Well-Rounded Fighters vs. Intelligently Specialized Fighters

[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?