What's the difference between KARATE, AIKIDO, TAE KWON DO, JUDO, etc?

Question

I mean, karate is mostly for kicking and and punching and aikido uses jointlocks and the opponent's strength to get him on the floor, but more in depth... I tried google but everybody says different things

Answer 1

Well cailano, I think your assessment is ok, if not a bit biased.  The big problem I have with it is making broad statements about traditional martials.  For example I doubt if both a good Kyokushin Karate school and a McDojo Karate for Kids school would both be 20% effective.  I think the Kyokushin school would be way more than 20% effective and 20% is quite generous for a "Karate for Kids" McDojo franchise.

Answer 2

- Judo is a grappling art somewhat based off of jiu jitsu, much of Judo is about take-downs, throws, and practically any other way you can disarm your opponent through grappling.

-Akido is also a grappling art, but unlike with judo

where it matches strength with strength, akido uses your opponents own force against them, it is also known for it's very effective joint-locks.

-Karate is a term for many different martial arts such as kyushin, shotokan, and goju-ryu. Like Katana said, Okinawan karate uses joint-locks, sweeps, punches, kicks, even stand up grappling.

Many of the techniques in karate focus on power and strength that are way more than 20% effective in a fight.

-Taekwondo is a martial art that has a great influence from karate, Taekwondo uses kick at least 70% of the time and uses other techniques such as punches and take-downs about 30% of the time. Some of the kicks in Taekwondo use a jumping or spinning approach because of the fact that many practitioners of it when it first started had to fight calvary and knock horesmen off their steads.

-Kung Fu is a Chinese martial art that also has many forms, many of the styles of kung fu mimic animals due to the viscousness many predators show in nature.

-Mixed Martial Arts is not a martial arts on it's own, it borrows many techniques from other systems, it shows that no art is better than another.

-Extreme Martial Arts like Mixed martial arts, is not a style by it's self, it uses a collection of moves from all of the most acrobatic techniques from other styles. It's drawback however is that it lacks real world applicable moves.

Krav Maga and other military arts, are the arts you see marines and nave seals training in, these arts are very brutal and strong and very good for the battlefield.

-Jiu Jitsu, there two different kinds of jiu Jitsu (by my knowledge) Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Japanese Jiu Jitsu. Brazilian Jiu jitsu is a lot like wrestling, it uses grappling to secure a dominate spot on top and thus win a fight. Japanese Jiu Jitsu uses both stand up and ground game grappling, it is the original form of Jiu Jitsu.

There are many other martial arts out there and to name them all would take a very long time, while some would state that one art is the best, this is usually said by those who don't study martial arts, or those who haven't been training long enough to realize there is no best.

Answer 3

check out

http://www.majorsmartialarts.com

Answer 4

No style is better or worse than another as far as self-defense is concerned. The issue in each case is how much of the martial art is taught. Along with that is the students ability to understand the proper use and his ability to use that knowledge.  

There seems to be an endless debate over what style is the best. If there was one that was superior to all others we would all study that style.

So as far as disadvantages, that depends on who teaches the arts and what he teaches.

Answer 5

There are thousands of martial arts styles.  But the good thing is you can pretty much lump them together.

Acrobatic Styles:  Wu Shu, Caporeia, XMA... you get to fly around a look pretty.  Very athletically challenging, no fighting aspect.

Meditative Styles: Tai Chi, Chi Kung, all "internal" systems.  These are for meditation and basic fitness for the elderly or tragically out of shape.  No fighting aspect.

Forms based arts: Kung Fu, Karate, Taekwondo, Hapkido, kempo, hundreds of others.  These are more practical than the two above but they are definted by the techniques and forms they practice rather than the fighting aspects of their systems.  It is certainly possible for a practicioner of one of these sytems to kick the *** of an untrained person.  These are what most people think of when they think of martial arts.  I'd say these systems are about 20% practical for self defense if you go to a good school.

Military Fighting Systems: Krav Maga and Combat Sambo leap to mind here.  These are self defense based systems, with a lot of good strategies, but unless they incorporate a sparring aspect, I'd be suspicious of their claims to be the be all and end all of self defense.  Mixed with something like MMA though, they could be deadly.

Stand Up Fighting Sports: Muay Thai, Boxing,  Kickboxing, etc.  These focus on full contact sparring but have only a stand up element. You have to be tough and strong to do these arts.  They are limited by a near total lack of grappling.

Traditional Grappling arts: Japanese Jujistu, Danzan Ryu Jujitsu, Judo, Aikido:  These are difficult arts to learn and rely on joint locks and throwing techniques to render an opponet incapacitated.  Very effective if applied correctly.  Good for law enforcement personel because of the emphasis on restraint techniques.  

Ground Based Grappling Arts: Brazilian Jujitsu (Gracie, Machado, etc) Sambo, Submission Grappling Greco Roman and Freestyle Wrestling  These arts are great for one on one fights, especially on the floor.  Some of the takedowns and slams from Sambo and Wrestling can be effective weapons as well.  Limited by a near absence of striking techniques.

Mixed Martial Arts: These modern arts attempt to fuse the best of boxing, muay thai, brazilian jujitsu and freestyle wrestling.  Very dangerous, very powerful.  MMA is king right now in one on one, unarmed fights.  MMA fused with Krav Maga would be a very effective and well rounded fighting system and some schools teach them together.  Military groups like the US Marines teach what is basically a fusion of MMA, Krav Maga style military training, and group and weapons tactics.  

Hope that helps, email with any questions about a specific art.

EDIT: Wow, that answer below wasn't even an answer it was just to slam me.  But in my defense, I hold black belts in two traditional martial arts and I'm a former police officer.  I stand by what I said.  About 20% of what you do in karate is actually effective.  I do train MMA currently, but I think I gave a fair assessment of it above.  Notably that it could use an infusion of Krav Maga to make it truly street effective.

Answer 6

Each style has its own set of origins (their reasons for coming into being), and they've all been passed down through the generations to differing masters. Some have gone through a great deal change since their conception while some are virtually the same as they were hundreds of years ago. Some styles are no longer practical as a fighting art, while some are used every day. Some have lost their depth and/or purpose, while others retain within themselves everything needed.

To get a more in-depth understanding, see it for yourself, learn what each is about, and then make your own conclusions.

Answer 7

The differences in styles are apparent.  If you read up on each art, then what you see is what you get.  Can't get any more indepth than that.

You cannot measure any advantage or disadvantage since it's going to be on a person to person basis.  No one can say Karate trumps Judo, Judo trumps Tae Kwon Do, Tae Kwon Do trumps whatever.  The individual is the true measurement.  The martial art is just a form to his ability.

re: Katana's comments about  being attacked by a trained MMA practitioner...  research Lee Murray.

Answer 8

Please disregard what Cialano said about a lot of stuff. It is obvious that he either trains MMA or is a fan of the UFC, as his answers prove to be consistantly wrong.

One incorrect statement I can point out is yes karate  is mainly thought of as a striking art to the avergae person who doesn't know it, but what people like him do not realize is that Okinawin karate has numerous standing grappling techniques as well. It has locks, chokes, throws, sweeps and take downs. It uses low kicks and clinch fighting. In fact if you watch a good Okinawin practitioner fight it will look a lot like a Muay Thai fighter, only with a lot of grappling. As for only being 20% effective, I do not know where he got this number, but I'd like to know what he was on when he made it up.

The funny thing is that if you read the answers of people that you know actually train, they will tell you that any style if taught correctly is good for self defense.

What people like Cialono fail to realize is that there is a huge difference between a street fight(which most of them think is self defense) and actual self defense. I am not too afraid that I am going to be attacked for no reason by a highly trained MMA fighter. I really don't think that is within the realm of possibilities.

The fact is that any style if taught right and trained well, should be more then adiquate for self defense.

I hope he reads this, even though I have found people like him have more closed minds then anyone, and I know it wont change his opinion, but maybe he will not talk about things that he has no first hand experience or limited experience with like he actually knows about them.

As for your question it is just way to broad a subject to really do it justice on here.