Jack of all trades master of none...

[Blacktiger]

We have all heard the saying before...

I think you hear it on the traditional arts side more than anything.

Of late we have got the whole MMA thing, then you have the JKD approach which I think in essence is the same thing.

Which is basically take what is useful and works for you and add it to your tool kit. Is there anything wrong with this approach - I cant see one.

Im of the opinion that once you have a bit of a base under your belt in training - get out and look at some other systems/styles etc.

How else are you going to find weaknesses in what you do and evolve?

I heard from a Wing Chun person a while ago - which was - Wing Chun works well on Wing Chun people. Not picking on this art, but just an example of the mind set.

If you do get into trouble your going to react with what you have learnt right? Your not thinking ok im going to use my Kung Fu and then some BJJ and then some Silat weapons stuff etc etc.

I think X-training is pretty much the norm these days.

So what do you think, jack of all trades master of none or jack of all trades ready to deal with a range of different scenarios?

Thoughts?

[Minghequan]

Great post! Me, I think that the Masters of old were a little bit "Jack of all trades, Master of none" and I think Martial history confirms this.

However, I'm not one for lets just mix it all up, it has to aim at a level or aspect not touched by your art or that is more advanced then that area of your art.

Also one should be able to make it equate to those principles, concepts that drive one's art ... taking them even further forward.

You area Traditional Ziranmen stylist correct? How do you think this approach impacts on that art? Have you applied to your art and how did you approach it?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, the issue with "jack of all trades master of none" is not what MMA and cross-training in MA is about.
People seem to misunderstand that.
A jack of all trades is a guy that is, for example, a plumber, welder, electrician, painter, etc and doesn't do any of them at a high level but does all of them "good enough" ( no one would confuse him as a professional at any of them).
That is not what we see in cross training of MA.
The equivalent that is done in MA would be a welder that not only does structural welding BUT does piping and high pressure and exotic metals and so forth.
In MA when we train in more than one system or we cross-train systems it is, typically, because we are trying to complete our skill set in ONE thing, IE: Fighting.
That is a very different thing then dabbling in various skill sets that are not directly related to fighting, which is what a "jack of all trades, master of none" entails.

In other words, the TRADE of a MA is fighting so anything he does to complete and perfect that trade is part of the mastering process IN that trade.

[RenDaHai]

I agree with Ronin,

MA is all one trade, so you can't be a jack of all trades by training different MA.

Secondly, the expression has little base anyway, many of the greatest men of all time were polymaths.

Mastery is not over the art but over the self, and it transfers to every discipline.

Beware the man of one book.

[tc101]

Actually, the issue with "jack of all trades master of none" is not what MMA and cross-training in MA is about.
People seem to misunderstand that.
A jack of all trades is a guy that is, for example, a plumber, welder, electrician, painter, etc and doesn't do any of them at a high level but does all of them "good enough" ( no one would confuse him as a professional at any of them).
That is not what we see in cross training of MA.
The equivalent that is done in MA would be a welder that not only does structural welding BUT does piping and high pressure and exotic metals and so forth.
In MA when we train in more than one system or we cross-train systems it is, typically, because we are trying to complete our skill set in ONE thing, IE: Fighting.
That is a very different thing then dabbling in various skill sets that are not directly related to fighting, which is what a "jack of all trades, master of none" entails.

In other words, the TRADE of a MA is fighting so anything he does to complete and perfect that trade is part of the mastering process IN that trade.

Very very very good post. Thank you. My faith in sanity is restored.

[wenshu]

What about someone who is a master of their trade, a trade which happens to be being a "jack of all trades".

[Blacktiger]

Actually, the issue with "jack of all trades master of none" is not what MMA and cross-training in MA is about.
People seem to misunderstand that.
A jack of all trades is a guy that is, for example, a plumber, welder, electrician, painter, etc and doesn't do any of them at a high level but does all of them "good enough" ( no one would confuse him as a professional at any of them).
That is not what we see in cross training of MA.
The equivalent that is done in MA would be a welder that not only does structural welding BUT does piping and high pressure and exotic metals and so forth.
In MA when we train in more than one system or we cross-train systems it is, typically, because we are trying to complete our skill set in ONE thing, IE: Fighting.
That is a very different thing then dabbling in various skill sets that are not directly related to fighting, which is what a "jack of all trades, master of none" entails.

In other words, the TRADE of a MA is fighting so anything he does to complete and perfect that trade is part of the mastering process IN that trade.

Great post -agree 100%, thanks SR!

[Songshan]

Actually, the issue with "jack of all trades master of none" is not what MMA and cross-training in MA is about.
People seem to misunderstand that.
A jack of all trades is a guy that is, for example, a plumber, welder, electrician, painter, etc and doesn't do any of them at a high level but does all of them "good enough" ( no one would confuse him as a professional at any of them).
That is not what we see in cross training of MA.
The equivalent that is done in MA would be a welder that not only does structural welding BUT does piping and high pressure and exotic metals and so forth.
In MA when we train in more than one system or we cross-train systems it is, typically, because we are trying to complete our skill set in ONE thing, IE: Fighting.
That is a very different thing then dabbling in various skill sets that are not directly related to fighting, which is what a "jack of all trades, master of none" entails.

In other words, the TRADE of a MA is fighting so anything he does to complete and perfect that trade is part of the mastering process IN that trade.

I see your point and agree to an extent. I am not saying cross training is bad but based on what you said, MMA to me represents martial arts being done "good enough" at a high level. Is an MMA fighter truly a master of one style? For example you have a ju jitsu fighter vs a muy thai fighter. Ju jitsu rely on their ground game while Muy thai fighters are not trained for ground fighting. Throw a San da fighter in there and he will give both styles a run for their money. What it boils down to is fighting principles. It is why wing chun artists believe in wing chun and a few other straight traditional styles swear/believe by their fighting methods. Bruce Lee developed JKD based on fighting principles not so much cross training principles. I see MMA as an anything goes fighting style. I have been preaching when you reach a certain age the "best fighting style" debate goes away and you train in something that will keep you healthy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I see your point and agree to an extent. I am not saying cross training is bad but based on what you said, MMA to me represents martial arts being done "good enough" at a high level. Is an MMA fighter truly a master of one style? For example you have a ju jitsu fighter vs a muy thai fighter. Ju jitsu rely on their ground game while Muy thai fighters are not trained for ground fighting. Throw a San da fighter in there and he will give both styles a run for their money. What it boils down to is fighting principles. It is why wing chun artists believe in wing chun and a few other traditional styles swear by thier fighting methods.

MMA used to be simply a rule set, then it became a "Hodge podge" of techniques thrown together.
Today MMA IS a system of MA.
MMA done at a high level is no "good enough", anymore than boxing is "good enough" or judo is "good enough".
In the past we had guys with a solid core base that added from other MA BUT join any MMA gym/school now and you will be doing MMA from the very start.
Don't expect the Mixed Martial Artist to look like a Thai boxer doing BJJ or a BJJ doing boxing, NOPE, that is not what you will see.
What you do see is techniques that are taught and trained for the MMA environment looking like MMA technqiues.
No more "this boxing round kicks: for example, they are quite simply MMA round kicks now.

[Yum Cha]

Ronin' post is spot on, but I think its a perspective thing.
Forget style, you, a fighter, have your 'kit', you skills. What is a 'full' set? One that works.
How many techniques do you need in your arsenal? <shrugs> Enough. Some guys can work you over with 2 or 3 good moves. Others, surprise you with unorthodox style. Others just ad-lib from a pool of skill.
I believe it comes down to depth vs breadth, a few good skills that are of the highest percentage because you do them better than anybody else.
This is where forms collectors come unstuck, (in terms of fighting) thinking that more moves is more skill. One reason Boxers are so tough, limited but effective material practiced relentlessly.

[YouKnowWho]

it comes down to depth vs breadth, ...This is where forms collectors come unstuck ...

This is so true. When you apply your favor move, your opponent may respond with 10 different ways, you will need to know how to handle all those 10 situations. You may need to change your initial move into 10 different moves from there. When you look at MA from this angle, you truly don't have time to train your solo forms.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ronin' post is spot on, but I think its a perspective thing.
Forget style, you, a fighter, have your 'kit', you skills. What is a 'full' set? One that works.
How many techniques do you need in your arsenal? <shrugs> Enough. Some guys can work you over with 2 or 3 good moves. Others, surprise you with unorthodox style. Others just ad-lib from a pool of skill.
I believe it comes down to depth vs breadth, a few good skills that are of the highest percentage because you do them better than anybody else.
This is where forms collectors come unstuck, (in terms of fighting) thinking that more moves is more skill. One reason Boxers are so tough, limited but effective material practiced relentlessly.

Agreed.
In the 35 years + that I have done MA and of the many systems I have trained, I have a repertoire of LOTS of moves and I mean LOTS.
I use about a dozen of them.

[RenDaHai]

Agreed.
In the 35 years + that I have done MA and of the many systems I have trained, I have a repertoire of LOTS of moves and I mean LOTS.
I use about a dozen of them.

Mmm, but aren't you glad you had that repertoire to draw from? I mean, if you had started with someone teaching you those dozen, you wouldn't be satisfied they were the dozen you need until you had realised it for yourself by trying all the others.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Mmm, but aren't you glad you had that repertoire to draw from? I mean, if you had started with someone teaching you those dozen, you wouldn't be satisfied they were the dozen you need until you had realised it for yourself by trying all the others.

Sure, it is a valid point that we tend to believe that "more is better" as opposed to "what is best, is best".
That is a blind spot that many people have in MA.

[SPJ]

This is so true. When you apply your favor move, your opponent may respond with 10 different ways, you will need to know how to handle all those 10 situations. You may need to change your initial move into 10 different moves from there. When you look at MA from this angle, you truly don't have time to train your solo forms.

1 Whatever you do better or works for you is your trade.

2 there is always the constant debate

Honing in or mastering a few techniques

VS

Learning more and more techniques

One is to understand fully the pros and cons or limits of a few techniques and cover weakness in the said techniques

the other is to broaden and diversify

3 right tool/techniques for the right job

meaning it all depending on the opponent to determine what has to be done to excel over him.

:)

[Faux Newbie]

If we look at clinching and throwing and locking and striking as different trades, then Kung Fu fighters are seeking to be jacks of multiple trades.

Especially once you add in weapons.

In a sense, I think empty hand and weapons are almost two trades.

The problem with forms collectors isn't that they have too much, it's that many of them focus on form without doing the isolated drilling necessary to understand that form. Their trade is learning forms, not mastering methods.

For those of us who just love this stuff and will keep doing it over the years, it's inevitable to end up with techniques that one is familiar with, that one might put into the part of their toolbox that their go-to moves are in, but might not. Some moves we might be familiar with because people we know, with different body types, have used them to great effect. There are variations of techniques in the style that I do that are for throws on a bigger opponent, or smaller. It's good to know them, but, I'm pretty tall, the odds of me engaging someone that much taller than me are small, so I don't focus on them, but I know them.

Thus, you cannot master all of your style, if the style includes techs that relate to different variations of height, etc. You can master what is core, and what is suitable for you, and you can be familiar with the rest. A box with short reach cannot master the style of a boxer with long reach, and vice versa. They can understand it and explain it to someone, but not master it.

Additionally, being exposed to another style invariably makes some things from your core style make more sense. I don't believe you can master one style without exposure to the ideas of others, as all styles are formed based, to one degree or another, on common ideas about fighting amongst the contemporaries that made that style and the later individual's martial culture's that informed its adaptation.

[Syn7]

"Jack of all trades master of none, often better than a master of one."

[RenDaHai]

Sure, it is a valid point that we tend to believe that "more is better" as opposed to "what is best, is best".
That is a blind spot that many people have in MA.

A necessary one even. No one ever feels they understand something unless they experience/realise it for themselves.

The Dichotomy between the 'Seeker' and the 'Faithful' exists in all disciplines and is necessary.

It is easy to see why;

The 'Faithful' is not interested in the means, he is interested in the ends, in the utility. If he sees something work, he can follow it with faith and use it well, confident in his technique. He wants to be the champion, he does not care why a thing works he cares about how to use it.

The 'Seeker' is not interested in a specific ends. If he sees something work he is not satisfied that it works, he wants to know WHY it works. He is grasping at the intangible thread of wisdom that weaves through all things and unites all arts. He has no utility in mind. So he will investigate many things.

Ultimately the faithful will be more successful in their technique, perfected and confident in it, he will be a champion. The Seeker will not be so successful but he will be able to abstract his knowledge to other things and will be an excellent teacher.

But it is not that we are all one or the other. We are simultaneously both. When I go to the doctor I am faithful and follow his prescription, if I were to investigate it i would fast become lost. But in Kung Fu I seek more information, I don't aspire to become a champion, if i did I would follow my teachers prescription without question and be confident in it. But I don't, I am interested in less easily stated aspects and so look for more. I don't think this will make me better at fighting, I do it because it is what fascinates me.


The illusion, the mistake, is that either archetype alone is correct or necessary to an art.

[lkfmdc]

jack of all trades, master of none, but master a few, and jack everyone.....

[YouKnowWho]

jack of all trades, master of none, but master a few, and jack everyone.....

Agree with you 100% there. You don't need to be good at "single leg", but you have to have the knowledge to deal with it.

[Dragonzbane76]

In the 35 years + that I have done MA and of the many systems I have trained, I have a repertoire of LOTS of moves and I mean LOTS.
I use about a dozen of them.

"I fear not the man who practices a thousand different techniques, I fear the man whom practices one technique thousands upon thousands of times."

words I live by.

[Miqi]

"Master of none, teach all for a price" seems to be an equally important problem.

[MasterKiller]

8 punches
5 kicks
10 throws
7 submissions

You're a champ.

[Lucas]

I prefer: Jack of all trades, master of some. Thats how i see crosstraining. You need develop a true proficiency or "mastery" of your base system(s) along the way. This is how all the best warriors have always come out on top. Whether we are talking full scale strategic long term warfare, or a mma match, having your area(s) of expertise, coupled with at least standard knowledge of every aspect that can possibly be introduced into the battle you are in is a must for any professional.

[SteveLau]

Good topic. The question should be faced by a student with more than three years of training. That means sooner or later he needs to answer it.

First of all IMHO, MMA is the jack of all trades and master of all, is the problem. It is difficult to achieve even from the words of MMA students. I regard the goal as mission impossible. Too many theories, techniques, and strategies to learn.
So my goal is to be jack of most trades, master of them. These trades are categories of techniques most often used in real fight. Case in point, a MMA tournament session sometimes starts and ends with strikes on foot only.



Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[Minghequan]

Black Tiger,

Not going to answer my post?

[David Jamieson]

Does the trade make you or are you an example of the trade?
Populism is probably the most ineffective and meaningless form or method of change.
It changes nothing. In the end, each individual has to ultimately lift themselves up, empower themselves and self actualize.
The style you choose, the games you play, the clothes you wear, or the place you live are reflections of your choices and not of you.

End result is, can you bring it? If you can't, you need to train more and really, it doesn't matter what you train, it matters that you train and that your method has a verifiable result.
Otherwise you're just picking weeds that can't be eaten.

[bawang]

"jack of all trades master of none" is French for "I don't wanna learn ground fighting"

[Miqi]

"jack of all trades master of none" is French for "I don't wanna learn ground fighting"

I would have thought that quite the contrary is true: i.e. that groundfighting is one of the essential 'trades' that people have to fake being experts at these days. In the 'CMA' world, it seems to be that you have to emphasise your 'traditional' training 'back in the day', and then transform that, somehow, into knowing MMA. Probably via some spurious chain of links that goes from sparring in your church hall kung fu class 'back in the day', which then becomes 'san da' - and the rest follows from that.

[Jimbo]

It would be pretty hard to 'fake' being an expert at ground fighting for very long these days.

OTOH, nothing wrong with MAists broadening their horizons by seeking out legitimate instruction in whatever areas they may be deficient at.

[Dragonzbane76]

It would be pretty hard to 'fake' being an expert at ground fighting for very long these days.

agree, rolling a few minutes would be the telling tale.

[tc101]

I see your point and agree to an extent. I am not saying cross training is bad but based on what you said, MMA to me represents martial arts being done "good enough" at a high level. Is an MMA fighter truly a master of one style? For example you have a ju jitsu fighter vs a muy thai fighter. Ju jitsu rely on their ground game while Muy thai fighters are not trained for ground fighting. Throw a San da fighter in there and he will give both styles a run for their money. What it boils down to is fighting principles. It is why wing chun artists believe in wing chun and a few other straight traditional styles swear/believe by their fighting methods. Bruce Lee developed JKD based on fighting principles not so much cross training principles. I see MMA as an anything goes fighting style. I have been preaching when you reach a certain age the "best fighting style" debate goes away and you train in something that will keep you healthy.

You said what it boils down to is fighting principles. I think this is absolutely wrong. It boils down to who is better prepared for the fight. Who is better conditioned, who is better trained, who is the most athletic, and so forth. In other words who is the better fighter. That has nothing to do with fighting principles but with training.

[Faux Newbie]

But you train a person or yourself with principles in mind. It's not enough to know each tech, whoever set up the training you underwent to entrain good fighting habits, no matter if we're talking kung fu or boxing or whatever, had to stress habits that are based on understanding certain principles. For boxing, having a good cross, but not being able to sometimes naturally step to your lead side because this lines up the cross, you will always be trying to apply the cross against their strongest defense. If one fighter fights orthodox, and one fights southpaw, if they are not trained to know that the jab does not function at all the same in those conditions, there will be problems. If one doesn't train for fluidity in going from range to range, then in fighting, they will use the wrong tools at the wrong ranges. If one doesn't recognize that kicks at one range transition to trips at another, they will likewise run into problems.

Principles aren't to be applied on the fly, but they are essential in planning one's training. Everyone worth training under has them as the basis of what they do, but they shape the training more than decisions made during sparring or fighting, as deciding during the fight is reserved for either when fighting someone you totally dominate, or facing a situation that your training hasn't specifically engaged.

[Songshan]

You said what it boils down to is fighting principles. I think this is absolutely wrong. It boils down to who is better prepared for the fight. Who is better conditioned, who is better trained, who is the most athletic, and so forth. In other words who is the better fighter. That has nothing to do with fighting principles but with training.

In a fight, yes of course the bottom line always comes down to who is better prepared. It is why I frown upon which is the best fighting style to learn debates. You can have a shaolin fighter vs a tae kwon do vs a karateka and the argument always arises which style is better not which fighter.

We are talking about being a jack of all trades and master of none in a particular MA style or system. Yes, fighting principles has everything to do with why you train whatever your style is. Jiu jitsu practitioners believe ground fighting is where its at, tae kwon do practitioner place a lot of emphasis on distance and kicks, shaolin practitioners place a lot of emphasis on hand techniques/forms and weapons, MMA fighters kind of mix a lot of things together etc etc. People train in those styles because that's what principles they believe will work for them should they get into a fight.

Is it wrong for an MMA fighter, or any martial artist, to pick a little of each and "put it in their box"? No, of course not. Are they truly a master of a particular MA style? Well, that remains to be answered. Mastering a style sometimes goes beyond learning forms and weapons. There is history and tradition which seem to be fading these days that also define a particular style.