Koga Ninjutsu
Chat with our AI personalities
There is no way to quantify degrees of being "deadly" ("deadlier"; "deadliest"). You are either dead, or you are not. Something is either deadly, or it is not deadly. All systems of Martial Art contain skills that are capable of killing someone, therefore they are all potentially "deadly," but none are inherently more deadly than others, nor is there a "deadliest" Martial Art. No genuine Martial Art promotes killing more than any other, and the ending of a life is done only when necessary to protect or save innocent lives - lest we become brutes, barbarians, gangsters or common criminals rather than Martial Artists. Whether or not the skills are used for actions that result in death, and how often this occurs, is entirely up to the practitioner when applying their potentially deadly skills.
The question of which Martial Art system is more "deadly" than any other, amounts to the same debate as what is the "best" Martial Art - - which is ALWAYS a matter of opinion based on personal preference, individual experiences, an not on facts. First of all, there is really no accurate way to quantify the term "deadly," as in "deadlier" or "deadliest." You are either dead, or you are not. A technique, or combination of techniques assembled into a skill set and taught in a curriculum either contains "deadly" techniques that are capable of killing someone, or they are void of them. Virtually every well-known Martial Art system contains at least one, and more commonly, most have multiple techniques that are deadly. It would not matter if there was only one move in the entire curriculum of any given Martial Art system, or thousands that were known to cause death. All it takes is one deadly technique, applied correctly, to make that Martial Art system deadly. If you learn a thousand non-lethal techniques, and only one "deadly" technique, but apply that one deadly technique with great skill 99% of the time, the result will produce more death than a person training in a system containing a majority of deadly skills, but only apply them half the time. It is true that it is not the system or form of Martial Art that affects the deadly outcome, but the skill of the Martial Artist, how often they engage in mortal combat, and the number of times they implement one or more deadly techniques. [Supervisor's note: to avoid the answers on this page from being written, deleted, and replaced over and over by a plethora of novice, and every Martial Artist promoting their favorite system, personal opinions may be added to the discussion page here]
No; most martial arts historians are in agreement, that it is wrestling which holds that honor. No, actually, the first real martial art is believed to be an inian martial art known as Kalarippayattu.
tae kwon doA+
Fencing is a form of martial art just like karate and taekwondo but the reason why not many people choose it is because it’s an armed martial arts. It’s understandable in order to defend yourself anytime, anywhere with zero preparation, an unarmed martial art is a favorable option.