From what I've read, Mixed Martial Arts does a great job of showing which techniques are genuinely effective in one-on-one unarmed combat.
Bruce Lee's philosophy was if it works use it, if it doesn't forget it. (No traditional techniques) I have not studied Jeet Kune Do, so I don't know how well it followed that principle.
In the movies; imo praying mantis, drunken or monkey style are all impressive to see even if choreographed, they still amaze me that they look so random or chaotic, but are effective. How well in a real world situation, I don't know.
Monkey style, in particular, strikes me as using up a lot of energy with its bouncing around: were I facing someone using it, I'd just stand there until he wore himself out or finally decided to attack, whichever.
I've done a little research on the historical style of pankration. Have you any idea, how that would compare to modern martial art styles? Some sources tell it was acceptable, just bad style, to kill an opponent. So I take it, pankration was not just for show.
Monkey: likewise uses the unexpected. The reason for the theatrics is to distract you, make you uncomfortable, trap you in an OODA loop. While you're standing there wondering "Is this guy mentally deficient?" suddenly he clobbers you. There are shrieks built into the kata. I like the style, but my teachers were unhappy with my unwillingness to shriek.
Mantis is more deceptive than monkey as far as its close-in moves, at least from what I've seen… and puts far greater emphasis on precision and speed, both of which can give even small deceptive motions greater impact, just as feinting with a fencing foil does.
But if you're unarmed, and your opponent has a sword or another weapon, which martial art form would be the go-to for that situation?
Far from it. Pankration is still practiced; for those not familiar, it is similar to a combination of boxing and wrestling—is, in fact, the ancestor of both Western sports.