Martial arts

[Tablo]

Recently I've started working out again with the intention of getting back into athletics. Right now I'm mostly interested in tae kwon do, but I don't know about the places offering it to me in my area. Apparently they are a part of the International Tae Kwon Do Alliance, which I've not heard so many good things about.. any suggestions as to what I should do? I don't see much else in my area except some bujinkan bs and I don't care about playing with swords.

[FreeFocus]

First off, congrats and good luck on your new endeavors. I will say that I don't think TKD is particularly effective as a fighting art. It's usually easy to find a TKD practitioner's chin (they have a low guard) and their kicks don't have as much power or probability of landing/doing damage as Thai kicks. TKD practitioners typically have good flexibility, but you can get good flexibility elsewhere while still training in an effective fighting art. I suggest that you check for local boxing gyms or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu academies. If there are any MMA gyms near you that offer all of these arts, I would recommend that you do that and train in all facets of the game from the get-go.

If there aren't any of these places and TKD is your only option, give it a try, most gyms usually offer one or two trial classes.

[Tablo]

Well, I was just thinking taekwondo because it seems popular. I don't really care for practical fighting and mainly want to do it somewhat competitively, but all the places near me seem to be complete shit. The only MMA or BJJ places are about an hour drive. Might check those out instead as they seem much more legitimate and cost effective(other than the gas cost).

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

If you do decide to do TKD, it can be a lot of fun and really rewarding. I started very early, about 6, and continued until I received my black belt. When you get to the higher levels, fights can be very fast paced but involve a strong amount of strategy. If you find a good trainer, you can learn a lot of interesting defensive moves which are very effective against different types of attacks and can be easily employed in generic self-defense. Not to mention, it's really good for keeping you flexible, lean, and agile.

[Tablo]

Thanks guys! Found out my school's rec center has Muay Thai kickboxing and BJJ. Each only charges $45 a month which is half of what the McDojos in my area charge so I could take both at the same time and save money on gas. :thumbup:

[Rooster]

Thai boxing is probably a much harder workout. Especially if you're kicking away on a heavy bag or a pad. I would do Muay Thai, TKD just felt stilted and wrong to me. Most of the instructors and stuff also aren't really trained in physical fitness and work through a tradition sort of thing, so a lot of exercises aren't that good for you. So yeah, Mauy Thai is way more fun.

[Tablo]

Thai boxing is probably a much harder workout. Especially if you're kicking away on a heavy bag or a pad. I would do Muay Thai, TKD just felt stilted and wrong to me. Most of the instructors and stuff also aren't really trained in physical fitness and work through a tradition sort of thing, so a lot of exercises aren't that good for you. So yeah, Mauy Thai is way more fun.
It certainly looks more fun. I was wanting to do some sport oriented TKD, but this seems more my thing.

[Sasha]

i would advice you to strart with muay thai as that is, unless you have been wrestling in high school, the more accesable sport, then if you really take an intrest in MA progress to the more complete MMA by picking up BJJ aswell.
i used to train Muay thay for a few years and i really need to pick it up again. Its an great way to get in shape and actually very usefull if you ever get in an sticky situation on the street.

[Tablo]

I did some wrestling in middle school so it may be familiar, but I was planning on starting with the muay thai rather than both. :)

[An archist]

i would advice you to strart with muay thai as that is, unless you have been wrestling in high school, the more accesable sport, then if you really take an intrest in MA progress to the more complete MMA by picking up BJJ aswell.
i used to train Muay thay for a few years and i really need to pick it up again. Its an great way to get in shape and actually very usefull if you ever get in an sticky situation on the street.

Where I train, when they're explaining an exercise they always give you the competition way to do it and the 'street' way :p

[manitpong]

I did some wrestling in middle school so it may be familiar, but I was planning on starting with the muay thai rather than both. :)

Muay Thai is the best for me!:laugh:

[RedSonRising]

Can't speak for other sports but straight boxing is an amazingly rigorous sport. It may seem limited in comparison to other martial arts, but it gives a very good fundamental base for movement (both evasive and offensive), counters, feinting, balance, power in shots through weight-transfer, etc. It's very easy to compete and with a good trainer you'll go far in no time if you stress fundamentals (which are much harder than they seem.) I would reccommend you at least try it and you'll appreciate the difficulty of the craft and the conditioning.

[praxis1966]

My two cents is that if you're going to learn a martial art, you might as well learn one that has the maximum potential for real world self-defense. You might think it's not necessary, but you never know when shit's just gonna happen. TKD and boxing, in my mind don't offer that for various reasons.

When I was still training in Kenpo Jiu Jitsu, I had the opportunity to spar with a guy who held 3rd degree black belt in TKD his first day in. My sifu was willing to allow him to wear his black belt in the dojo, but he wanted to gauge whether to stick him in beginning or advanced groups right away (our weekly sessions were one on one with our instructor, group lessons were a supplement to that). It didn't take me long to figure out that if I got inside on him I could neutralize pretty much everything he wanted to do. I was only an orange belt at the time, and our sparring session convinced the sifu he ought to be in beginning group classes.

As for boxing, the problem with its real world implications is that it has no solution for grappling (and when I use the word grappling I mean it both in the way Bruce Lee and Rickson Gracie would have meant it) because it's not allowed in the ring. I dunno about you guys, but 90% of the street fights I've seen have involved grappling either standing up or on the ground or both at some point. I don't mean to disrespect boxing... As a sport I really like it, and there are certainly some things that it offers in the way of technique that no other sport can. But that's all it is, a sport, not a means of self-defense.

Anyway, like I said, as long as you're going to be bothered with a martial art, you might as well learn some real world self-defense IMO. You never know when you're going to need it.

[Smoochy The Rhino]

To the people who think that TKD is 'not an effective form of fighting': You're wrong. End of discussion. It's the unarmed fighting method of the South Korean Army (considered man-for-man one of the best fighting forces in the world). During the Vietnamese Civil War a few battalions of ROKA (the Army) were deployed. The various armies in support of the Communists had standing orders to not engage the ROKA in close combat because they had a habit of killing people by kicking them. In the head.

The only difference between any TKD school in the West and the South Korean Army is that the contact level in pad work. That's really it.

[praxis1966]

To the people who think that TKD is 'not an effective form of fighting': You're wrong. End of discussion. It's the unarmed fighting method of the South Korean Army (considered man-for-man one of the best fighting forces in the world). During the Vietnamese Civil War a few battalions of ROKA (the Army) were deployed. The various armies in support of the Communists had standing orders to not engage the ROKA in close combat because they had a habit of killing people by kicking them. In the head.

The only difference between any TKD school in the West and the South Korean Army is that the contact level in pad work. That's really it.

Learning TKD is better than nothing at all, but it's not better than most any other form of martial arts. Besides, I just can't abide an art that was originally designed so that Korean noblemen could kick the shit out of peasants without soiling their hands... Hence the 5 million variety of kicks and lack of emphasis punching or grappling techniques.

[Smoochy The Rhino]

Learning TKD is better than nothing at all, but it's not better than most any other form of martial arts.

Right, a style that's been used by military forces to kill people, who then had standing orders not to fight said military because of the killings is clearly not a good martial art. It is quite clear that TKDs long history of kicking the life out of people is clearly a direct result of it sucking.


Besides, I just can't abide an art that was originally designed so that Korean noblemen could kick the shit out of peasants without soiling their hands... Hence the 5 million variety of kicks and lack of emphasis punching or grappling techniques.

Or you have no understanding of Korean culture and history, and don't understand that Koreans think that the hands should be used only for artistic ventures, and that Tae Kwon Do and TaeKyeon (and all Korean Martial Arts) are influenced heavily by Northern Chinese styles, which emphasize kicking because the North Chinese are normally taller and have a stronger lower body. And it also has nothing to do with the simple logic that if you're going to train an unarmed fighting style and you're in the military, a kicking style would be pretty functional, since you should never drop your weapons to punch somebody. And it's not like TaeKyeon even emphasizes kicking anywhere nearly as much modern Tae Kwon Do. No, it's clearly not at all a cultural, historical, or practical measure, but was a way of training Korean Nobleman how to beat up peasants. Ignoring completely the retardedly obvious fact that both styles have always been open to members of all classes.

[praxis1966]

Right, a style that's been used by military forces to kill people, who then had standing orders not to fight said military because of the killings is clearly not a good martial art. It is quite clear that TKDs long history of kicking the life out of people is clearly a direct result of it sucking.

Right, but the military units with standing orders not to engage the ROKA in hand to hand combat were likely not trained sufficiently in any other martial art. (You said yourself those orders were given to the military units of countries other than the North.) I personally have had the occasion to discuss, and even spar in a couple of cases, with Americans in the military and I can say with certainty that apart from those in the Marine Corps or some kind of special forces, most of them don't receive a whole hell of a lot of training in unarmed self defense. It's therefore no surprise that any martial art would trump such training. Anyway, I have to question the efficacy of an art when I personally sparred with one of its practitioners when he should have been an expert and I should have been a relative novice and I was able to perform competitively.




Or you have no understanding of Korean culture and history, and don't understand that Koreans think that the hands should be used only for artistic ventures, and that Tae Kwon Do and TaeKyeon (and all Korean Martial Arts) are influenced heavily by Northern Chinese styles, which emphasize kicking because the North Chinese are normally taller and have a stronger lower body. And it also has nothing to do with the simple logic that if you're going to train an unarmed fighting style and you're in the military, a kicking style would be pretty functional, since you should never drop your weapons to punch somebody. And it's not like TaeKyeon even emphasizes kicking anywhere nearly as much modern Tae Kwon Do. No, it's clearly not at all a cultural, historical, or practical measure, but was a way of training Korean Nobleman how to beat up peasants. Ignoring completely the retardedly obvious fact that both styles have always been open to members of all classes.

Alright. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm wrong about the reason for the emphasis on kicking. According to this (http://www.worldtaekwondo.com/history.htm), the earliest records of Tae Kyon were in the tombs of kings, which may or may not suggest anything other than this or that king's personal admiration of the style. However, at least in the early stages of its proliferation, the art was only taught to elite soldiers and the sons of noblemen (ibid). Whether that supports my argument about the emphasis on kicking is certainly debatable, but it does seem to contradict your contention that TKD's teaching was open to all classes from its beginning.

Anyway, if you could source something that talks about the logic of emphasizing kicking in TKD I'd be more than happy to admit I'm wrong about that bit... But I still contend that there are a good many more effective martial arts as far as their real world, out of the ring self-defense implications in the modern day.

[Smoochy The Rhino]

Right, but the military units with standing orders not to engage the ROKA in hand to hand combat were likely not trained sufficiently in any other martial art. (You said yourself those orders were given to the military units of countries other than the North.) I personally have had the occasion to discuss, and even spar in a couple of cases, with Americans in the military and I can say with certainty that apart from those in the Marine Corps or some kind of special forces, most of them don't receive a whole hell of a lot of training in unarmed self defense. It's therefore no surprise that any martial art would trump such training. Anyway, I have to question the efficacy of an art when I personally sparred with one of its practitioners when he should have been an expert and I should have been a relative novice and I was able to perform competitively.

Having no training in combatives does not explain how the ROKA were killing people by kicking them in the head. Not to mention, there were Viet Cong bodies found holding loaded weapons with broken necks. Which means that the ROKA were killing people who could have shot them. That's a level of effectiveness all it's own. And like I said in my first post: the difference in training is contact level.


Alright. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and I'm wrong about the reason for the emphasis on kicking. According to this (http://www.worldtaekwondo.com/history.htm), the earliest records of Tae Kyon were in the tombs of kings, which may or may not suggest anything other than this or that king's personal admiration of the style.

The first pictorial records of Tae Kyyeon are from the tombs of Kings. The first written record of it was from 1790 in a book called Manmulmo. There's little evidence that I'm aware of that Tae Kyyeon itself (Tae Kyyeon, not general Korean Martial Arts) was even around in the Silla Dynasty (where your source claims Tae Kyyeon was created). And Korean folk wrestling was first recorded on the tombs of kings as well. The major wrestlers at the time were peasants. I'm not allowed to post links, so you'll have to take my word for the moment.


However, at least in the early stages of its proliferation, the art was only taught to elite soldiers and the sons of noblemen (ibid). Whether that supports my argument about the emphasis on kicking is certainly debatable, but it does seem to contradict your contention that TKD's teaching was open to all classes from its beginning.

Again, there's actually no evidence of that. But, let's pretend for a moment that Tae Kyyeon was only taught to the Hwa'rang (Korean Samurai, for lack of a better term). You know what other Martial Art was only to martial elites? Basically all of them. Muay Thai's ancestor arts were intended to be the unarmed fighting style of Thailand (Muay Boran) or Cambodia (Bokator Khmer). And since Muay Thai also focuses on kicks, I guess it's fair to just say that it was meant for Thailands elites to beat up peasants with out having to touch them. Jui Jitsu was not supposed to be taught to non-Samurai. Jui Jitsu being the major influence behind BJJ, which was already suggested by you instead of Tae Kwon Do. You also recommended Boxing. The original Boxing (taught in Greece, Rome, and Egypt) were meant for the Army, and only the Army. They really only existed for soldiers, and no one else.


Anyway, if you could source something that talks about the logic of emphasizing kicking in TKD I'd be more than happy to admit I'm wrong about that bit... But I still contend that there are a good many more effective martial arts as far as their real world, out of the ring self-defense implications in the modern day.

Since I'm not allowed to post links yet, I cann't really post anything other then the basic explanation that your legs are longer and almost always stronger then your arms.

[praxis1966]

Having no training in combatives does not explain how the ROKA were killing people by kicking them in the head.

Yes it does. If you aren't properly trained in self-defense it's pretty much a given that most martial artists can take you apart without much effort. To put it another way, if anyone is capable of effectively defending themselves against TKD (or any other martial art for that matter), what in fact would be the point of learning a martial art in the first place? The whole point is to give yourself an advantage over your attacker.


Not to mention, there were Viet Cong bodies found holding loaded weapons with broken necks.

Ummm, no there weren't. The Viet Cong didn't fight in the Korean Civil War... They were kinda busy trying to run the French out of Vietnam at the time. I think you're getting your wars mixed up. Or your martial arts. One or the other.


The first pictorial records of Tae Kyyeon are from the tombs of Kings. The first written record of it was from 1790 in a book called Manmulmo. There's little evidence that I'm aware of that Tae Kyyeon itself (Tae Kyyeon, not general Korean Martial Arts) was even around in the Silla Dynasty (where your source claims Tae Kyyeon was created).

Well, you may not be aloud to post links, but you could always give me the name of a website that claims this so I can look it up myself. I'm not claiming that my source is the be all and end all, but until I have something to contradict it I stick to the original claim.


And Korean folk wrestling was first recorded on the tombs of kings as well.

Fair enough... But I fail to see what one thing has to do with the other. Ssireum (which I assume is what you're talking about) didn't really have anything to do with the evolution of Tae Kwon Do as far as I'm aware.


Muay Thai's ancestor arts were intended to be the unarmed fighting style of Thailand (Muay Boran) or Cambodia (Bokator Khmer). And since Muay Thai also focuses on kicks, I guess it's fair to just say that it was meant for Thailands elites to beat up peasants with out having to touch them.

Actually, having personally been around Muay Thai I know this isn't the case. Kicking and punching are mixed in more or less equal measure with knees and elbows.


Jui Jitsu was not supposed to be taught to non-Samurai.

That depends on what kind of Jiu Jitsu you're talking about (and there's a shitload). Most of the varieties practiced today only date to about 1868 and don't have a whole hell of a lot to do with the kind you're talking about. The forms most commonly practiced today are radically different in their approach as a result of necessity. The original techniques were designed primarily for use on an armored opponent; not much call for that sort of things these days.


Jui Jitsu being the major influence behind BJJ, which was already suggested by you instead of Tae Kwon Do.

You're kind of distorting what I was saying. I never actually used the term BJJ, I only suggested that some knowledge of grappling would be useful. I followed that with the clarification that I meant the word grappling in the same way that both Bruce Lee and Rickson Gracie would have. In other words, I meant its generally a good idea to have some knowledge of countering grabs and holds whether standing or on the ground. TKD doesn't really offer a solution for either as it's almost purely a striking art. Anyway, you should know when Bruce Lee talked about grappling, he wasn't talking about wrestling... Unless of course I completely and bizarrely misunderstood The Tao of Jeet Kune Do when I read it.


You also recommended Boxing.

No I didn't. Go back and reread my first post in this thread. I was actually quite critical of it in terms of its viability of application outside of the ring. I think you're confusing me with RedSonRising.

[Smoochy The Rhino]

Yes it does. If you aren't properly trained in self-defense it's pretty much a given that most martial artists can take you apart without much effort. To put it another way, if anyone is capable of effectively defending themselves against TKD (or any other martial art for that matter), what in fact would be the point of learning a martial art in the first place? The whole point is to give yourself an advantage over your attacker.

No training wouldn't make it any easier to kill them. That's what I'm putting emphasis on, because that's the part that should make people nervous, because few people are able to kill anyone (regardless of how well trained) by kicking them.


Ummm, no there weren't. The Viet Cong didn't fight in the Korean Civil War... They were kinda busy trying to run the French out of Vietnam at the time. I think you're getting your wars mixed up. Or your martial arts. One or the other.

No, actually, I'm paying perfect attention, you aren't. I said in my first post that a few battalions of ROKA (Korean Army) were deployed in the Vietnamese Civil War, and that the various armies in support of the Communists had orders to no engage the ROKA in close combat because they were killing people by kicking them, even when that person was armed.


Well, you may not be aloud to post links, but you could always give me the name of a website that claims this so I can look it up myself. I'm not claiming that my source is the be all and end all, but until I have something to contradict it I stick to the original claim.

Google Books, Korean games: with notes on the corresponding games of China and Japan By Stewart Culin. I cann't seem to find the page anymore though. There's also a website called tkbattle dot com that shows Taekyyeon guys doing a lot more then kicking. Because TaeKyyeon is a hybrid style, not exclusively kicking one.


Fair enough... But I fail to see what one thing has to do with the other. Ssireum (which I assume is what you're talking about) didn't really have anything to do with the evolution of Tae Kwon Do as far as I'm aware.

Your point was that because TaeKyyeon was first documented in the tombs of kings then it must have been exclusively for the upper class, but Ssireum was also first recorded on the tombs of kings, but was definitely not just for the upper class.


Actually, having personally been around Muay Thai I know this isn't the case. Kicking and punching are mixed in more or less equal measure with knees and elbows.

Muay Thai in Thailand is about 60% kicking from my experience.


That depends on what kind of Jiu Jitsu you're talking about (and there's a shitload). Most of the varieties practiced today only date to about 1868 and don't have a whole hell of a lot to do with the kind you're talking about. The forms most commonly practiced today are radically different in their approach as a result of necessity. The original techniques were designed primarily for use on an armored opponent; not much call for that sort of things these days.

The techniques are different from modern Jiu Jitsu and Feudal era Jiu Jitsu, but the modern is based on the original. And since modern Tae Kwon Do is significantly different from Taekyyeon, then TK cannot be compared to TKD under you line of reasoning.


You're kind of distorting what I was saying. I never actually used the term BJJ, I only suggested that some knowledge of grappling would be useful. I followed that with the clarification that I meant the word grappling in the same way that both Bruce Lee and Rickson Gracie would have. In other words, I meant its generally a good idea to have some knowledge of countering grabs and holds whether standing or on the ground. TKD doesn't really offer a solution for either as it's almost purely a striking art. Anyway, you should know when Bruce Lee talked about grappling, he wasn't talking about wrestling... Unless of course I completely and bizarrely misunderstood The Tao of Jeet Kune Do when I read it.

When someone says 'you should have some understanding of grappling, like what these two guys were talking about', you're all but suggesting that the person should do what they did. If I said that you should learn to trap like what Bruce Lee did, you can basically assume that I'm talking about JKD trapping, and not trapping from Wing Chun, Kali, or any of the numerous Kung Fu styles that teach trapping. And actually, TKD does teach grappling, just not in a direct way. It's called applications. Read basically anything by Ian Abernethy.


No I didn't. Go back and reread my first post in this thread. I was actually quite critical of it in terms of its viability of application outside of the ring. I think you're confusing me with RedSonRising.

Fair enough.

[RedSonRising]

My two cents is that if you're going to learn a martial art, you might as well learn one that has the maximum potential for real world self-defense. You might think it's not necessary, but you never know when shit's just gonna happen. TKD and boxing, in my mind don't offer that for various reasons.

When I was still training in Kenpo Jiu Jitsu, I had the opportunity to spar with a guy who held 3rd degree black belt in TKD his first day in. My sifu was willing to allow him to wear his black belt in the dojo, but he wanted to gauge whether to stick him in beginning or advanced groups right away (our weekly sessions were one on one with our instructor, group lessons were a supplement to that). It didn't take me long to figure out that if I got inside on him I could neutralize pretty much everything he wanted to do. I was only an orange belt at the time, and our sparring session convinced the sifu he ought to be in beginning group classes.

As for boxing, the problem with its real world implications is that it has no solution for grappling (and when I use the word grappling I mean it both in the way Bruce Lee and Rickson Gracie would have meant it) because it's not allowed in the ring. I dunno about you guys, but 90% of the street fights I've seen have involved grappling either standing up or on the ground or both at some point. I don't mean to disrespect boxing... As a sport I really like it, and there are certainly some things that it offers in the way of technique that no other sport can. But that's all it is, a sport, not a means of self-defense.

Anyway, like I said, as long as you're going to be bothered with a martial art, you might as well learn some real world self-defense IMO. You never know when you're going to need it.

Boxing has its limits but in terms of real-world situations, it's probably the most efficient. If you have decent fundamentals, any punch you throw will be fast and hard enough to incapacitate your opponent when under attack. A grappler may have a great skillset, but closing the distance in a position to grab or hold opens up wonderful holes for a boxer. Being able to move forward with a tight guard and unleash a short combination or backpedal and counter are clean and minimal contact abilities. These are accomplished with footwork mobility and a sharp sense of timing, which are skills that in my opinion are enhanced most by the fundamentals of boxing.

It is great to have a varied skill-set in terms of combat, but many cross-trained fighters spread themselves thin. This might not be a problem against an untrained attacker unfamiliar with any combat sport whatsoever, in such a case most martial arts will do anyway, but being able to quickly incapacitate an attacker at a distance without giving up a mobile base is very easily done with boxing, it's a great start for learning to fight in general.

v7PMp-yXHT0

[manic expression]

the various armies in support of the Communists had orders to no engage the ROKA in close combat because they were killing people by kicking them, even when that person was armed.
OK, now I'm curious, because in all honesty that sounds like a myth. What, does TKD teach you how to move faster than bullets? I want to see links.

Anyway I'm wondering...has anyone tried Sambo?

[praxis1966]

Boxing has its limits but in terms of real-world situations, it's probably the most efficient.

Yeah, I did mention that just about any martial art will do against untrained attackers (which describes most of the world)... But I have my doubts about a boxer fighting, say, someone trained in sambo or BJJ. Close guard becomes irrelevant if someone can shoot effectively. Further, while I haven't actually done full contact sparring with a boxer, a have horsed around with one or two. It's been my experience that my legs are longer than their arms, if you catch my drift. I suppose I should say at this point that the art I trained in, Kenpo Jiu Jitsu, is done 95% standing up just to clear any misconceptions about where I'm coming from.

Anyway, I didn't say boxing was all bad. I only meant that it had some limitations... There's a reason why MMA fighters train in it in combination with other arts. Same thing with TKD. For some reason that I've never fully understood, people involved in the martial arts tend to take personal offense when you're critical of their art. I'm of the mind that the perfect combat system doesn't exist, so don't take anything personal by it, lol.


Anyway I'm wondering...has anyone tried Sambo?

I haven't, but it seemed to work OK for Fedor Emelianenko so I suppose that's something.

[Ele'ill]

Train in whatever you've been convinced is 'better' than get into an actual fight- learn, evolve and repeat.

[Tablo]

Just an update. Haven't been able to take up any martial arts yet due to the overwhelming workload I have had. Foreign languages are hard. I will probably find the time during the summer while all I have is a part-time job to worry about. Thanks again for all the help! :thumbup1:

[manic expression]

I haven't, but it seemed to work OK for Fedor Emelianenko so I suppose that's something.
True...I was thinking of cross-training MT and Judo, but Sambo seems to contain both their elements and so it would make more sense to train in that if I can.

[Smoochy The Rhino]

OK, now I'm curious, because in all honesty that sounds like a myth. What, does TKD teach you how to move faster than bullets? I want to see links.

It was from one of a few books I have on the Vietnam Civil War. And I think I gave that one to someone else. When I can post links I'll try to send you something.


Anyway I'm wondering...has anyone tried Sambo?

Nope.

[praxis1966]

True...I was thinking of cross-training MT and Judo, but Sambo seems to contain both their elements and so it would make more sense to train in that if I can.

It would. It's worth mentioning that Fedor trained in Judo as well, which I think helped make him a more complete fighter. It gave him a lot more versatility than he might have otherwise had in terms of take downs and take down reversals. Unless you're planning on getting really competitive in MMA, though, I don't know that Judo would be all that necessary for your purposes.

[Inti]

It's like someone said, any martial art training is better than none. Styles can be discussed until your eyes bleed, but the most important IMHO is that you find a good or excellent teacher and train hard:)

I have trained Ed parkers kenpo for almost 20 year, and recently got my black belt to hold up my pants, and I have been doing Doce Pares eskrima for almost four, cheated a bit with muay Thai and kickboxing for two years each, krav maga and bujinkan for about six months each.

Choose what you like and enjoy:) Now get out there and play:)