What is the best kicking martial art?

I don't understand why you say it leaves your leg more open to leg kicks when in the videos I posted, both guys could utilize leg kicks, but the Savate guy was in no more danger than the Muy Thai practitioner?

I mean, is it really necessary to stand squared up?

I don't see Anderson Silva standing squared up, nor Rampage.

Doesn't getting out of the way of a single leg take down come down more to the athlete rather than the style?

I mean, if you have slow reactions, you get taken down, right?

You said the Savate practitioner was very hard to spar, so why would you give the impression that Muy Thai is superior?

Wouldn't it be best to learn both, but utilize the Savate stance and footwork from a distance, and utilize either boxing or Muy Thai from up close?

I mean, I understand that Muy Thai has knees, but I've seen a guy get knocked out when he put somebody in a clinch, by the other guy who was throwing fast, short hooks.

I mean if you're strength is stand up, woudln't it be best to keep your distance and range, and if you get inside, typically against a guy rangier than you, would you want to try to knee him anyway?

Probably not right?

I mean, I've never seen anybody attempt to knee Jon Jones. In fact, the only way Jon Jones may be beatable is to catch him with a counter hook and hope he doesn't have a chin.

You're not going to beat him at a distance, and you can't knee him, so what good is Muy Thai knees?

I mean, the only time I really see Muy Thai knees work is when a guy is rushing in with his head down.

And I know you said, "it's easy to say, you can just learn knees," but what is there really?

I mean, it's pretty simple isn't it? It's not like it's rocket science. You just lock the guy behind his neck and drive your knee up. That's pretty simple.

In contrast, counterpunching and counterkicking someone like Savate emphasizes, that takes skill.

Am I wrong?

And I know you say, most people go with Muy Thai, but you know as well as I do, that most people don't really have much natural fluidity or rhthymm, so they would naturally be inclined to gravitate towards something that to me looks like it comes down to who can kick or punch the hardest or who can take the most punishment.

 

I want to learn one of these disciplines, but I don't want to waste my time learing a discipline that is made for people that fight like Margarito.

If that is a prerequisite for Muy Thai, what is the point of me learning it?

To be honest, just like boxing, I want to get the most out of it, learn how to do it, get some sparring in if not one fight, and then practice it through shadow boxing (shadow kicking? do people do this?), and bag work.

I just want to have it in my arsenal in case I need it. But I box intelligently. I try to counter, and while I feel like I can punch very hard for my weightclass, I don't fight with a style of just reckless abandonment.

You see what I'm saying?

What good is it learing a fighting style that leaves you a broken old man? I mean, I understand that if I'm not going pro, but how good is a style that breaks down your body?

It seems like Savate emphsasizes skill and precision while Muy Thai emphasizes just blind power and taking punishment.

Skill and intellect usually wins out. Look at Anderson Silva. He's not always the strongest, fastest, or hardest puncher, yet he wins consistantly.

I know Wilhelm said that Savate doesn't use leg kicks, but in videos I watch of it, I see them leg kicking all the time.

And he just told me that the Savate guy was very hard to spar.

So I'm perplexed. If Savate routinely wins out against Muy Thai, why learn a weaker discpline?

 

I understand that disdain for most kicking arts, but why Savate?

It appears there is a quite a bit of ignorance regarding this art. It seems like it has few, but effective kicks, and is based on countering your opponent.

I don't understand why people rule out Savate?

Wouldn't it be smart to utilize both Savate and Muy Thai?

Is there anybody that can break this down and emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of both martial arts?

 

Everyone talks about this, but I rarely ever see knees or elbows being implemented in a fight.

If a guy gets that close, they are usually pushed against the cage at close quarters...

Okay, I take that back, they are kneeing eachother in the legs, but how much technique does that take? Isn't that something that would just come natural? It's like, hmmmm....I can't use my arms because I'm using them to hold on to my opponent...I can't kick because I'm too close....so, I'll use knees.

That doesn't require much skill. That's mostly instinct. I mean, don't get me wrong, you need the balance, but every martial art has balance. If you don't have balance, it doesn't matter what you do, you're never going to be any good.

So while Muy Thai has more weapons, you can only utilize them up close and by that time, your opponent typically tries to grapple you and the fight ends up on the floor or against the cage.

Stand up is mostly utilized on the outiside. That's where you're most effective, unless you can catch somebody with some short hooks on the inside, but like I said, by that time, your opponent will typically grapple you.

So, why does Savate not get very much credit when it appears to be more fluid and geared towards counterpunching and defense than does Muy Thai?

 

Can you elaborate on this?

It seems like Savate would be the best stand up for MMA considering it's fluid and based on countering your opponent, and footwork.

To me, knees are instinctive. If your opponents head is down, it's instinctive to push his head into your knee.

You learned that move in grade school.

If you're against a good fighter though, he won't put himself in that position in the first place unless he's hurt or Brock Lesnar who is afraid to take punches.

And when you're up close and your arms are occupied and your opponent is kneeing you, it's common sense to knee him back or do one of those judo trips that I often see.

Am I wrong?

So why would Savate lose against Muy Thai when the video I posted was the best Muy Thai fighter against the best Savate fighter in a K1 rules match, and the Savate fighter whupped his ass.

So, wouldn't it be logical that Savate would be the optimal art for MMA unless you're the type of fighter that doesn't like to move and will take a punch or kick to deliver a punch or kick?

Or a Margaritoesque type of fighter?

Can you elaborate one the strengths and weaknesses of Savate? I mean, I'm just trying to get a handle on which one I should learn if I should consider either.

I know that there is a Chinese martial art that was made to fight the Thais, specifically geared to fight against Muy Thai.

Perhaps that is where Savate got its roots from? I heard that it was the Chinese that fought French Sailors, and the Sailors initially punched, but added kicking to their regiment.

 

Why can't anybody elaborate?

Can you at least say why Muy Thai is superior? Does it have to do with the kicks?

The angles?

What?

To me, it sounds like people are just ignorant.