similar to how you would apply the techniques in a fight, training against fully resisting opponents. But what may be appropriate for the ring may not be appropriate in a struggle for your life.

End rant.

[gregimotis]

Agreed with aseepish on the subject of self defense vs. sport, nonetheless we were polled specifically as to which MMA style etc. etc.

[Tom Yum]

I second that

Hitting you opponent first may be unwise as they judge may decide you were the aggressor. I agree with Muay Thai capabilities. The kicks knees and elbows will beat a boxer of comperable skill. Muay Thai clinches do very well against wrestlers. It is often difficult to find good Muay Thai instruction in the US. Many claim to know Muay Thai and really teach western kickboxing with leg kicks and checks.

I'd go with muay thai.

Kicks, knees and elbows hit hard and do well against other stand-up stylists. Clinch control is good too - against a wrestler, its hard to say since wrestlers are comfortable with locking up.

[WildWest.]

MT for self defence, BJJ/wrestling for the ring/octagon. Generally for the same reasons as everyone else.

[Mephariel]

If you have good takedown defense I say Muay Thai easily.

[aseepish]

Agreed with aseepish on the subject of self defense vs. sport, nonetheless we were polled specifically as to which MMA style etc. etc.

Well sir, in that case, I recant my above statement, and go with BJJ.

I mean MT.

I mean Boxing.

I mean wrestling.

Do I have to pick just one???

[Rebiu]

Wrestlers unfamiliar with MT head plumb.

I'd go with muay thai.

Kicks, knees and elbows hit hard and do well against other stand-up stylists. Clinch control is good too - against a wrestler, its hard to say since wrestlers are comfortable with locking up.

There are many ways to clinch in MT. I have found the version of the head plumb where you forearms are against the collarbone and you put forward pressure on the back of the head ala Anderson Silva V Rich Franklin confounds wrestlers. The wrestler will sometimes escape by bending at the waist but he opens to devestating strikes.

Shot from a distance can be countered by footwork, however most Muay Thai does not emphasise evasive footwork that sets you up for counters.

[Rebiu]

Getting carried away.

There's no such thing as a general confrontation, unless you're the type who's getting into fights every night. Then you might be able to say in nine fights out of ten X set of techniques from style Y served me best. But the point is you don't know if the next confrontation you get into is going to be with a quick tempered idiot with little or no skills or training thowing wide clumsy punches or with a hard-core criminal who just got out of federal prison who is going to wait until he and his buddies can blindside you and stab you to death.

This is true and yet a generalization in its own. Most confrontations are one on one and impromptive. Perhaps if we cut out the outlandish outliers or prison convicts who have a bunch of friend willing to murder a stranger at the behest of their recently released buddy from jail a useful dialogue about fighting can take place

The styles you mentioned are all great at what they focus on and training in any of them will give you an athletic advantage. But what you need for "success" is more than just style or technique - it's a mindset. It's familiarity with ALL ranges/phases of combat (including weapons and multiple attackers). It's the ability to deal with the adrenaline rush. It's not what you train necessarily, but HOW you train.

You sound like a JKD infomertial.

MMA-related arts are great. You get the wonderful benefit of being able to train at an intensity similar to how you would apply the techniques in a fight, training against fully resisting opponents. But what may be appropriate for the ring may not be appropriate in a struggle for your life.

End rant.

I would bet it beats whatever you are selling.

[Rebiu]

Not relevent?

Both are valid points, but not directly relevant to the question.
'Hit first, hit often' is a time-tested strategy in fight winning - whether the legal system approves is a different question.

You will think it does not matter when you are sitting in jail for manslaughter or worse.

In any case if I was pressed to choose an MMA 'style', I'm going with BJJ (wrestling a close second) for the reasons already listed and:


A good grappler in his range should be able to handily defeat less trained opponents considerably larger than himself.

Good points. Furthermore they offer the most controllable response.

[aseepish]

I would bet it beats whatever you are selling.

I'm selling 45 pounds of turnips. Any takers? Make me an offer!

[gregimotis]

You will think it does not matter when you are sitting in jail for manslaughter or worse.

I understand of course that it matters a lot in life.
The very best self defense is the art of 'don't get in a fight in the first place'. I am merely constraining my comments to the narrow subject of how to win a street fight.


How much are those turnips, anyway?

[gregimotis]

You know, when I first replied to this thread I could have sworn it was limited to one-vs-one encounters - thus my BJJ vote.



I see that I was wrong about that and am changing my vote to Muay Thai. If I got two I'd throw judo in there as a second. Although boxing is good. and so is BJJ and.... mmmm turnips.

[7r14ngL3Ch0k3]

muay thai and wrestling.

[Sagacious Lu]

Since this is the MMA forum I'm going to consider this strictly from a sporting stand point; if this were the combatives forum the answer would be learing to use fire arms. If you only get one style I'd have to seriously consider judo even though I've never practiced it myself. I say judo because it gives you a number of good options both on the ground and standing while building the athleticism necessary to apply them.