# Maximum Number of Styles to Master



## DanT (Jan 23, 2017)

Okay so what do you guys think is a reasonable number of styles someone could possibly master? I mean let's come up with a guy and name him Master Tim. Is it possible for Master Tim to be amazing at:

-Chen Tai Chi
-Southern Praying Mantis
-Northern Shaolin
-Bagua
-Long Fist
-Wing Chun

I mean how many styles could someone master, assuming they start learning Kung Fu at age 5 and live in a temple.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 23, 2017)

Before you can answer this you first have to define the term "Master". How do you know when you have "Mastered" a style? Some people would say that it takes a lifetime to Master a style, in which case you could only ever possibly Master a single style.


----------



## marques (Jan 23, 2017)

What is the point (interest in split time over 6 styles)?
What if someone tell you it is possible? Or if it is in fact?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2017)

Someone can train as many styles as they like, but there are only so many hours in the day, and so many days in the year.  Ultimately there are limits on what the body can endure, and there is the mental burnout issue as well.  It becomes tedious.

Even if you live in a temple (I assume what is implied is that Tim would have all day long to train, which likely is not actually an accurate reflection of temple life) you will have limits.

The more styles you train, the fewer you will be good at.  At some point, you are just scrambling to practice enough to not actually forget the curriculum, but without the depth to get good at any of them.  Collecting styles is ultimately a dead-end.

I would say probably more than three, assuming 8 hours of training per day, and there would be diminishing returns.  Maybe even two.  

But hey, what do I know? I suggest people get really good at one thing, and stay focused.

Let your training serve you. Do not become a slave to your training.  At 8 hours a day, every day, you have become the slave


----------



## greytowhite (Jan 23, 2017)

Well, Chen Taiji, Bagua, Northern Shaolin, and Long Fist are all the same language family. The Wing Chun and Southern Praying Mantis on the other hand are quite different even though sometimes parts of both might make sense to a bagua player. As to true mastery, doubtful.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jan 23, 2017)

Ask Dan Inosanto


----------



## DanT (Jan 23, 2017)

Mastery meaning knowing more than enough to teach and be damn good at that style.


----------



## DanT (Jan 23, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Someone can train as many styles as they like, but there are only so many hours in the day, and so many days in the year.  Ultimately there are limits on what the body can endure, and there is the mental burnout issue as well.  It becomes tedious.
> 
> Even if you live in a temple (I assume what is implied is that Tim would have all day long to train, which likely is not actually an accurate reflection of temple life) you will have limits.
> 
> ...


I agree because even at the temple they typically learn 2 styles and 18 weapons but also spend hours on prayer, meditation, etc.


----------



## DanT (Jan 23, 2017)

marques said:


> What is the point (interest in split time over 6 styles)?
> What if someone tell you it is possible? Or if it is in fact?


Let's just say someone really loved martial arts and wanted to learn as many styles as possible and master them. I know for instance of several highly skilled sifu's who have mastered 2-4 styles, but after 2-4 they start becoming a bit shady.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2017)

DanT said:


> Mastery meaning knowing more than enough to teach and be damn good at that style.


Okay, by that measure, I'll give a generic reply. If someone studied several similar arts under instructors who were at least accurately familiar with the precepts of the other arts, they could reasonably have 3 or 4 arts to the level you suggest. The instructors' familiarity between arts is helpful, as it lets them explain things in terms he may already understand from other arts. It also means he doesn't have as much struggle to differentiate between the arts, as the instructors will help with that. If he has unlimited time, we might even raise that count to 5 arts. Assuming the same familiarity, they could probably swap one of those related arts for an unrelated art.

Now, without the instructors' co-familiarity between arts, I think it gets much harder to imagine someone managing that "more than enough to teach" point on more than 2 arts. Okay, I'll buy 3 at a stretch, for a gifted martial artist. Beyond that, and I start to assume there's less "mastery" in at least one of the arts. Of course, if the arts are VERY related (sharing most principles and techniques), then it becomes easier, even without the co-familiarity.

That's all from my point of view. Some who have studied more deeply in more than one art (I'm deep in one, informed in some others, and have dabbled in many more) may be able to provide more input.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 23, 2017)

DanT said:


> how many styles could someone master,...


After you have developed your foundation through your primary MA system, you may start to cross trained other MA systems. Those cross trained MA systems will be your "minor". During "cross training", you may not want to learn the complete system. You may just want to learn those principles that don't exist in your "major" MA system.

For example, The long fist can be your "major" MA system. It can give you all the striking skill that you are looking for. After that, you may cross train:

- Baji for "power generation".
- Preying mantis for "speed generation".
- Zimen for "pressure point attack".
- WC for "center line theory".
- Taiji for "6 harmony".
- Eagle claw for "joint locking skill".
- Shuai Chiao for "throwing skill".
- BJJ for "ground skill".
- ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2017)

DanT said:


> I agree because even at the temple they typically learn 2 styles and 18 weapons but also spend hours on prayer, meditation, etc.


I don't know what is typically done at a temple.  I've not spent time in any temples,  or talked with anyone who has.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 23, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay so what do you guys think is a reasonable number of styles someone could possibly master? I mean let's come up with a guy and name him Master Tim. Is it possible for Master Tim to be amazing at:
> 
> -Chen Tai Chi
> -Southern Praying Mantis
> ...



You end up with a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" may be a good fighter/martial artist, but you would not be a master of any of the arts in the list. Even those that lived in Temples and started young, back in time, generally specialized in something

And I'm sorry, but I just cannot resist this


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> You end up with a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" may be a good fighter/martial artist, but you would not be a master of any of the arts in the list. Even those that lived in Temples and started young, back in time, generally specialized in something
> 
> And I'm sorry, but I just cannot resist this


That hadn't escaped my notice either.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 23, 2017)

Kenpo was designed to fight off these other styles of combat; however, it is best to know the counters, and not be just winging it; so, the more you study the other arts, the more prepared you are to offer a counter.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jan 23, 2017)

DanT said:


> Let's just say someone really loved martial arts and wanted to learn as many styles as possible and master them. I know for instance of several highly skilled sifu's who have mastered 2-4 styles, but after 2-4 they start becoming a bit shady.



Some would argue that there is a big difference between proficiency and mastery of a style, particularly when it comes to the Chinese Martial Arts. You could become proficient in any of those styles in 5-10 years and could probably teach the basics of them, but true mastery in my opinion takes a lifetime. After all, "mastery" implies that you have learned all there is to know about a style and can no longer improve at it. That is what mastery means to me which is why I believe nobody can truly master a Martial Art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 23, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Some would argue that there is a big difference between proficiency and mastery of a style, particularly when it comes to the Chinese Martial Arts. You could become proficient in any of those styles in 5-10 years and could probably teach the basics of them, but true mastery in my opinion takes a lifetime. After all, "mastery" implies that you have learned all there is to know about a style and can no longer improve at it. That is what mastery means to me which is why I believe nobody can truly master a Martial Art.


There are a lot of different definitions for "mastery". I've never considered "mastery" to mean you know all there is to know. To me, "mastery" is when a person really has a deep grasp of the principles of the art. It's that point when the techniques cease to be important, and the person truly has their own flavor of the art. By that mark, it certainly doesn't take an entire lifetime (though those who reach it will rarely feel like they have, because they'll also understand how much better they could be.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There are a lot of different definitions for "mastery".


You don't have to know everything in your MA style. If you have one technique that you can do better than everybody else on this planet, anybody who wants to learn that technique will have to come to learn from you, you are a master of that technique.

Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn the basic. Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn his "door guarding technique".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't have to know everything in your MA style. If you have one technique that you can do better than everybody else on this planet, anybody who wants to learn that technique will have to come to learn from you, you are a master of that technique.
> 
> Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn the basic. Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn his "door guarding technique".


Agreed. And IMO, mastery of an art doesn't imply knowing it all, nor being done with it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 24, 2017)

Totally depends on what you mean when you use the word "master".

If you mean achieving perfect skill and understanding of a style, then the answer is zero. No one ever reaches perfection.

If you mean achieving sufficient skill and understanding of the official curriculum of an art (assuming it has one) to be considered a competent instructor, then it depends on:

what level of expertise you consider the minimum for a "competent" instructor
how much time and energy the individual has available to devote to their study
how talented they are at learning a martial art
how efficiently they use their available training time and how effective their teachers are at transmitting the knowledge and skills they need to learn
Let's imagine that you consider a practitioner of average skill should be able to reach the level of competent instructor after 5,000 hours of training in a given art. If that person started at age 12 and trained 20 hours per week until they reached age 72, then they would have 62,400 hours of training. That comes out to 12.5 arts trained to instructor level. However, you have to account for time spent maintaining skills and knowledge, otherwise the practitioner would have forgotten the first arts learned by the time he/she got to the later ones. Let's set aside 12,400 hours for just maintaining skills already learned. That drops the total number of arts "mastered" by age 72 down to 10.

There's been a lot of buzz about the idea (promulgated by Malcolm Gladwell) that 10,000 hours of focused practice is what you need to reach world-class expertise in a given field. If you accept that as your standard, then our hypothetical practitioner could have reached mastery in 5 arts by age 72.

One thing not always mentioned about that 10,000 hours theory is that it's based on the idea of focused, mindful practice with a clear aim for improvement in each practice session, not just mindless repetition. If the practitioner has a lower quality of practice than that, then the number of arts drops further still - potentially down to zero. A lifetime of practice badly done may not ever produce mastery.

On the other hand, consider a practitioner who is unusually efficient in organizing their practice sessions, has remarkable natural talent, and takes proper advantage of the lessons learned in one art when approaching the next. Proper advantage does not mean trying to force one art into the mold of another. It does mean understanding which principles overlap and making use of generalizable attributes like kinesthetic awareness, balance, sensitivity and mental fortitude. In this case, perhaps the lifetime number would jump back up to 10. If the arts studied are closely related, it may go even higher. Arts like Judo, Sambo, and BJJ are closely related. Someone with 10,000 hours of dedicated Judo study will not need nearly that much time to reach a comparable level when starting over in BJJ.

That last issue deserves some attention. Some people, myself among them, would argue that Judo, BJJ, Sambo, Catch Wrestling, and similar systems are just different aspects of the same art optimized for specific contexts or competition rule sets. From this perspective, someone who is really good at BJJ, Sambo, Catch, and Judo isn't necessarily a master of 4 different arts - they're a master of grappling who happens to know how to apply that skill in a variety of settings. I'm sure there are other groupings of arts out there which are similar - common principles but different names based on political splits or specialized optimization for a particular context. Someone who works to "master" arts within one of those groupings could achieve respectable proficiency much more quickly than someone who practiced a more diverse selection of arts.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay so what do you guys think is a reasonable number of styles someone could possibly master?



Zero.


----------



## DanT (Jan 24, 2017)

Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?


That's roughly the same definition you supplied originally, so I stick with my initial answer.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?


My previous port covers that pretty well, I think. The only thing I would add is that even an intermediate practitioner can sometimes be an effective teacher if they have good pedagogical skills and continue learning so as to stay ahead of their students. My first ever BJJ class was with Jorge Gurgel, who was only a blue belt at the time. (Back then there were no black belts in the state and probably only a handful of blue belts.) Jorge built up a solid group of students, kept up his own training, worked his way up to black belt, achieved a good degree of success as a professional fighter and BJJ competitor, and coached multiple UFC competitors including one UFC champion. I'd have to say he has proven that he could teach proficiently. Nevertheless when he started his teaching career he was far from being a true expert in the art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My previous port covers that pretty well, I think. The only thing I would add is that even an intermediate practitioner can sometimes be an effective teacher if they have good pedagogical skills and continue learning so as to stay ahead of their students. My first ever BJJ class was with Jorge Gurgel, who was only a blue belt at the time. (Back then there were no black belts in the state and probably only a handful of blue belts.) Jorge built up a solid group of students, kept up his own training, worked his way up to black belt, achieved a good degree of success as a professional fighter and BJJ competitor, and coached multiple UFC competitors including one UFC champion. I'd have to say he has proven that he could teach proficiently. Nevertheless when he started his teaching career he was far from being a true expert in the art.


I was thinking of this at the beginning of this conversation. I know someone who started teaching BJJ as a blue belt (I think), as well. He was an experienced instructor in NGA, and there weren't any other instructors in the area that I know of. I wouldn't have put him in the classification the OP is looking for, but he does fit the description. The same could be said of someone who completes the core curriculum in NGA, given the right other skills.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 24, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My previous port covers that pretty well, I think. The only thing I would add is that even an intermediate practitioner can sometimes be an effective teacher if they have good pedagogical skills and continue learning so as to stay ahead of their students. My first ever BJJ class was with Jorge Gurgel, who was only a blue belt at the time. (Back then there were no black belts in the state and probably only a handful of blue belts.) Jorge built up a solid group of students, kept up his own training, worked his way up to black belt, achieved a good degree of success as a professional fighter and BJJ competitor, and coached multiple UFC competitors including one UFC champion. I'd have to say he has proven that he could teach proficiently. Nevertheless when he started his teaching career he was far from being a true expert in the art.


Just had a thought I wanted to add here.

Martial arts are actually a cultural folk tradition.  Historically, a lot of this stuff was taught from one village member to another, from elders to juniors within a society, from parents and grandparents to children and grand children, etc.

The realities of that era and place meant that these fighting skills were valuable and important as a way to survive threats that may come your way from time to time.

So people taught what they knew, even if it wasn't much or they werent the best at it.  Because if your son or daughter needs the skills and there is no one else to teach it, you did the best you could.

So there is nothing to say that, as a cultural folk tradition, which it could still be, someone who isn't even all that good could be doing some teaching. no matter what your skill may be, high or low, nobody can tell you that you cannot teach your own children, or your nephews and nieces, or grandkids, or the neighbor's kids...


----------



## oaktree (Jan 24, 2017)

Why does Tim in such a hurry to learn or master many styles to teach? 
Let's say you study all the arts for a year, to the average 4th grader he will think you look amazing and mastered everything and if you teach him what you know there's your answer, however if someone from say Chen village sees your one year of Chen taijiquan he will say you haven't mastered anything.
I personally wouldn't get so hung up on how long it takes to master and teach something


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?


 It depends.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 24, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?


The term "proficiently" can also be abstract. In the preying mantis system, the 1st technique that you may want to teach can be:

- Right back palm strike at your opponent's face (bait for him to block it).
- Right hand grab on his wrist.
- Left hand grab on his elbow joint.
- Pull his arm into you.
- Release your right hand grip.
- Right hand punch on his face.

If you can teach your student to knock down his opponent by this combo within 1 second, he doesn't need to learn anything else from you. You will be a proficient teacher for him as far as he is concern.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 24, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Why does Tim in such a hurry to learn or master many styles to teach?
> Let's say you study all the arts for a year, to the average 4th grader he will think you look amazing and mastered everything and if you teach him what you know there's your answer, however if someone from say Chen village sees your one year of Chen taijiquan he will say you haven't mastered anything.
> I personally wouldn't get so hung up on how long it takes to master and teach something


I don't think anyone is "hung up on" the concept. It seems to me the OP is simply looking for input from others on something he has considered before.


----------



## DanT (Jan 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think anyone is "hung up on" the concept. It seems to me the OP is simply looking for input from others on something he has considered before.


This.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 26, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> Ask Dan Inosanto


^^^^^ Quoted for Truth.

That said I think @Tony Dismukes hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> ^^^^^ Quoted for Truth.
> 
> That said I think @Tony Dismukes hit the nail on the head.


He often does.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think anyone is "hung up on" the concept. It seems to me the OP is simply looking for input from others on something he has considered before.



In my opinion, when one asks how long it will take to master a given art, they don't understand the art, or the notion of mastery.
When they ask how many arts they can conceivably master, more so.

The point of knitting is to knit.  Not to become so proficient that one no longer needs to knit.
The point of cooking is to cook.
The point of automobile repair is to repair automobiles.

The point of martial arts training is to train.  There is no mastery, there is only training.  People become better as they train.  That's natural.  Someday, a person may become advanced to the point where others refer to them as a master.  There is still only training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my opinion, when one asks how long it will take to master a given art, they don't understand the art, or the notion of mastery.
> When they ask how many arts they can conceivably master, more so.
> 
> The point of knitting is to knit.  Not to become so proficient that one no longer needs to knit.
> ...


I don't think the OP was asking for the point of figuring out how many he could master. I think it was more wondering about the likely validity of those who claim rank in several arts/styles. At least that's how I read it. And when I see a long list, I fairly quickly decide they probably haven't developed any real mastery across all of them. When the list is shorter, it's harder to decide the likelihood. This seemed to me to be the point of the OP.


----------



## DanT (Feb 5, 2017)

Okay how about this then. How many styles could one claim to teach before it starts sounding suspicious? 3-4 max to me sounds realistic. For example I know of a particular instructor who teaches the following: Whirling Palm, Buddha Palm, Hua Fist, Northern Shaolin, Southern Fist, Luohan Palm, Chin Na, Drunken Immortal, Black Tiger, Golden Leopard, 7 Star Mantis, Eagle Claw, Monkey, White Crane, 5 Animal Style. Now this is obviously way to much to learn and be proficient in a single life time. If it takes 5 years of dedication to reach a decent level in a particular style, it would take 75 years at a minimum, just to gain basic proficiency.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay how about this then. How many styles could one claim to teach before it starts sounding suspicious? 3-4 max to me sounds realistic. For example I know of a particular instructor who teaches the following: Whirling Palm, Buddha Palm, Hua Fist, Northern Shaolin, Southern Fist, Luohan Palm, Chin Na, Drunken Immortal, Black Tiger, Golden Leopard, 7 Star Mantis, Eagle Claw, Monkey, White Crane, 5 Animal Style. Now this is obviously way to much to learn and be proficient in a single life time. If it takes 5 years of dedication to reach a decent level in a particular style, it would take 75 years at a minimum, just to gain basic proficiency.


I think this goes back to what some folks said earlier about what the cut-off is for teaching. A BJJ blue belt would have a few things to teach me, and that can be realistically earned in under 3 years (@Tony Dismukes and others can probably nail that down better). There are brown belts in NGA teaching (doing their assistant teaching, but sometimes with their own set of students); they have the core curriculum with reasonable competence, and that can be reached in 3-5 years. I'm sure there are other arts and styles that have useful, teachable competence that can be reached in a short period of time. Those instructors won't (except in exceptional cases) be excellent teachers, but they can be competent. So I could see someone who has done some deep cross-training (meaning they've stayed with some cross-training for years at a time) legitimately adding a couple of styles to their list. So, maybe a max of 4 or 5, unless the styles are so similar as to be easily cross-learned. An example of the latter would be if an instructor from mainline NGA decided to pick up the Shojin-ryu curriculum. If they are active and truly understand the principles, they could probably cover the full curriculum in a year or two. They could maybe do that on one class a week, if they practiced the long forms (not in mainline) between. So, if they differentiated the names (listing "Shojin-ryu" instead of "Shojin-ryu Nihon Goshin Aikido"), they would have two listed, without a lot of extra work. I assume there are other arts where this might apply. I hear folks in CMA talking about how similar some forms are, so perhaps there are some CMA that can be legitimately cross-trained easily.


----------



## mograph (Feb 6, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I hear folks in CMA talking about how similar some forms are, so perhaps there are some CMA that can be legitimately cross-trained easily.


In a number of cases, once you get the principles, I think you can cross-train successfully: it then becomes a matter of learning choreography. (But not in _all_ cases, of course.)


----------



## marques (Feb 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> Okay how about this then. How many styles could one claim to teach before it starts sounding suspicious? 3-4 max to me sounds realistic.


At the very maximum. MMA fighters are in that range (3-4), but sometimes/often they master only one of them (if any). These are young ('short' training time), but they fight for real (within known conditions), so we know their level.

Other situation is when people 'master' a few similar/complementary styles. I do not find it suspicious. But if they claim to be master level at very different/opposite styles, I would need to see... (or consult the right person(s)).


----------

