Well-Rounded Fighters vs. Intelligently Specialized Fighters

[Braden]

The way most of the responses on the "drawbacks of your style" thread got me thinking... The common consensus seems to be that a responsable fighter should be aiming to develop skills in all areas of martial ability. Not that every good fighter is going to be a carbon-copy of each other, but only that they should share the same general skill set: good kicking ability, good striking ability, good bridging ability, good clinching ability, good wrestling ability, good submission ability, etc. Where they get each of those abilites is open to some interpretation.

There has been, not just here, but everywhere in the martial community, a dramatically popular trend towards "mixed martial artists." The motto of the breed seems to be: you'd better be ready for EVERY situation! Sound advice, surely. For better or worse, their influence has resulted in the conclusions outlined above: to be ready for every situation you have to develop skill in every component of martial ability.

But I was wondering... is this really true?

Surely you have to be prepared for every situation. But to do this, do you have to be well-rounded in the way that most people define the term? To deal with "every situation" do *I* really need to become skilled at every "kind" of technique?

Personally, I believe the answer to this question is NO. I have always been an advocate of a strategy/principle-based approach rather than a technique-based one, and this manifests itself again here. Furthermore, I'm a minimalist, in martial outlook and otherwise. This is definitely biasing my outlook. Nonetheless, I think you can be prepared for every situation not by mastering kinds of techniques, but rather - kinds of strategies.

To illustrate, let me take the example of what is actually a growing combination: an aikido and BJJ practitioner. Now, if you have problems with either of these arts, let's just put those aside for now, for the sake of theoretical discussion. Imagine a really skilled fighter trained extensively but only in aikido and BJJ. From a technique-based outlook, this fighter would be extremely deficient - he would have essentially no striking, kicking, or bridging skills. But is he prepared for every situation? I think he is. Because I don't think there is such a situation as "Ok, you have to box now." There is only the situation "Ok, you have to deal with someone boxing you now." In other words, you don't have to be prepared to box, you have to prepared to DEAL WITH boxing.

Our theoretical practitioner can do this. He is extremely skilled at entering methods, blending energy, controlling energy, and bridging (not in the conventional sense, but) from any range to the takedown. His skills in BJJ prepare him not only for an unlucky ground encounter, but also for flowing smoothly from his takedowns into a submission.

Now if you don't like my specific example, that's fine. But think about my general thesis. What is a well-rounded fighter?

[KnightSabre]

Ok lets look at your example.
The BJJ guy comes up against a boxer,but not any boxer,this boxer also does wrestling.So now everytime that the BJJ guy tries to take the Boxer/Wrestler to the ground the B/W sprawles to avoid the take down and then effectively strikes the BJJ guy.
Take the same approach and put a Kick Boxer with good strategy against a BJJ guy who trains also in Boxing.The BJJ guy knows how to defend strikes and so diffuses the Kickboxers strikes and then when the time is right takes him to the ground and finnishes him.
What my examples are trying to tell you is that the fighter with more weapons or more well rounded has the better fighting advantage.

[Matt-le-kat]

Very good question.

I train in kung fu and have ideas how to deal with certain fighting types. For instance, we always get told that boxers are used to getting punched in the head, and have a lot of conditioning on their upper half. So, we are taught to attack the legs, try and go for locks, and also takedowns.

Now if I was defending myself against a guy outside a pub or something and he took me to the ground, he would be taking away a lot of my weapons- as I train mostly from standing up. I would be my lack of technique ie ground fighting that would increase his chances of beating me.

I know the obvious way to avoid this is to control the situation and not get taken to the ground, but it's easy for someone to come up from behind and take you down before you know it.

**********
Nothing is to be feared, only understood....

[jjj]

>>To deal with "every situation" do *I* really need to become skilled at every "kind" of technique?<<

No, you just have to become skilled in all ranges.

>>I have always been an advocate of a strategy/principle-based approach rather than a technique-based one<<

As I said earlier this week, strategy takes a back seat to tactics.

>>To illustrate, let me take the example of what is actually a growing combination: an aikido and BJJ practitioner. Now, if you have problems with either of these arts, let's just put those aside for now, for the sake of theoretical discussion. Imagine a really skilled fighter trained extensively but only in aikido and BJJ. From a technique-based outlook, this fighter would be extremely deficient - he would have essentially no striking, kicking, or bridging skills. But is he prepared for every situation? I think he is. Because I don't think there is such a situation as "Ok, you have to box now." There is only the situation "Ok, you have to deal with someone boxing you now." In other words, you don't have to be prepared to box, you have to prepared to DEAL WITH boxing.<<

Most cases require fighting fire with fire, like fighting BJJ requires that you learn BJJ (enogh to survive anyway). Or you have to be able to box a boxer long enough to set up your takedown if you are a grappler. No way around it.

It's simple really, if you are unfamiliar or unskilled in a fighting range and you find yourself in it, and you are unable to transition to another range then its bad news for you. A well rounded fighter is prepared for any range.

I feel sorry for people who don't drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day.
--Frank Sinatra

[rogue]

Real good topic.

To use Knightsabres example, the A/BJJ guy may not be able to use a wrestling takedown but he could switch to using a lock or an irimi from Aikido against the b/w. The boxer can then counter with jabs to keep the a/bjj from closing, to which the a/bjj could counter by pivoting behind the boxer and go for a head control, the b/w could counter with... Get the point? It could go on and on.

IMO many of the well rounded fighters do specialize in certain areas, I think they're effectivness comes from training against people from outside of those areas. It's like a Wing Chun guy practicing kick defenses against another pure wing Chun guy instead of a Savate or TKD person, or a TKD person practicing takedown counters against another pure TKD person instead someone with BJJ experience. It's ok, but just not the best way.

[ope]

actually just because a bjj guy fights a man who doesnt know wrestling doesnt mean he is gonna win there is no guarantee in anything.. and i know alot of kungfu systems that have techqiues to help defend against ground fighting, i mean if you truly wanna beat a grappler one of the easyest things to do is oil down your body or fight with out a shirt on so they have nothing to grab... there is nothing wrong with being a well rounded fighter but we must also remmeber the most important thing is to MASTER ONE art first.. once you have mastered one system or style.. then if you want to learn more thats ok.. but it doesnt make sence you learning a bunch of systems or styles and you havent mastered anyone of them.. because if your up against a person who mastered there style you will have a huge disadvantage.. no matter how many differnt arts you do..

[KnightSabre]

"Oiling your body" - hmmm can't argue with that one.

[jjj]

Oiling your body makes it tha much easier for me to slide my arm around your throat and choke you out. :D

Anyhow I do not the see the point of "mastering" one art first. What is the point?

I feel sorry for people who don't drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day.
--Frank Sinatra

[JWTAYLOR]

First, let me say that the most dangerous technique is the one that I've never seen.

Second, Jedi is on the right track, but I'd say it's POSITION above range.

No matter what art we are talking about, can you fight standing? What about from your back? What about on your back? Kneeling, clinched, on one leg, mounted, mounting, cross mounted, with a knee in your stomach, on your knees, running, etc? Now what about an opponent to the front, flanks, etc? A combination of opponent's in these positions?

NEVER assume that you will be able to stay out of one of these positions. I know that the human body can only move in so many ways, but stick a few of them together and the specific scenarios of any attack are practically infinite.

If you want to "specialize", make sure that you specialize in fighting from every single position imaginable.
JWT

If you pr!ck us, do we not bleed? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that the villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. MOV

[ope]

jjj its hard to rap your arm around some ones throat when they know what there doin.. :)

well for one thing if you master one art first it would make it easyer to learn others.. another thing is if you learn alot of differnt stuff with out mastering anyone of them your fight wont be clean and you will be a poor fighter.. And thats why they call masters masters because thats what they are, people who mastered an art or arts.. now im not saying you cant try to master more then one at the same time or one after another (the latter is better).. but if you do try to master arts at the same time.. for one thing it will take longer and second more then likely you would confuse yourself..

[This message was edited by ope on 04-05-01 at 08:16 AM.]

[jjj]

Range encompasses positions, grappling range includes knee on chest back etc.

>>jjj its hard to rap your arm around some ones throat when they know what there doin..<<

Defending the rnc is primarially a BJJ technique, thanks for helping me make my point.

>>well for one thing if you master one art first it would make it easyer to learn others.. another thing is if you learn alot of differnt stuff with out mastering anyone of them your fight wont be clean and you will be a poor fighter..<<

MMA typically try to become proficient at fundamentals. Practicioners who have them are very efficient and effective so your argument is weak.

I feel sorry for people who don't drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day.
--Frank Sinatra

[ope]

im not trying to make an arguement im just giving my opinion on what i have seen with students... and i think part of mastering a system or style also includes mastery of proficient at fundamentals, the whole part of mastering a system is to master the principals behind it.. if you cant do that then you cant master it..

"Defending the rnc is primarially a BJJ technique"

what book did you read this from?

[jjj]

Oh I don't know, I am on your back with the hooks in trying to apply a rear naked choke, we do this in BJJ all the time, how to apply it and how to defend against it, so how am I far off base for saying it is primarially a BJJ tech? Who uses it more than us?

I feel sorry for people who don't drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day.
--Frank Sinatra

[Black Jack]

I have seen variations of the rare naked choke used by burmese naban guys, by japenese jujitsu guys, by judo guys, even by some silat guys.

In some format or another the rnc seems to be a global tech, maybe not the exact same way a BJJ player does it but in some fashion or another.

John Wayne and others answered the question so well I can not realy think of anything to add except for the important inclusion of practical weapon training methods to cover all of your bases.

This would include knife, stick and firearm work and the incorporation of this training in different positions and ranges like training to use the knife when one is trapped on the ground or on one knee.

Regards

[apoweyn]

Would someone mind defining "mastery" of a style.

Thanks.


Stuart

[Ford Prefect]

>>>> have seen variations of the rare naked choke used by burmese naban guys, by japenese jujitsu guys, by judo guys, even by some silat guys.<<<<

Yeah, but the point was that BJJ guys would find themselves in that position a lot more than most other arts, and therefor would be the most familiar (ie the most practiced) at defending, applying, countering, countering-counters, etc.

Sure the hip throw might be in a lot of systems, but somebody who primarily studies Judo, Greco, or SJ would be much more familiar with applying it and countering it. Get it?

Back to the topic...

I think specialists can be successful, but they still must cross-train and become familiar with all ranges of combat. No matter what your strategy is, you can be taken out of that strategy. If you are then in an unfamiliar postion, you'll be hurting. Just take the Aikidoka/BJJ example. If he fights a boxer familiar with takedowns and aikido-like blending and throwing, then chances are the Aikido/BJJ guys will be out of luck, and he'll be eating through a straw for the next few weeks. Now-a-days it is pretty much about who can effectively take the other fighter out of familiar ranges and into one that he is more familiar with.

"Who's house?"
"I said RUN's house."

[Tigerdragon]

I feel the answer is really in the middle. The way I see it is that you should train heavily in an art that fits you. And just "dabble" in other arts that fight in other ranges. This will give you some tools and some ideas of what those types of fighters will use. Now you can build those things into your main art. Am I making sense?
Ok if I'm not here is an example.
I train AKKI Kenpo. Its weak in kicking and has a little ground work but not much. So I might decide to take traditional TKD for say 4-6 months to help my leggwork a a little and expose me to kicking fighters so I can learn what to expect. Now I might train BJJ for maybe 3 months to strengthen my already existing ground curriculum.
I'm not going to go out and train for years in all of these other styles...its just not nessisary. I can use what I am already strong with and mesh it with the new stuff and strengthen everything.
Now obviously in the future i would retrain in those other arts to brush up on them and any possible new deveolpments but thats besides the point.
Just my 2 cents

Assumption is the mother of tragedy. Just keep and open mind and be ready

[Ironpig]

Stuart,

I will try to give my understanding and my beliefs as well as to what constitutes a "master" of a martial art.

I believe that Mastery can be traditionally conferred from father to son as "head of a system" or also from a teacher to thier desciples who will carry on the traditions.

As a title, Master is overused.

A buddy of mine is a Grandmaster marksman with rifles, shotguns and pistols, qualified as master with thrown and missile weapons. He gained those certifications by being able to meet a set of criteria repeatedly for a number of years. Mastery of a skill to him is understanding the principles and repeatability of the application of that skill.

In the martial arts, the term gets bogged down with spiritual and social connotations and expectations. Master is often represented as meaning many more things than it really does. A master is not "undefeatable" or "invulnerable". A master can die in a car accident or from a cold, just like anyone else. A master can get beaten in a fight and is not less a master of thier art. If they are, then the BJJ guys must have no master level practitioners...kidding!

Being a master is often a position within an organization. My understanding is that they are "teachers to teachers" within that organization. The skills and time that they have put in have a value above what other practitioners may currently hold. They also are able to "reproduce" themselves with desciples, by instructing them to a level that will allow for the next generation of practitioners to continue in the traditions and practices within their art as well as expanding the art.

It is nice to get recognition as such from others in the field, but not necessary. Often a master practitioner will be too busy living the tenets of thier art to focus on announcing thier skill or standing. Many go unrecognized.

My buddy doesnt go around saying, "hi...Im grandmaster BOB and I am an olympic grade marksman with firearms and certified to teach in lethal force institutes and also teach police and military special forces."

That would be crass.

It doesnt remove his mastery if he misses a shot, he would just apply the principles he has learned to correct his error and improve his technique.

I think that is what a master is. Someone who knows technique such that they can succesfully repeat a skill and instruct others to that level in the given skill.

Just my humble opinion....

just a few pennies from a pig.....

IronPig

[Black Jack]

Ford, I would not consider that a total truth as you did not take into consideration the personal and prefered fighting methods of the individual fighter.

The person who would have the best shot at executing a certain technique is the one who personaly favors and works that tech the most.

A bjj player who realy like the triangle choke as his signature card move would seem to be at a disadvantage to another player who works the rnc to a great degree as his favorite submission.

To say that bjj is the owner of the rear naked choke in terms of always being in that position the most would be a big call as there are a lot of esotric and rare grappling arts that are out there who work a large variety of submission holds and positions.

Naban for example is not a commonplace grappling art that one could just go down and find at there local dojo but it is a extremely comprehensive grappling and groundfighting system that includes the use of the rear naked choke as well as many other submission and non-sport groundfighting tactics that would make it hard to say who has the up on what move.

The move belongs to the person who practices it the most.

Regards

[apoweyn]

Ironpig,

I think that's an excellent definition of a master. I know there was a separate thread on this recently too. Some good answers there as well.

Here's my point. (Let's remain optimistic that I have one [grin])

Ope suggests that we first "master" one art before going on to learn another. My feeling is that, if the word denotes a place within an organization or a recognition from others regarding your level of skill, then it doesn't really serve as a guidepost for when it's okay to study something else.

Nothing is going to occur in the life of a practitioner that makes them "know" that they have mastered their art, in my opinion. As you said, your friend doesn't go around calling himself Master. It's a recognition by others.

So how do we, as individuals, deem ourselves ready to study something else? How do we gauge our own mastery?

Personally, I have trained in several different styles. Not bragging. In truth, I initially made the switch from taekwondo to eskrima out of (among other factors) cowardice. I was no longer the best guy in the class, so rather than stay and persevere, I decided to go and learn something else.

Hardly a decision based on mastery.

But a decade later, I'm not sure that my initial reasoning matters much. I don't feel that I've suffered any for not having mastered taekwondo. There are certainly things in taekwondo that I envy. The guy that originally drove me from the style is a very good friend of mine now. And I envy what he can do.

But I'm also glad for the training opportunities I've had. And for the view of martial arts that it's given me.

No master, though.


Stuart

[GinSueDog]

Blackjack,
I think you forget that grapplers and in general BJJ players face off against the rear naked day in and day out. It doesn't matter what technique I prefer or specialize in, the fact is the majority of BJJ players play position over submission and the back is one of the best positions. I am going to face the rear nake at least once or twice a night. Personally in this whole arguement of well rounded vs. Specialization, I think a good base is needed in both striking and grappling, one area is almost always going to better then the other in most individual fighters. At the moment, my striking is way ahead of my grappling game, although I intend to change that in time. We all saw what a good striker with a nice sprawl and a nice base in grappling can do. It is really pretty simple, if the grappler cannot take you down or keep you there then he is in trouble and if the striker cannot stay on his feet or get back up he is in trouble, so you need both to a degree to come out on top. The whole idea is to force your opponent to play your best game, and if your best game isn't enough well you better have a good back up game ready or your opponent is going to knock your block off.-ED

"The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground...take them there. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up...keep them there. The mixed martial arts imply any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere."-a mix martial artist

[Ironpig]

Yeah...I left TKD for similiar reasons when I was really young. I had an expectation of what the class was about that did not match what it was about. So I left when it no longer fit that perception.

Over time I changed so that I am not sure that I would have left if I was there now.

just a few pennies from a pig.....

IronPig

[Ford Prefect]

>>>The person who would have the best shot at executing a certain technique is the one who personaly favors and works that tech the most.<<<

You're going completely out of context. At first, you were talking about the arts. Now you are switching to personal development... In any case it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the BJJ guy prefers the triagle choke over the rear naked because they are generally executed from completely different positions. A BJJ guy is not going to get another guy's back and decide to jump to guard to set up a triangle choke, nor will he have an oppurtunity to take as dominant a position as rear mount but decide to go to guard because he like the triangle choke better.

Obtaining the rear mount happens in bjj. You practice it and you will apply it in sparring often.

Editted: Didn't see Ed's message, but we're pretty much saying the same thing. If you practice BJJ, then you practice the rnc.

"Who's house?"
"I said RUN's house."

[apoweyn]

Ironpig,

Exactly. But I have no real complaints about how things played out. I generally figure that there aren't right or wrong decisions. You make a decision, then you spend your life making it the right decision.

Of course, that doesn't account for that incident with the cable box and the tree, resulting in a broken collarbone. I'm willing to chalk that one up to a bad decision. [smirk]


Stuart

[Ironpig]

LOL

I would love to say all the things I did as a foolish child.....but the things that a foolish adult can do are MUCH more hilarious.

Like when I told my full contact buddy to "go ahead...show me what you got"

thumb...crunch...

"pretty good...can you help me walk to the doctor?"

It wasnt really that bad..and the wake up call came about 12 years ago...but it WAS funny in retrospect...

just a few pennies from a pig.....

IronPig

[Black Jack]

If you are in reference to a out of context post to a out of topic statement than I see where you might get that but my whole post was in regards to SabreKnights thoughts on how the rnc is used the most by bjj which implies that other systems do not use this type of a tool.

My answer was to that no one realy owns a certain tech to a full degree, they may have some of the best methods to train it, they may be skilled in using and defending this certain tech, but they are not the keyholders to this technique.

Techniques belong to whoever trains them and not just to anyone group.

All I was stating was that other grappling arts have and do use rear naked chokes in there practice.

You seem to have a bit of an attitude on such a simple subject, are you not getting enough or something.

Regards

[SevenStar]

<<part of mastering a system or style also includes mastery of proficient at fundamentals, the whole part of mastering a system is to master the principals behind it.. if you cant do that then you cant master it..>>

umm...sure, but you still haven't defended your point. Why do I have to master a style to be good at it? Look at MMA stylists - they are a jack of all trades, but a master of none - they hone the basics of several styles. Also, how many styles have you trained in? I have trained in several, and actually, it can be harder to learn other arts after training in one. After training in karate, it was hard as phuck to get accustomed to the circular movements of beishaolin quan.


<<another thing is if you learn alot of differnt stuff with out mastering anyone of them your fight wont be clean and you will be a poor fighter..>>

wtf??!?! where do you get your info from? Just out of curiosity, what style did Bruce Lee master? was he a poor fighter because he hadn't mastered any style? what about frank shamrock?

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; A fool speaks because he has to say something."

[rogue]

I don't think good MMA are masters of no style, but in a way are masters of MMA.

I agree with Black Jack about techniques belonging to people, not systems. I also see where Fords coming from, and I don't think BJ was out of context, I may have a preference but I won't pass an opportunity up to finish. But Joe Lewis lived and died by his side kick for years and Bill Wallace lived by using almost always his left leg.

I think Royce Gracie showed what preferences can do to a fighter when he defeated everyone in the UFC and now he shows it by sticking to pure BJJ.

[reemul]

The concepts and philosophies of MMA although seem to be the current trend, are nothing new, and been around for hundreds of years.

[jjj]

>>You seem to have a bit of an attitude on such a simple subject, are you not getting enough or something.<<

I think he just gets annoyed having to explain the obvious to idiots, I mean it's obvious that the rnc is a BJJ's fundamental, and it is obvious that you are an idiot.

I feel sorry for people who don't drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day.
--Frank Sinatra

[ope]

I have studied several styles as well.. and i think you miss interpret what i mean by master.. when i mean master i mean mastering the principals of the style of kungfu and the attitude of the kungfu system (i think i have said this before that there is no superior system or sryle, only superior principals).. example if some one does 5 animal pattern.. 5 differnt animals 5 differnt attitudes if a person can master this system.. dont you think there fight would be better then some one who does 5 animal pattern and can not get the attitude of the animals etc.. even if he can work the techqiues the attitude is very important.. and if a person can master 5 animal pattern then learning an animal system like tiger or eagle claw would be easyer.. or say a person masters drunken the attitude etc.. then learning the atitude for monkey would be easyer.. and by mastering drunken now a person can mix drunken with several differnt animal systems.. eg. drunken mantis, drunken monkey etc.. so his fight will improve a hell of alot if he mixes the systems..

Bruce Lee did master a style his own... Brue Lee mastered the Principal of being natural..

[This message was edited by ope on 04-05-01 at 06:05 PM.]

[Black Jack]

Hey ignorant dip****.

If you would care to go back through the posts you might see that I never once stated that the rnc was not a bjj fundamental, get the cataract out of your eyes.

No wonder the kung fu players get so freakin put off by you guys around here, I used to think that
they were overstating and whinning a lot about some of the attitudes that bjj fighters brought to the forum but now I might start to think different.

So is that how it goes, question one tactic or comment about a tactic in bjj and you all of a sudden become a idiot :eek:

I wish I knew the rules before hand and to think I used to defend you guys from the same sort of close-minded attitudes.

Maybe if you go roll around on the ground some more you might get a sense of humor.

Regards

[jjj]

Hmm, you seem upset maybe you havent got any lately LOL. :D

I feel sorry for people who don't drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day.
--Frank Sinatra

[Royal Dragon]

There has been, not just here, but everywhere in the martial community, a dramatically popular trend towards "mixed martial artists." The motto of the breed seems to be: you'd better be ready for EVERY situation! Sound advice, surely. For better or worse, their influence has resulted in the conclusions outlined above: to be ready for every situation you have to develop skill in every component of martial ability.

Reply]
Chao, Kuang Yin founder my style way back inlike 960 AD. before doimng so, he studyed Shaolin Louhan, Six Step Monkey boxing, Taoist Natural Fist and Six Harmonys, Eight Methods with it's founder. Later, the Chao family developed a Southern close range fighting style to fill the holes in the Long Fist style. Also, they did Tai Chi and most likely cross trained in South Mantis during the Ming dynasty.

This being said, it seem's to me, that cross training in several arts IS the TRDITIONAL way of doing things.

Chao, Kuang Yin conquered FIVE warring states and united them into one peaceful empire, he crossed trained in ever art he could find. Today, the toughest guys out there, that I have seen, ALL cross train in several arts. I have never seen a tough Tae Kwon Do guy, BUT, I have seen Tae Kwon Do guys that cross train in Judo, Akido and ****o Kahn Karate. That was one tough Honbre.

So Cross train every one, specialize in your favorite art, but train all your ranges!!!

Royal Dragon

[ope]

I have to agree with black jack to a certain extent.. i have found that people in here get to hostile over other peoples opinion.. We are all MA in this forum and should respect one another and one anothers opinion WE ARE HEAR TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER.. not to prove which MA or style is stronger or what system is better... and let me say this.. not everything that has to do with grappling is bjj there are plenty of other arts and kungfu systems the incorperate grappling.. any of you ever heard of Bao Constricter system? or Vine system? aikido is basicaly derived from these kungfu systems.. there attitude and techqiues or mainly joint locks grappling etc...

and these systems are part of natural fist or natural boxing.. they are traced back 4000 years ago..

[Black Jack]

How come I came away feeling like the badguy on that one?? :rolleyes:

Regards

[Watchman]

Because JJJ is a master of psycological warfare and biting sarcasm. Haven't you figured that out yet? The rnc is the least of his skills! He can drive you insane from the comfort of his keyboard all the while having you believe it's your thinking that is doing you in! :eek: :D

[chokeyouout]

No style has a monopoly on truth.

[reemul]

The biggest problem I find with schools of all styles whether it be a kung fu, BJJ or JKD is they lack a system of learning. What I mean by this is most schools learn MA but don't study it and most practioners just end up spouting propaganda of their schools BASIC philosophical perspective.

Kung fu schools tend to be heavily form oriented yet their practioners don't understand the application.

BJJ schools tend to think BJJ is some sort of revolutionary apex other schools can't reach.

MMA tend to think if they learn 12 different systems they will be better prepared for anything.

Studying MA goes beyond mimicing your instuctor and collecting techniques of a thousand systems.
Without a system designed to elevate your understanding of fighting and without the ability
to STUDY MA, the time spent running around learning 12 different systems simply makes you a student to all, and a master of none.

[KnightSabre]

A good example of The effectiveness of Mixed Martiala Arts is to look at the Gracie Reign.They were unbeatable until their apponents started training and using a mixed martial arts system against them.The gracies have yet to be defeated by a single style.

[Ford Prefect]

Not even going to say anything except that JJJ is one funny *******.

[This message was edited by Ford Prefect on 04-06-01 at 06:11 AM.]

[apoweyn]

Ope,

I think I agree with what you've said about mastery. I just needed some clarification.

The word is a bit sticky though. The way I prefer to frame it is that you need a style that you understand sufficiently to use it as a framework. You need to be able to relate new ideas to something. Or rather, I need that. Perhaps other people aren't.

I was in a club at college where several people were new to the arts. Since there were several of us who were not, we taught. So the new people were learning, simultaneously, aikido, tang soo do, shotokan, and eskrima. And they felt lost. Detached. Because they didn't have anything that they felt connected to. They just had a lot of different (and often contradictory) information.

But if you study one style for long enough, then study others, you'll tend to process one in relation to the other, to my mind.

For me, I studied taekwondo for 5 years. Then eskrima. And now, I'm far more oriented toward the latter than the former. I don't think that your first style necessarily constitutes your base style. In the end, eskrima was more "natural" to me than taekwondo. I still make use of much of taekwondo, but I tend to process it through an eskrima framework.

I gather that's what you meant by mastery, yeah? And before anyone asks, no I don't regard myself as a master.

Cheers.


Stuart

[Tigerstyle]

jjj is a Mindboxer™, remember? Of course he's gonna be mental. ;)

BTW: Ironpig
I really like your definition of "master". I think that term gets thrown around too much also. Except in my case. I am a master of "Karate Champ".


www.mindboxing.com (http://www.mindboxing.com/)

[ope]

Ya thats pretty much i was tryen to say thanks for clearifying.. Yes i have taught beginners as well and had the same problems.. when you try to show them to much they get confused.. thats why you must take things one step at a time.. let them learn how to fight in one style or system.. and then later show them other things..

like in school you dont teach a first grader everything there is to know.. you let them work there way up, dont you think if you taught a first grader what he should be learning in 2nd 3rd 4th etc that he would get confused?..

[This message was edited by ope on 04-06-01 at 10:52 AM.]

[apoweyn]

Ope,

No worries.


Stuart

[Braden]

Just to clarify...

I never meant this thread to be about traditional vs. modern styles, about "mastering" a style vs. martial buffet, about some implied modern origin of cross-training, or about the superiority or inferiority of BJJ.

The question was really about finding out what it means to be a well-rounded fighter. It's a term that's tossed around alot, yet has several possible interpretations. At the core of the question is, is there a difference between "dealing with a boxer" and "boxing a boxer"? Does being prepared for every range mean being prepared to play every game?

Answering this question doesn't really bring up any of the issues mentioned above. For instance, you can "specialize" with a buffet approach.

And to try to clarify: by specialize in this context I didn't mean someone focusing only on one tactic the way it's usually discussed. (ie. "but my root is so good I'll never get taken down"!). I meant, as I tried to outline in my example, someone who is prepared to deal with every "game" but not to actually play them all. Is it possible?

I realize I probably didn't convey this too well, but I'm glad a couple of you understood. ;)

[Ironpig]

Braden,

Yeah, I understood what you were asking, I just didnt think that I could necessarily get a better shot at defining or describing my opinion as others had already outlined really good thoughts on the subject.

Here goes:

Training for COMBAT is specific, it is life and death and involves the principle of engaging at the highest possible level as quickly as possible to cause catastrophic damage or death to an oponent in a given situation in the shortest amount of time. It is brutal and unpretty. It involves "on" or "off". You are either killing someone or you are not engaging. Anything in between causes you to die.

Training for sport or "spar" involves training for a sport environment where there will always be an element of "what if I had engaged at a higher level?" It leaves the door open to the logical phallacy that just because you have not engaged in life or death combat, you cant "really tell"

Nope, I can tell. There are people that are infinitely better at sport than I am, also those that are better at combat for sure. Many have something to teach me.

Probably one of the best lessons I have learned came at the expense of a collegiate wrestler who was all state and an olympic hopeful.

I was with a friend who practiced hard core Karate when the conversation "broke out" about how karate guys cant beat a wrestler on the ground. my buddy agreed that it would be a real challenge, but that a good fighter keeps to his element and trains to stay in it. He would not go down if he could help it. The guy, (lets call him wrestling dude), went on to say he knew that he could take a karate guy down and "that would be that". Both agreed to give it a go at a local gym. I was there and saw the match. They sized each other up and the wrestler moved REALLY fast in for the shoot. By reflex, my buddy brought his knee up and knocked him cold.

What does it prove? Nothing. Wrestling dude got up and was knocked down a few more times with low kicks or throws.

So they agreed to have my buddy use only striking techniques and then wrestling dude was able to bring him down and lock him up.

They became friends afterwards and have been ever since.

So.....

Wrestling dude shortly thereafter introduces my buddy, karate Dude, to Aikido dude....

who is convinced that Karate dude not be able to hit him and if it does, he will throw the hell out of him.

The stage was set in a park and Aikido dude and karate dude squared off. Aikido dude had better than ten years of training and looked really good with excellent posture and technique. But each time aikido dude would do the steven segal "make them fly" technique, my buddy would stand there and look at him, then punch him in the head.

After a while, my buddy decided that he would overextend some of his punches. Through the air he went! You see, he wasnt throwing uncontrolled technique, no overextension and no lack of balance or lunging. When he did, whoosh!

The lesson with these guys and another that I wont go into who I will name "boxing dude" was that you need to adapt, but fight your fight. Not the fight of the person you are engaging.

If you can get the person fighting your fight, you have the ultimate advantage.

using an overused analogy:

The willow bends to the storm, not losing its roots, but even for bending is still a willow....

Heh...I am so burned out from working out. I hope this had some clarity despite the overuse of the term "dude" as a descriptor to protect real names.

just a few pennies from a pig.....

IronPig

[jjj]

I think the question has been answered. If you want to grapple, you have to know enough about boxing to survive that range long enough to transition to grappling range. If you want to box you have to know how to prevent the grapplers takedowns. If you happen to find yourself on the ground, you have to know enough to survive the grapplers strikes and subs, and be able to get back to your desired range. Pretty simple concept really.

I feel sorry for people who don't drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that's as good as they're going to feel all day.
--Frank Sinatra

[rogue]

But those are the hardest to except. After all if a system with 10 kinds of throws, strikes and kicks is good, one with 200 must be better.

apoweyn, how does escrima footwork work with you're TKD?