Every Martial Art Ranked By Jesse Enkamp

Main ideas and lessons (ranked around “self-defense effectiveness”)

• Ranking basis: Jesse Enkamp ranks martial arts primarily for effectiveness in real self-defense—i.e., what helps if someone attacks you in real life.
• Central theme: It’s not what you practice, but how you practice it (especially whether it’s pressure-tested/realistic versus only formal drills).

Key self-defense criteria repeated throughout

• Pressure testing / realism: whether training includes live grappling/sparring and realistic responses.
• Avoiding “deadly” training gaps: many styles lack training for common self-defense scenarios (grabs, chokes, wall/corner situations, etc.).
• Context matters: rulesets and sport constraints can make a style less reliable off the mat.
• Law-of-results concern: more power/overkill can cause permanent harm or legal trouble (jail).
• If you get taken down: the ability to escape/stand up matters; specializing in ground control alone can be a mismatch for self-defense.
• Situational awareness and hostile-environment skills are necessary but often missing.

---

Methodology / scoring approach (explicit + implied)

How Jesse evaluates each martial art

• Start from “self-defense reality”:
  • What does the style prepare you to do during an actual attack?
  • Would the style’s training survive “pressure” (unpredictability, force, resistance)?
• Check whether training matches common real scenarios:
  • Striking under stress (timing, defense)
  • Grappling/wrestling when someone grabs or takes you down
  • Clinch/control near obstacles (walls/cars/corners)
  • Defense against chokes/grabs/holds
• Identify limitations from sport rules or traditional context:
  • If techniques are allowed only under sport rules, they may fail in real fights.
  • If sparring excludes major threats (e.g., no face punching), the student may be unprepared.
  • Old weapon-focused training may not transfer well to modern life.
• Reward forms of training that translate:
  • Live drilling and sparring
  • Proper breakfalls and mobility
  • Grip fighting / distance management
  • Adaptation of tools/weapons principles to real tools or empty-hand use
• Penalize mismatches and “dead”/non-pressure methods:
  • Heavy reliance on kata/air strikes without application
  • Lack of rolling/grappling under resistance
  • Lack of standup escape (for arts focused on finishing on the ground)
• Apply a rough tier style:
  • Lower ratings for styles that are mostly historical, theatrical, spiritual hobby, or not pressure-tested.
  • Higher ratings for those with broader, realistic tools and strong pressure testing.
  • S-tier is reserved for arts that include weapons + situational awareness + hostile-environment negotiation (not reached in this video).

---

Detailed rankings and why (main points by martial art)

Sumo — B-

• Strengths:
  • Stability, low center of gravity, strong stance
  • Helps if you end up in certain physical clinch/charge-like situations
• Limitations:
  • Comparisons to other arts are difficult because you’re not dealing with “the same kind” of attacker.
  • If you end up on the ground, it’s extremely bad (“dead meat” framing).
  • Limited use of:
    • Groin strikes
    • Joint locks common in other systems
    • Standard classical self-defense scenario training
  • Often mostly about charging/takedown attempts rather than broader attack types.
• Extra nuance:
  • If “self-defense” is defined more broadly (e.g., lifestyle harm prevention), a healthier “sumo wrestler” might score higher.

Judo — B (or A- with additional context)

• Strengths for self-defense:
  • Breakfalls (ukemi) = critical if you get thrown
  • Grip fighting: described as a dominant part of top-level judo (~90% claim from an Olympic champion)
  • Throws can be devastating if done properly (“hit with the earth” metaphor)
  • Old-school judo includes self-defense vibe, weapons defense, and more
• Limitations:
  • Sport context vs. full spectrum self-defense; depends on whether you include old-school, real-defense material and striking.

Ninjutsu — C-

• Useful concepts:
  • Targets anatomical weak spots and uses ideas other arts may not emphasize
  • Less reliance on gloves enables more realistic weak-spot manipulation
• Limitations:
  • Heavy emphasis on weapons that are impractical today (e.g., sword), though principles can apply to modern tools (e.g., broom)
  • Biggest stated issue: lack of pressure testing in modern forms

Japanese Jiu-Jitsu — C

• Strengths:
  • Mix of judo + ninjutsu overlap
  • Historical battlefield context: techniques assumed pulling a blade, etc.
  • Uses two-person kata/kumi kata to teach principles and reversals
• Limitations:
  • Often lacks live rolling/grappling emphasis found in Brazilian jiu-jitsu
  • Pressure testing is limited; translation from drills to live use is often weak

Filipino Martial Arts / Kali / Escrima / Arnis — B

• Strengths:
  • Weapon-era origin: concepts can map to empty-hand usage
  • Includes more than just striking—includes grappling, joint locks, and takedowns
  • Many practitioners do live sparring with gear and even weapons
• Limitations:
  • Modern applicability depends on whether training is truly pressure-tested rather than drill-based

Silat — grouped similarly with Filipino arts

• Rated in the same category/category grouping (details brief; treated as comparable).

Aikido — D

• Strengths (as practice/hobby):
  • Biomechanics, flowing movement, holistic style; health/longevity/spiritual hobby value
• Self-defense failure points:
  • Compared to Japanese jiu-jitsu but less realism
  • Main issue: not pressure-tested for realistic self-defense needs
• Clarification:
  • It can be used defensively in some way, but it’s only one part of the puzzle and other factors must be handled too.

Karate (overall umbrella) — B- (or C range discussed)

• Main point:
  • Karate’s origin was self-defense, but it splintered into sports, hobbies, business models, etc.
  • Effectiveness varies widely by dojo/instructor.

---

Karate-style breakdown

Shotokan (Shōtōkan) — C

• Strengths:
  • “Decisiveness / going in for the kill” mentality (1 strike / 1 kill ethos)
  • Example referenced: Leoto Machida (UFC, Shotokan base)
  • Free-form sparring (kumite) is most relevant; not stopping after set sequences
• Limitations:
  • Overemphasis on:
    • Kihon (basic straight-line punching/kicking in deep stances)
    • Kata without practical applications (bunkai)—JKA reportedly doesn’t focus enough on bunkai
  • Lots of “thin air” movement may not transfer to real timing under stress

Kyokushin — B-

• Strengths:
  • Considered more realistic/practical in origin because the founder studied Shotokan then felt it lacked realism
  • Low kicks emphasized
  • Teaches head movement/tai sabaki adjustments to compensate for rules
• Limitations:
  • Sparring often does not include face punching, creating a big gap for real fights
  • Many dojos don’t adequately cover grappling situations like chokes/grabs (focus is limited)

“American Karate” — B

• Framing:
  • Treated as closely related to kickboxing/full contact karate
• Strengths:
  • More pressure testing and sparring of punches/kicks
  • Contains some techniques less common in classic karate due to cross-training influences
• Limitations:
  • Broad “American karate” label: quality varies
  • Authenticity matters less than what works (even if it’s less “traditional”)

“Okinawan / birthplace of karate” (specific style mentioned as best for self-defense) — A-

• Strengths:
  • More appropriate fighting stance (“fence” hands open implies readiness to engage)
  • More “dirty techniques” (e.g., knees/elbows) and less glove reliance
  • More aligned with real self-defense rather than just sport contest rules
• Limitations:
  • Expressed as style-dependent, but this specific one was rated A- for practicality.

Taido — F

• Strengths:
  • Very fun; athletic; biomechanics and acrobatics; self-development elements
• Self-defense mismatch:
  • Not designed for self-defense as a primary purpose; movements may fit parkour-like contexts better
• Clarification:
  • You can use some techniques (e.g., shrimp kick) to surprise people, but it’s not smart as a first move in a real bar/punch scenario.

---

Modern striking / hybrid progressions

Boxing — B-

• Strengths:
  • Punching is foundational; teaches spotting cues and defensive movement
  • Defensive awareness: slip/dodge; “hard to hit” effect
• Risks/limitations:
  • Overkill risk (knockout → head impact → death → legal trouble)
  • Boxers may be unprepared for grappling/wrestling transitions (e.g., double-leg takedowns)

Kickboxing — B

• Strengths:
  • More realistic than boxing for distance and kicking threats
  • Low kicks can be fight-ending while being less likely to cause lethal skull damage
  • Better distance management; may help against close-range knife scenarios

Muay Thai — A-

• Strengths:
  • Adds more “weapons” to the toolbox, especially clinch capability
  • Natural progression from kickboxing

---

Ground / grappling arts

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) — B-

• Strengths:
  • Works and is proven; also good as training/workout
• Major self-defense critique:
  • Too specialized in “last resort” ground engagement (go to ground should be avoided first)
  • Many schools focus on competition/“win,” sometimes with ego and injuries; students may not know when to tap/release
• Extra point:
  • If on the ground, the first goal should be escape/stand up; grapple only if escape fails

Wrestling — B

• Strengths:
  • “Control the distance controls the fight” idea
  • Wrestlers can decide whether the fight stays standing or goes to ground
  • Effective up close: takedowns, leverage, control
  • Can control without necessarily relying on submissions
  • Disengaging matters because there may be “buddies”

MMA — A

• Why it ranks highest (in this video’s set):
  • Versatility: connects striking + grappling + wrestling
  • Teaches unique skills like controlling someone against a wall/cage (described as crucial because real incidents involve obstacles)
  • Pressure testing from early training
  • Also includes “sprinkles” of dirty self-defense realism (as referenced)

---

Less typical / rules-based hybrid systems

Kudo — A+ (very close to S)

• Strengths:
  • Helmet enables drilling dangerous techniques (e.g., eye jabs) and supports safer headbutt practice
  • Rules allow dangerous acts (e.g., groin kicks in certain situations), plus gripping/clothing tactics
  • Includes joint locks/takedowns/groundwork
• Limitations:
  • Helmet can create a false sense of security
  • S-level would require overcoming that gap

Taekwondo — C- (conceptually tied below Shotokan)

• Strengths:
  • Amazing kicks; Taekwondo origins include Japanese influence (noted by the speaker)
• Limitations:
  • Became sport; scoring discourages some self-defense-relevant targets (e.g., spine)
  • Poor emphasis on low kicks; jeans complicate execution
  • Often lacks realistic striking context compared to more complete systems

---

Kung Fu and related systems

Kung Fu (broad) — B- or C (speaker lands around C)

• Big picture:
  • Distinguishes between:
    • Kung fu (old school) vs
    • Wu shu (modern watered-down sport/theatrical/exercise focus)
• Why mid:
  • Too many styles to generalize
  • Many practices preserve culture/health and include some self-defense material, but not consistently pressure-tested

Specific substyles discussed

• Wing Chun — B (or B-)
  • Strength: distance trapping/bridging concept; open-hand strikes; knee/elbow ideas in broader framing; wooden dummy conditioning for forearms
  • Weakness: originally intended for paired swords; some moves become less practical without props
  • Limitation: weapons usage (e.g., long pole)
• Shaolin Kung Fu — C-
  • Surviving modern versions are more theatrical/sporty
  • Some conditioning/breathing elements help, but overall not very practical for self-defense

Jeet Kune Do — B

• Strengths:
  • Historically linked to Bruce Lee; described as an early MMA-like blend (kicks/boxing/footwork/head movement + wrestling principles)
  • Pressure testing and sparring present in many programs
  • Strength/calisthenics support fitness and self-defense capacity
• Limitations:
  • Dogma/cult-like preservation of “fixed style” conflicts with Bruce Lee’s evolving philosophy

HEMA / “Hea” (sword/weapon hobby style) — D

• Strength:
  • Pressure testing exists, and some practitioners pressure test weapons execution
• Limitation:
  • Too focused on weapon scenarios (sledgehammer/sword/axe idea) rather than typical real-life self-defense incidents

Capoeira — C

• Strength:
  • Extremely violent potential street-violence described (razor blades hidden; dangerous spinning forces)
  • Requires intense space, flexibility, balance—hard for beginners
• Limitation:
  • Real self-defense usability depends heavily on training level and physical readiness

Systema — C

• Strength:
  • Useful theory of mechanics/softness/timing for martial artists broadly
• Limitation:
  • For pure self-defense, you likely need to add elements from higher-rated categories

---

Late-stage comparison / final tier concept

Lethwei (Lethwe) — A-

• Similar to Muay Thai but includes headbutt
• Strength:
  • Headbutts can end fights instantly; arms don’t need to be raised
  • Less gloved “bare-knuckle” feel makes it seem more practical
• Limitation:
  • You must know safe headbutt technique to avoid breaking your own nose

Krav Maga — M (near-mid/very conditional)

• Main controversy:
  • Lack of quality control (“McDojo epidemic” framing)
• Core claim:
  • Krav Maga can be effective if taught correctly, but many places teach watered-down versions that don’t handle real-world violence
• Ranking logic:
  • If taught in its “original” deadly form, it could be extremely effective (though modern standards and laws apply)
  • Placed lower mainly due to inconsistency across schools

Why nothing is rated “S”

• S-tier would require:
  • More weapons training
  • Situational awareness (body language cues, violence cues)
  • Hostile-environment negotiation (knowing where to go/not go before any fight)
• Conclusion:
  • “Almost any martial art can work” in the right hands, but S-tier should include pre-fight survival skills—not just fighting techniques.

---

Speakers / sources featured (and referenced)

• Primary speaker: Jesse Enkamp (also shown in subtitles as “Jesse Enam/Enkamp”)
• Secondary references:
  • Leoto Machida (UFC fighter referenced for Shotokan effectiveness)
  • Jon Jones (referenced in a “ballet vs martial arts” analogy)
  • Helio Gracie (referenced regarding long ground grappling sessions in classic BJJ)
  • Bruce Lee (referenced via Jeet Kune Do and Wing Chun origins)
  • Jigoro Kano / Jigoro do taught (referenced as the source of old-school judo/self-defense approach)
  • Olympic judo champion (unnamed): claims grip fighting is ~90% at the highest level
  • Bosha ruden (name unclear due to subtitle errors; likely referenced in hand/striking context)
  • Dagistanis (likely “Daghestani”; name unclear due to subtitle errors)
• Video/show mentioned:
  • Ultimate Self-Defense Championship (U.S.D.C.; MMA winners all three seasons referenced)
  • UFC (referenced multiple times)
• Sponsor/brand: AG1
• Sponsor mention: AG1 sponsorship (supplement brand; not a martial arts source but cited)