Is Chinese Martial Arts better than Russian Martial Arts?

answers1: No.
answers2: Rather depends on what you're looking for. <br>
Chinese arts have a long history and tend to be very "developed" which
may or may not make them entirely practical for actual fighting. If
you want to learn something as a "art" with lots of distinct forms and
techniques, then any number of Chinese systems may be good for you.
<br>
<br>
Russian styles, like much of Russian military equipement, tend to be
very practical. They are not "pretty", but they tend towards brutal
efficiency. If you want a practical fighting system... They are more
likely the way to go.
answers3: I think there are many reasons for refinement - or
evolution. There are the famous cases of the Okinawan peasants not
being allowed to use weapons - so they refined their fighting skills
to use whatever they had on hand. Another is Capoeira, the natives
were forbidden to practice fighting, and so they disguised their
practice with what the slave owners thought was dance. Militias, of
course, evolved when weapons became more technical. Warriors threw
down their spears to pick up long bows. The long bows gave way to
crossbows. The crossbows gave way to guns. And so on. These are
generally the success stories, because the refinement occurred slowly.
There are other evolutions that have obliterated entire styles: take
Taekwondo, for instance. Perhaps, even Karate. The mere concept of
sport injected into the style has transformed what was once a fierce
fighting system into nothing more than a game - it's only connection
to its past are deeply embedded in its forms. Another example is the
roundhouse kick. There didn't used to be the concept of it. A low
sweep, maybe, but certainly not of the ilk that strikes the head today
- that would be taboo in self-defense. Nevertheless, it's one of the
most executed kicks in the style. The evolution has come so quickly,
that forms didn't change much to catch up with it. And, of course,
there is the evolution of MMA. Here, people picked and chose what
"worked" for them, and dispensed with the rest. I suppose if you are
going to further an objective in the name sport, it makes sense to
prune out what you find useless - such would be the things that are
counter to the established rules (eye gouging, for instance). But if
one takes a style that has been around for years, then decides this
isn't important, and that's useless, etc, then that refinement is too
quick: not enough testing was done to see if one was right. We see
this all the time with each new decade showing off it's new chic
martial-art-de-jour. Are they any better? Are they worse? It depends
on the objective and quality of teaching. But there's no way I'll be
convinced they are a "way of life" that the older systems are. I don't
mind evolution, but it's got to further a meaningful objective. To do
it in the name of "this doesn't work" is to show a complete lack of
understanding of what it is that's being changed.