Should We Stick to ONE Martial Art?

[Great Sage]

The trend in the martial arts today seems to be people moving from one system to another while adding to their repetoire of knowledge. As insightful as this method seems, it may hinder one’s martial arts education.

I feel that learning ONE martial art is a lifetime’s journey and as much as you may learn from a few years in judo, then karate etc... you may miss the essence of each art. Hence, your knowledge is incomplete. I’ve beaten around the bush a bit, but stayed with one system for over 16 years despite people telling me about the Brazilian Jui jitsu craze, or UFC.

If you find a good art and teacher, stay with it and refine your skills. Don’t become a Jack of all trades, master of none. This is not to say that you shouldn’t seek out a suitable martial art... I’m just tired of the usual Bruce Lee wannabe profile, learning incomplete aspects of different arts and saying they have the best of all worlds... In truth, they don’t have a clue.

Just my 2 cents.

[dezhen2001]

great first post... now just wait for the hungry trolls to latch on to this and reply :rolleyes:

whats wrong with studying more than one skill? I train in wing chun and Qigong and someday i hope ot learn chen taijiquan from my sifu as well... multi-skills right there, yet theres no problem.

Most of the "MMA" peole dont just hop around, they have a good solid base in one or more skills before branching out in to others...

if u wanna do that then go for it, for me i prefer just the skills i have and whatever my Sifu can teach me.

dawood

[joedoe]

Different strokes for different folks.

[yenhoi]

What about learning multiple styles from one teacher?

You should not become bound by any style. There is only one Martial Art.

Finda good teacher, learn stuff, eventually he will send you to another teacher, to learn more stuff. Style, prestige, and names have nothing to do with any of it.

;)

[Chang Style Novice]

People learn math, science, literature, and art simultaneously all the frickin' time. What's so special about hung gar, judo, bjj, and muay thai that they should be mutually exclusive to one another? Sure, it's probably only possible to be PhD level in one or two of 'em, but that in no way means you shouldn't be able to get a h.s. diploma that covers them all.

[Kinjit]

Originally posted by yenhoi


There is only one Martial Art.



What do you mean by this?

[yenhoi]

fighting.

:eek:

[Sho]

I believe one should always have a cardinal art that he's devoted to. But besides that, it's perfectly convenient to cross-train in alternate fighting arts (that could perhaps complement his initial art). Not that there's anything wrong with conservative way of thinking, but I don't see any hindering factors in learning multiple arts, IF one has an initial and perduring art (which he continues practicing). Therefore, one shouldn't learn in such a manner that when he starts a new art, he discontinues training in his preceding art.

[Sho]

Originally posted by yenhoi
You should not become bound by any style. There is only one Martial Art.

Finda good teacher, learn stuff, eventually he will send you to another teacher, to learn more stuff. Style, prestige, and names have nothing to do with any of it.However, you might encounter contradictory principles/aspects within the arts once you begin to learn from multiple sources. This doesn't necessarily hinder you from progressing as a fighter, but it could confuse you.

[red5angel]

GreatSage - I have a theory about this. I think some arts require a lot from you, mostly TMA type arts. These arts almost beg that you not stray from their study atleast for several years as the Chinese and their way of doing things was slow and methodical. Some people will try to get you to believe there are short cuts, and surely studying multiple arts and taking techniques that work for you is one way of learning.
I think it ultimately just depends on your particular style. I think for some of the indepth or so called internal styles, 10 years of dedication is about right before you should be thinking about going elsewhere.

[Surferdude]

What if you do one martial art for a couple years then you do another one but still do the first one. Like If you take Karate then while still a student of your Dojo you go to a Dojang and learn about Taekwondo.:confused: Maybe :(
I'm confused!!!!!!!:eek:

[TaoBoy]

There is so much to learn that limiting yourself is plain crazy.
Open your mind - learn from who you can.

As JD said "Diff'rent strokes"

[Laughing Cow]

I think it depends on your goals and what you wish o get out of your training.

Some people want to master 1 style, others want to be able to fight quick, etc.

But I believe that unless you got a good foundation in 1 style your returns will be diminished.

cheers.

[sapphire tygre]

I think this is mostly acultural difference, but not nessecarily between Chinese
and American, as there are cultural differences amongst "europoid" peoples
(and others) too. A very valid point to bring up because it is kind of weird
having kids around who are "black belts". I mean the validity of so many
martial arts looks highly questionable to an outsider. Mabe by skipping around too much the deeper wisdom of kung fu and other styles is not
understood.

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Sho
However, you might encounter contradictory principles/aspects within the arts once you begin to learn from multiple sources. This doesn't necessarily hinder you from progressing as a fighter, but it could confuse you.

Effective combat systems will usually complement each other and will almost never contradict each other. Effective combative principles are the same from system to system.

[Oso]

Great Sage, why no profile?
Good post.

dez, imo tai chi and qg can only enhance any other, mostly
external ma.

yenhoi, a teacher who has 'mastered' more than one style can
probably offer insight to the differences between the styles that
two teachers who don't know the other style you are learning at all could not. So, that would be a better sit to learn two diff
styles from at the same time.

CSN, I think you are correct to a point. But, I would think about
what a HS diploma holder is capable of vs. a multiple post grad
degree holder is. The big diff there is the time involved but that
is a fine delineator for the subject. A two year student of TKD,
wait bad example as most 2 year tkd people are black belts;) .
Anyway, you see my point I hope.

Sho, I totally agree. I've cross trained in a lot of stuff but have
tried to stay true to my cardinal art of kung fu. I think the most
classical argument against training in different TCMA at the same
time, at a beginning level in each, is the different methods of
power generation, jing I believe.

red5, I think 5 years is a minimum. I tend to discount most
schools that don't say it takes at least 5 years to a first black
sash/belt and at least another 5 to a full sifu/sensei level. At
5 years you should have an excellent grasp of the basic principles
and could move on to learn another art to the same point.

Surferdude, depends. If the karate or tkd school is a 2 year
bb school than probably yes, if it's a good school with an indepth
program than see the 5 year comment above.


However, I think there are definitely complementary styles that
could fill gaps in a system. BJJ is probably one that would
fit in most peoples martial world w/o disrupting the other training.

Modern Arnis (Presas) was one that worked for me.

The version of jujutsu as taught by my torakendo kempo friends
was one that did not work for me. It was good but the
movements were very different from my chinese chin na. Not
the locks themselves but the footwork and set-up movements.

[StarBoy]

If you really want to stick to one style, I'm not going to say anything. You do have a point. I mean, do 6 months of TKD, then 6 of BJJ, then 6 of Karate, then 6 of Wing Chun, and so on, then it's just like a little sampler platter, no real mastery. But if you are simultaneously learning different styles, I don't see a problem with that.

IMO, it may even be more beneficial to study 2 or 3 different arts (maybe more). Say you study an external and internal art, there wouldn't be much conflict in styles, and you gain a more complete education.

That's my 2 cents.

[Oso]

part of the problem is that it can be hard to tell if the art you
are studying has all the components. Watch your sifu, how does
he move and how does he fight? Even if he is better at stand up
or ground or whatever...does he/she willingly work at any range
or aspect? IF so, then give it a good 5 years to see what they
have to offer. Most teachers of any style want to see a certain
level of dedication from a student before they give the cow away.
This doesn't have to be the ultra secret cra pola that you see
some places but you aren't going to learn it all in just a couple of
years.

[sapphire tygre]

O.K., so you're saying ten years before sensei. That sounds reasonable.
I mean, how much is the journey worth as compared to the destination?
It's like hiking, you could just rush to your destination, or you could walk
leisurely, which method would teach you more? I think this is where all
the meditation figures in.

[Oso]

"the road goes on forever and the party never ends"

:)

[Xebsball]

[bad joke]
Hello :)

My name is Sun Lu Tang, and someday (if its gods will) i want to excel in the internal chinese arts :)
I want to be a Master and i was wondering if you friends could help me, wich of these should i pratice?
Xing Yi?
Bagua?
Taiji?

I want to pick one so i can be master :)
[/bad joke]



I'm not Sun Lu Tang really :D (guess yall know that lol)
Its ok to pratice other arts if you can come up with a racional and functional mix. Sun Lu Tang was very good on those 3 arts, and eventually created his own Taiji style.

[Black Jack]

Cross-training is just another scholastic approach to learning. Put plain, you take a function, be it a skill, a technique, a training drill, a philosophy, or any outside activity and assimilate it into your own training, to extract a certain benefit.

It allows you to work on aspects of your training which you might not be able to learn from one school of thought. It allows you to draw from specialist systems or better than that specialist people who are experts in certain fields, I like the word specialist people better because a system IMO is a artifical term, its the flesh and blood man or women passing these skills onto you that are often the true treasure to be weighed.

People that are often violently opposed to any aspect of cross-training often seem to fall into the thinking that their methods of study are from the coined "complete system" club. If what you are doing works for you, acknowledge it, its important to have a strong foundation, but what complete means to one person often changes to the next.

Not to mention that it is not necessary to know a complete system, what ever that term really means, unless you view it as a preservation of a certain art form or culture heritage, lets not forget that many-many-many people the world over defend themselves every day and very nicely without any martial training whatsoever.

Just some thoughts

[SevenStar]

1. those of us who "follow the craze" usually have a solid base in one style.

2. There are some things that some styles just do not adequately address. Case in point, ground grappling.

3. There's no real reason to "Know the complete system" other than the fact that you want to. Is it helping your fighting ability in any way? most likely not. Actually, you could be hindering it.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Xebsball

I'm not Sun Lu Tang really :D (guess yall know that lol)
Its ok to pratice other arts if you can come up with a racional and functional mix. Sun Lu Tang was very good on those 3 arts, and eventually created his own Taiji style.

Agreed, he did study 4 arts, but not at the same time.
(Shaolin Hung boxing & Qing Gong/2yrs, Xing Yi, Pa Kua/3yrs, Wu Yu Xiang TJQ)
He always studied Full-time while preferably living at his teachers house or the Shaolin Temple..

He actually was refered by his 2nd teacher(Xing Yi) to his 3rd(Pa Kua) to round his fighting skills of.

The 4th he learned after helping a renowned master that was sick in his town, at that time he didn't know what style the guy was practicing.
I think this happened quiet late in his life.

Just some Info.

[Xebsball]

true, you gotta get the at least the basics of one before moving :)

[BaldMonk]

I'm a person that comes from a school where nobody (for the most part) trains in only one style. I personally train in Baji/Pigua, Chen Style Tai Chi and Mantis. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. An advantage is that the principles of these styles tend to complement each other. The better my Tai Chi gets the better my power generation in Mantis. Baji helps everything. Pigua really opens up my whole body (at least it's supposed to, I'm slowly getting there). A marked disadvantage is that theres only so many hours in a day and not enough time to practice everything. Practicing only one style might result in a deeper level of mastery that outweighs the benifits received from the practicing of all the styles. There are some in the school who just train Tai Chi. Their Tai Chi is really good but I'd rather touch hands with them than some of my brothers that are doing different styles at the same time( When I say I'd rather touch hands with them I mean the other guys are more formidable opponents). I think that if the principles are complimentary it is good to train in more than one style. Especially as one progresses to the intermediate levels. When you progress to advanced levels of training, I think it's time to pick a Major and concetrate on that. It helps round a person out. You'll note I'm talking about TCMA's. I used to train in Goju and Tang Soo Do and I'm pretty sure I couldn't mix those with what I'm doing now. One disadvantage is that the Baji flavor permeates everything a little. Thats a beef other people have with our mantis that is legitimate. We could be accused of worse.

My .02

Baldy

[Aslan]

Like others have posted, a lot depends on your focus.

I really, really liked my Kuntao Silat training and would have been content to study it longer. However, my instructor moved away and the school closed.

I tried some other schools but did not find what I was looking for, at least not until recently.

My current focus is application and practical skills. (i.e. fighting / self defense), and less on performance (i.e. competition and katas - this is not to say katas aren't part of training, they're just not the focus.)

In some ways I am having to empty my cup to learn new ways of doing things. In other ways, I am pouring from my cup into the cups of others.

Nothing I had learned in the past is wasted, everything I am learning now applies. I feel I am better off having the foundation I started with.

My focus now is putting new ideas into practice while still applying techniques I learned before.

for me, learning more than one style was a forced necessity, but one for which I am better off.

[SevenStar]

A good post by the bald one. Also, a good point - the styles should be complimentary if you are training in more than one at a time.

[sapphire tygre]

O.K., I dont think that studying multiple styles is bad, but if you want to look
at it in such a "logical" light, then how much do things like body type factor
in? A lot of focus on "self defense", and people who don't buy into the
non sparring practability of certain arts is what you see on a lot of these
forums, but how much is a thin, light person going to benefit from a style
that favors weight? Theres two sides to the "I cross train to be a well rounded, modern ma" coin.

[Aslan]

Originally posted by sapphire tygre
O.K., I dont think that studying multiple styles is bad, but if you want to look
at it in such a "logical" light, then how much do things like body type factor
in? A lot of focus on "self defense", and people who don't buy into the
non sparring practability of certain arts is what you see on a lot of these
forums, but how much is a thin, light person going to benefit from a style
that favors weight? Theres two sides to the "I cross train to be a well rounded, modern ma" coin.

I tend to be of the bigger / heavier framed person. We have students who are as big as me and some that are much smaller.

Techniques that work for the smaller lighter / faster people do not work as well for me. Ditto for the reverse.

Our school does not focus on emphasizing one physique over the other. Techniques are taught for all the different types.

Find a school that understands this. (not a simple task, but they do exist.)

[Aslan]

OSO has many good quotes from Lazarus Long.

I, too, am a R.A.H. fan...

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by sapphire tygre
O.K., I dont think that studying multiple styles is bad, but if you want to look
at it in such a "logical" light, then how much do things like body type factor
in? A lot of focus on "self defense", and people who don't buy into the
non sparring practability of certain arts is what you see on a lot of these
forums, but how much is a thin, light person going to benefit from a style
that favors weight? Theres two sides to the "I cross train to be a well rounded, modern ma" coin.

that shouldn't really be a factor. your style should have techniques that you can use regardless of build. you have to search the style and find them. judo, for example has throws that I can pull of easier because I am med height, stocky and very strong. judo also has throws that are not suited well for me, but tall people can pull them off with ease. the same can be said of bjj and shuai chiao.

[yenhoi]

A good post by the bald one. Also, a good point - the styles should be complimentary if you are training in more than one at a time.

"JKD Concepts" basically refers to this as 'common thread,' and 'blending.'

:eek:

[Oso]

Aslan, then cast your eye to the main page.

[Prairie]

I believe that this is again a question of knowing what is one's goal. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about practicing multiple styles or skipping from one style to another if that is what one enjoys doing. Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to learn a single art to the exclusion of all others if this is what one enjoys. Combat effectiveness will come second in importance to what one enjoys.

Combat effectiveness will require much more training than many of us actually do. If we're not putting in the hours training, in single or multiple arts, we will not be truly effective. If we're not going to be effective anyway, we may as well do what we enjoy.

Having said this, I'll agree that it's important to fight with a very tuned and cohesive strategy. It's my impression that most martial arts have a strategy to fighting but one may not learn that whole strategy for many years. Worse, in some martial arts the strategy requires the ability to feel and move the body in ways that normal life has taught us not to. Dedicated practice is required to get ourselved tuned to move in accordance to the strategy.

Here is a rather mediocre analogy. Let's take a competitive speed skater (a sprinter say) and a track sprinter. Let's first put the track sprinter on skates with the speed skater and have them race. Anyone guess the result? Now take the speed skater and put them in shoes on the track with the runner and have them race. Result? Both have the same goal in their respective competition but their strategies and tools are different. They need to each dedicate themselves to their strategy which necessarily is derived from their tools.

How many of us are putting ourselves in a situation where this level of dedication required?

[sapphire tygre]

Exactly

[Budokan]

There's absolutley absolutely wrong with flitting aimlessly from style to style absorbing only the most basic and gossamer ideas the style has to offer instead of buckling down and sticking it out with blood, sweat and tears until you reach a true and deep philosophical understanding of the MA in question -- and not just the shiny veneer that drew you in the first place.

No, there's nothing wrong whatsoever with that...if that's what you want. Nothing whatsoever. Many people do it. Many are happy. Many are fullfilled. Many are satisfied.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Prairie
I believe that this is again a question of knowing what is one's goal. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about practicing multiple styles or skipping from one style to another if that is what one enjoys doing. Also, there is nothing wrong with trying to learn a single art to the exclusion of all others if this is what one enjoys. Combat effectiveness will come second in importance to what one enjoys.

Combat effectiveness will require much more training than many of us actually do. If we're not putting in the hours training, in single or multiple arts, we will not be truly effective. If we're not going to be effective anyway, we may as well do what we enjoy.

Having said this, I'll agree that it's important to fight with a very tuned and cohesive strategy. It's my impression that most martial arts have a strategy to fighting but one may not learn that whole strategy for many years. Worse, in some martial arts the strategy requires the ability to feel and move the body in ways that normal life has taught us not to. Dedicated practice is required to get ourselved tuned to move in accordance to the strategy.

Here is a rather mediocre analogy. Let's take a competitive speed skater (a sprinter say) and a track sprinter. Let's first put the track sprinter on skates with the speed skater and have them race. Anyone guess the result? Now take the speed skater and put them in shoes on the track with the runner and have them race. Result? Both have the same goal in their respective competition but their strategies and tools are different. They need to each dedicate themselves to their strategy which necessarily is derived from their tools.

How many of us are putting ourselves in a situation where this level of dedication required?

Difference is, A speed skater will never have to sprint and a race and vice versa. A striker may get into a fight and end up on the ground. Conversely, a grappler may have to remain standing.

[apoweyn]

"jack of all trades. master of none."

good grief, that saying is tired. does anyone have a working definition of 'mastery' to go with this saying? what does that mean?

that you can use your art in any situation? i think i'd have to see demonstrable proof of that. knives, multiple attackers, blah, blah, blah. not to say that a more eclectic approach guarantees anything either. it's just odd to me that this little catch phrase gets so much airplay. in practical terms, what does it mean to have mastered one given art?


stuart b.

[Prairie]

Originally posted by SevenStar


Difference is, A speed skater will never have to sprint and a race and vice versa. A striker may get into a fight and end up on the ground. Conversely, a grappler may have to remain standing.

Point well taken and I do admit that the analogy may not have been the best. The point of the analogy was merely on the point of dedication to particular skills. Perhaps it wasn't a good analogy at all.

In anycase, my belief remains that for most of us we just need to do whatever makes us happy. Also, I don't mean to imply that training in multiple arts can't be effective - but there are no short cuts and the hours have to be put into training whether in a single art or multiple arts to make them truly effective.

[Oso]

there's a thread on the NPM forum discussing the 'master' bit.
not a very long thread but a couple of good insights.

[sapphire tygre]

Master the art? I've met fairly young people who were incredibly good at their art. I still maintain that people who get that good are doing the style thats just right for them. One person is better at Judo, another at Karate, etc etc
If some of these experts said they thought they could as good at a totally different style it would be hard to believe. I get the feeling that these cross trainers haven't met people who were truly incredible at their one art. It would change their views. But hey, to each their own.

[apoweyn]

sapphire tygre,

you get the feeling...

you believe...

those statements are fine. as far as they go. but you can't provide any factual data to back that up, right? so what are you basing that on? (personal opinion is fine. as long as it's recognized as such.)

personally, i don't get it. i haven't seen the term 'mastery' actually illustrated in any meaningful way. not mastery of a given style, anyway. i think we put too much emphasis on the style itself. so that mastery is some sort of comment on a person's adherence to that style. to my mind, mastery should describe a person's ability to deal with a situation at hand. not necessarily limited to physical 'dealings' either. but for simplicity's sake, let's stick with that for now.

mastering a situation (and i'm still using the term 'mastery' in a pretty liberal sense) requires access to lots of different tools. perhaps all those tools can be found within one style. and perhaps one individual can embody them all. but i personally haven't seen it. the closest i've seen is ciriaco canete. and he was an eclectic martial artist if ever there's been one. boxing, judo, jujutsu, karate, eskrima...

that's the most meaningful definition of mastery that i can come up with at the moment. having access to tools and tactics that can be successfully applied to a wide range of situations. i believe that can occur within one style or through a synthesis of several. but i don't believe it should be a throwaway term. if it's applied, there should be some sort of verifiable reason for doing so. "jack of all trades. master of none." that's a throwaway term.



stuart b.

[MightyB]

Like a lot of people already said, I think it's important to stick with a style to learn the basic fundamentals, but, after that, you should branch out a little.

I think the whole lifelong dedication to one style is a remnant of when martial arts were a primary means of making a living for a teacher, and, before that, when they were for life and death. You'd want to keep secret things secret, and, you'd want to protect your sole source of income.

Nowadays, it's great that things are so open because it allows us to fit martial arts to our personalities rather than the other way around.

[sapphire tygre]

Funny thing is, we dont really disagree to any great extent. And of course my opinion is what I believe, and what I believe is based on my experiences. Where did you get the idea that I'm not basing this on experience? Is it because I recognize my own opinion as such? You're mistaking civility for naivete.

[apoweyn]

sapphire tygre,

not at all. i'm with you. i do think we're basically in agreement. i was just expanding on it. or rather, that was my intention. if it came off as more than that, sorry.


stuart b.

[sapphire tygre]

You've got a lot more experience in ma, so obviously your opinion is credible. I'm mostly responding to the people who say you have to train in grappling (your interpretation) to be effective in real life. This is just not true. No matter what I know, or how much training I do theres going to be things that come naturally, and are effective. Also the people who say body type doesn't matter.... well

[Souljah]

I just posted something similar to this but then I'll say it again.....the body type arguement is perfectly credible. I think, though it may be harder for some body types to adapt to styles that were 'theoretically' designed for a different body type, but through determination, hardwork, persistance its possible for any body type to feel 'at home' in an art where they stereotypically might not have been. Yes Sapphire some things come naturally to certain types but that does not stop the above ffrom being valid.


But in reply to the original post....I agree that learning a style is a lifelong journey...but I do think that learning more styles just helps quench the thirst for knowledge that many martial artist experiance. The journey in the end I believe is a journey to develop your OWN style, through learning one art this is possible but through being knowledgable of many you only increase your personal understanding of yourself.
Its not simply the case of 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Through disciplined frequent repetition you can learn much more.
Though I dont think just learning something for a while and ingnorantly thinking you have the acquired the skills and principles then moving onto something else is a good idea. I think the learning of various styles is a good thing. But as long as the styles knowledge and practices are retained and not forgotten. This is hard to balance I guess. but still possible...

greg

[SevenStar]

I think the one you disagree with is me. Body type is not a major factor. I'm medium height, sticky and muscular - but when I was in longfist, many of the other students credited me for being the best with kicks in the class - I can do spinning kicks, jumping kicks, etc. with ease. I was also able to do the "modern wsushu" tornado kick where you land on the same leg you kicked with.

In bjj, smaller guys kill me all the time. In judo, it goes both ways.

Point is, you can modify your personal style to make the style you train in work. If you are a short to medium height, stocky judoka, then you would be better suited for techniques like hip throws and some pulling throws, where you can take advantage of your strength and lower center of gravity. If you are taller, work sweeps and high sweeping throws, etc.

Yes, there are things that are going to com naturally, but be serious... you're not gonna learn how to defend a grappler if you've never done it. Does that mean you have to train grappling? No. but you should at least spar with some - exchange techniques and ideas. If learning to defend certain things came so naturally, what happens in all of the mma vs traditional fights that we've seen? when you look at mma vs mma and both fighters have experience with grappling and striking, you see that they defend takedowns better - it's because they are used to doing it. It's part of their training.

[apoweyn]

sapphire tygre,


Originally posted by sapphire tygre
You've got a lot more experience in ma, so obviously your opinion is credible. I'm mostly responding to the people who say you have to train in grappling (your interpretation) to be effective in real life. This is just not true. No matter what I know, or how much training I do theres going to be things that come naturally, and are effective. Also the people who say body type doesn't matter.... well

you're new here. so you don't know me very well. so i feel like i ought to tell you that what i know about grappling would fit into a shot glass. i'm learning some now. but i'm by no means a grappling expert.

what i do know is this: after years of experience in various striking arts, i was still a sucker for being taken down. by complete novices. now, this was about 9 years ago. so i chalk some of that up to poor training practices on my part. but regardless, i do believe that if someone is determined enough, there's a respectable chance that they'll be able to dump you on your arse. perhaps not a fancy hip throw. perhaps they won't be able to submit you afterward. hell, perhaps they weren't even trying to take you down. but it happens. so i perceived a need to address it. and it's taken me a long time to get around to it.

i don't believe that groundfighting is as simple as performing your regular moves from your back. various methods of power generation, locomotion, etc. are different. there are various ways of addressing those differences, i suppose. but i do believe that grappling is the most viable.

your mileage may vary.

in any event, while i do believe that grappling is important, i didn't want you thinking i'm any sort of expert on that particular subject.

cheers.


stuart b.

[sapphire tygre]

All true, but the reality is that it's downright dangerous to instill false confidence in people. My point is simple, an evasive style allows more room to be worse than your opponent. Grappling, and I mean both people down, is a bigger commitment to your superiority. And the argument that that is where you'll end up in a fight doesn't change these facts. Grappling is great. I like to get close and throw but I still maintain that grappling is very specialised.... Oh and a small person can do it well but chances are they're strong anyway. whew(response to Sevenstar)

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by sapphire tygre
All true, but the reality is that it's downright dangerous to instill false confidence in people. My point is simple, an evasive style allows more room to be worse than your opponent. Grappling, and I mean both people down, is a bigger commitment to your superiority. And the argument that that is where you'll end up in a fight doesn't change these facts. Grappling is great. I like to get close and throw but I still maintain that grappling is very specialised.... Oh and a small person can do it well but chances are they're strong anyway. whew(response to Sevenstar)

What do you mean by an 'evasive style'?

[red5angel]

a word on body type. I had a freind in karate in high school who was, almost literally built like a neanderthal. He was as wide at the shoulders as he was tall practically and his armes were long and legs were short. He was thick bodied but not fat, and he could do the splits from the get go and kick like you wouldn't believe.

[old jong]

Body types are not that important. When we work to master a technique we adapt it to our body type anyway.

[HuangKaiVun]

Body types are HUGELY important, at least in my school.

A chunky endomorphic guy with limited range would have trouble with splits and high kicks, in my opinion. A small little guy (like myself) has tremendous problem with leverage against larger opponents, particularly in striking scenarios.

Because of our uniqueness as individuals, I believe that a person is best off studying as many styles as he can handle. Some people are comfortable doing just one style (but do it well, like my sifu), others are more comfortable doing multiple styles (I fall into that category, UNLIKE my sifu).

During my short (4 month) tenure as a professional sifu running a school, I've crossed hands with people from traditional Chinese stylists all the way to Brazilian jujitsu fighters. Every time I walk away from such encounters, I try to find out more about the systems and people that I had just faced.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by sapphire tygre
All true, but the reality is that it's downright dangerous to instill false confidence in people. My point is simple, an evasive style allows more room to be worse than your opponent. Grappling, and I mean both people down, is a bigger commitment to your superiority. And the argument that that is where you'll end up in a fight doesn't change these facts. Grappling is great. I like to get close and throw but I still maintain that grappling is very specialised.... Oh and a small person can do it well but chances are they're strong anyway. whew(response to Sevenstar)

That last sentence is far from true. I've noticed that most people who do little or no grappling have the assumption that you have to be strong. Strenth is a big plus, but proper technique is where it's at. no false confidence there. And we try it time and time again, full speed every day. eyegouges, phoenix eyes, etc. THAT'S false confidence, IMO. sure an eye gouge can work, but since you don't practice it every day at full speed, you even though it can work, you don't know if you can make it work.

And evasiveness is part of how the whole mma/traditional thing got started - it's alot harder to evadea takedown than you'd think...

As far as saying that you will end up on the ground, I don't make that comment. What I will say however, is that you have no idea whether you're going to go the the ground or not. If you do go there, what are you gonna do? And yes, grappling is specialized, but many grapplers cross train, so to think that you will not be struck by a grappler would be to screw yourself.