Not a style question. Or bashing anyone. In a war situation?

so then to continue off of kw stereo types of martial arts, mma is completely useless in a war since it is governor by rules along with bjj since that is also governed by rules. as well as both of them are completely useless when it comes to weapons defense. since they don't allow weapons in an mma ring or bjj ring. also both only are for one on one
so to carry on with the stereo typing only tma would be useful, since they have weapons and multiple opponent defense.kw you sound like a total idiot every time you make such a moronic statement.


for the question in actuality non of them. it more depends upon the persons commitment in a fight then the style, or what he trains. it depends on how the person train.
that and how well they person can shoot and is willing to pull the trigger. if he can't use a gun i don't want to be around them. i doubt i would shoot a person, its not in my nature.

besides the fact not everyone even in the military is willing to kill another person, my nephew was put in such a situation, 3 members of his squad were shot two of them died in a confrontation with a drug gang in mexico. there was only two people with guns in the gang and four of them, my nephew was the only one who returned fire more out of fear then anything, he has had a break down after the incident.

@KW I'm a traditionalist and I have never broken a board! I have, on the other hand sparred full contact, standing and ground. I think you need to reevaluate your thoughts on "traditional" and separate them from frauds. Yes there are some traditional schools on Okinawa that only do forms, but the big tournament there goes by Kyokushin rules.

I'd say traditionalist simply because he's probably spent the most time at the shooting range.

I find it odd that you think "Muay" is "covered in mma" but Jiujitsu is not.

MMA is a format. There are MMA fighters who don't draw on Muay Thai. Or even Jiujitsu for that matter, though it's much more common. How much do you know about MMA?

"Traditional" also covers a broad range as well. If the guy studies Kendo, I'm not sure how useful that's going to be if there are no swords around.

Personally, I want a sharpshooter or a heavy weapons specialist. But for hand to hand, the MMA fighter stands a better chance of being in better physical condition and used to using his skills against resisting opponents on a regular basis.

None. They all are gung ho and liable to do something stupid that will get them and me killed. Like picking fist fights with the enemy, thinking war is one big sparring match. Give me a survivalist. Someone who knows how to hide and scavenge for food and set traps. I bet you I'd stay alive with someone like that much longer than with what you got. If that is not an acceptable answer I think I'll just go off into the woods by myself. I firmly believe in sneaking up from behind and stabbing an enemy in the back. Everything is fair in a war.

well war is not simply defined by hand to hand skills. thats only a small part. the best hand to hand fighter can be taken out by a sniper with only a .22 rifle and a few months of marksmanship. if youre talking guerilla warfare a skilled trapper can do a lot of damage. as can a bomb-maker.

I would want all three. In war there is no Christian or Jew, no black or white, no traditional or non-traditional, it's just "us" against "them". So yeah, I would want all three, or any of the three, by my side...as long as the man had the guts to do what needed to be done.

Edit:
I am tired of all this "I'm better than you are" crap. Any style or method has the potential for producing great fighters, from the rule bound sport fighters to the ultra-traditional martial artists, they all get the job done, they just have their preferred ways of doing it. All this "My style can beat up your style" B.S. is just childish. Personally I prefer the old school way, and my confidence in it has been justified in the "real world" many times, but that does not give me the right to disrespect others just because they choose to follow a different path.
Not that any of these answers are seriously bashing anyone (Although a couple have made a lame attempt) I just felt like speaking my mind.

Well I would judge it on what the person is like and what their skill level they are at because I think this is more important than the style they practice. But if style was the only information I was given, then I’ll say MMA because they are usually well conditioned and they can be versatile.

Considering that elite soldiers are taught things that could be considered MMA like MMACAP, KAPAP, Krav Maga and a couple others, I would generally go with the MMA guy.

Unlike what Keyboard Warrior said, I would choose the traditional fighter depending on his school. If the traditional fighter went to a real school, then he/she would be better than any other. Traditional martial arts are all made by warfare after all. By the way, Juijitsu is a traditional martial art, it was used by the samurai.

Ah. Well. Well. Well.

Colonel Rex Applegate, a top American military figure once said. In a war, a soldier must not question if he will die or not. He needs to question when he will die. It's a matter of when, not if. He shouldn't be discredited as he is a major figurehead in the second world war.

If it's a war situation, I'd get out to a safe place as fast as possible. If not, escaping is still my objective, there should be no intention to fight if someone wants to be a survivor not a warrior.

If the traditional artist's very good, I'd choose him. If not, I'll see whoever has enough brains to run, and just go off together.

Despite all the glories the traditionalist will indulge in, despite all the ground wins the jiu jitsu man shall win, despite every single prizes that mma fighter will gain, if you stick with fighting. You will win the battle but lose the war.

Traditional fighter. At least he would know how to make sushi or something xD