# What does it mean to be well-rounded and why would I want that?



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 5, 2017)

I've seen the question posed recently, but it's also been posted multiple times in the past on MT and other martial arts discussion forums.

The question, generically, goes like this:

_"I have been promoted to [insert rank here, typically 1st degree black belt] in style [insert style here] and I'm thinking of taking up another style so that I can become more WELL-ROUNDED as a martial artist.  What style do you think I should take?"_​
So I often make a smartass comment, which I am trying to avoid from now on, because it's counterproductive and mean.  What I'd like to do instead is examine what thoughts are going through my head when I read this question (and to the OP of the recent post, I am not picking on you; this is a very common topic).

First of all, what does it mean to be 'well-rounded'?

The dictionary gives many meanings, but I suspect the the people who post about wanting to become well-rounded martial artists are referring to comprehensive, including many things, or having a large variety of training.  Based on what I've read in the various threads about the subject, it often seems that the person wishing to become more well-rounded sees or believes they have gaps in their training, which training in another style of martial arts would fill.

So I understand the basic premise, I think.  Say a person has been training in a stand-up, striking art such as karate.  They feel they lack a 'ground game' and cannot properly defend themselves on the ground as well as a competent wrestler, judoka, or jiu jitsu artist might.  And on the surface, I can see that point.

But then I have to ask if the person making the request is really certain that they art they currently study doesn't have the necessary applications in it to fill that perceived gap.  Typically, it seems the people asking such questions don't have a lot of time into their training, but they still feel they have learned all there is to learn about it.  I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that in my case, a decade of training is hardly adequate to say one knows it all, or even close.  Having achieved the first of ten grades of black belt, one can hardly say one has a firm grip on what the entire system can do in capable hands.  It's like being able to name all the tools in the toolbox, but not being able to use each of them to their full potential.

This is why I often recommend that the person who suggests that their style has a hole in it to consider that perhaps their style does not have a hole in it.  Perhaps they need to train more, because they are not yet qualified to judge.

Alternatives I do not like to think about, but which may also exist, would be that the person's style isn't actually a complete system.  In other words, it may actually have holes in it.  This would be a sad situation indeed.  Alternatively, the instructor may not be capable of teaching the system well enough to provide those needed abilities.  Sadly, I think this may sometimes happen when you have someone training for a few years and going off to start their own training facility, having only a rudimentary grasp of their system themselves.  Their students may perceive that the style in question has holes in it because the instructor doesn't have the knowledge or training or experience to pass along the complete system.

But this is why I often ask people who feel they need some other kind of training to ask their current instructor and see what he or she thinks they should do.  The answers may be instructive.

I also wonder if the person wanting to change styles isn't going to lose some ability in the style they currently train in.  I know some people have more free time than I do, but I find it difficult to devote two training days a week to in-dojo training (from 5PM to 9:30PM) and one half-day working out at home.  I don't think I could take on more at this stage in my life.  And I know from experience that if I miss a week or two's worth of training, I lose quite a bit of my edge.  Things start to fall apart.  I have to stay in my training, or I feel my ability declining.  How then, is a person supposed to give 100% to training in two or more different styles at the same time?  I can't quite get my mind around that one.

So having discussed well-roundedness is, let me now move on to why a person would want to be (presumably) well-rounded.

From my point of view, having the belief that it takes a lifetime to truly master any given martial art, I don't know what dividing my remaining time on this earth between multiple systems would get me.  If I were a carpenter, I would devote my time to becoming the best possible carpenter, rather than beginning to learn plumbing in a desire to be more well-rounded.  In other words, and to use a common term, I would rather not be a jack of all trades, and a master of none.  In my ruder moments, simply say would you rather be good in one system, or suck at a bunch of them?

So I would say this about cross-training...

It's fine if that's what you want to do.  And I don't see anything at all wrong with exposing oneself to other styles of martial arts, such as with informal training or seminars or sharing knowledge, practicing moves and techniques from other styles, etc.  It's all grist for the mill.  However, there's a difference between doing that and committing to long term training in a different style, particularly if it means neglecting your current style.

And again, I think that for most of us, we're not that competent yet in our own styles that we can firmly say that we know all there is to know about it, we know it has holes that cannot be addressed in our own training, and the only answer is to train in some other styles.  I suspect more often, the problem is that the student, or the instructor (or both) are lacking.  In some cases, regrettably, it is possible that the style itself is too superficial to provide a complete experience.

What I think is more likely, is that students become bored.  They are tired of going to class and doing the same kata, the same kihon, the same sparring.  They think they have progressed as far as they can, and they want to experience new things.  That's fine, I guess.  It betrays a lack of maturity and a lack of understanding what the true purpose of training is, I think, but if one is really that bored, I guess they need to do whatever to cure that.

I also think some few students are too attracted to the signs of success in a given training system.  They want more belts in more styles.  They want more patches.  They want more tournament trophies.  Again, if that is truly what they want, I guess it's OK, but it also betrays a lack of understand what martial arts training is for at a basic level, in my humble opinion.

Don't get me wrong.  I like other styles of martial arts, and I respect the people who train in styles other than my own.  I've learned a lot from some of my friends who train in other styles, and some of the things we do in the dojo where I train are from other styles of martial arts.  It's fun, it's interesting, and in some cases, it's eye-opening.  But I never think to myself, _"Gee, maybe my system is crap and I should go train with those guys,"_ or "_Gee, maybe I have learned all I can learn and I need to become more well-rounded by training with someone else."_  What I think to myself typically is, _"Wow, those guys are great!  I need to keep training hard in my system so that I can learn how we would deal with situation X, or technique Y, and maybe I will find out how our system does it and then I can show my friends a thing or two!"
_
I truly believe that in my case, if there is anything 'missing' in my training, it's on me.  My instructor is world-class, and I mean that literally; he's known and respected around the world.  Just to be training with him is an honor; people see his name on my dojo patch and they're awestruck.  The system I train in is fantastic; I have never, ever, had a situation where I asked "How would we do X or Y," and our instructors do not have an answer, and by answer I don't mean a BS blow-off crap answer but a real example that obviously works against a resisting opponent.  I'm 56 and I'm pretty well over hero worship and cult of personality; my BS detector is very functional.  If it didn't work, or it only worked on non-resisting opponents, I'd know it.  So if there are ANY holes in our system, that is on me 100%.  Why would I want to abandon that and train elsewhere?  I started pretty late in life, and I can guarantee I won't master this system before I take the big dirt nap.  So I don't think I would even consider training in any other system.  No time!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jul 5, 2017)

I agree with you that many (most) martial artists aren't fluent enough in their MA system to determine if there are any holes in it. However, there are two issues I have with what you posted.

The first is; the best way isn't necessarily to continue our own training, or directly asking your own instructor. That's one way, but then we can never know if it's us, our instructor, or the system that has holes, unless we end up no longer having holes. I think it would make more sense to find someone who has been training for decades, and is a multiple degree black belt, ask them what holes they have, and if that's a system issue or their personal issue (if a 70 year old has trouble handling fast spinning kicks, I would think that has more to do with his age/reaction time). Also see if you notice any issues coming up when they spar. This is assuming you have access to watch/talk to someone that experienced in your system, but IMO it would be the best way.

Also, let's say a system does not have any holes. It may still take you decades to fill all those holes, and if you want to master your art, that's fine. But, if you for whatever reason need to have them filled sooner, practicing an art that deals with those situations as the primary goal will help you fill those holes in a couple years, rather than a couple decades.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 5, 2017)

It's all just a matter of opinion and what your goals are.

You're a karate guy, so maybe it means poking around in a few other styles of karate and having a grasp of "karate" from more then one perspective.  

Or maybe it means throwing in a range of connected art, doing some White Crane, maybe a little Kendo and Judo, etc.

Or maybe it means working in with completely different things from different regions, doing some Boxing, Muay Thai, Savate, Wrestling, etc.

Or maybe it means being comfortable with a wide range of aspects, knowing how to strike, grapple, use bladed weapons, blunt weapons, firearms, etc.

Or maybe it means exploring different lineages within your own style, and possibly the root styles it came from.

Or maybe it means connecting related areas of life, like nutrition, Strength and Conditioning, yoga, etc.

Who cares, just have fun and be healthy.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 5, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've seen the question posed recently, but it's also been posted multiple times in the past on MT and other martial arts discussion forums.
> 
> The question, generically, goes like this:
> 
> ...


While were do grappling, now, we used to just come right out and tell people we weren't teaching on that end of the spectrum.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2017)

I started a thread a short time ago where I proposed the idea that, whether you think you can, or you think you cannot, you are right.

I still believe that largely holds true.

Meaning, in a system that has been well taught and well learned, you can probably find solutions to most of what you will encounter.  That does not mean your curriculum holds all techniques for all possibilities.  It just means that there ought to be some solutions within your training, if you understand your system well.

There are many reasons to study more than one system, some good and some not good.  But when it comes right down to it, I don't see it as necessary.

One's mileage may vary.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 5, 2017)

As usual, Bill, you've made a thoughtful and well-written post. However, I'd like to offer some counterpoints to some of your ideas.



Bill Mattocks said:


> But then I have to ask if the person making the request is really certain that they art they currently study doesn't have the necessary applications in it to fill that perceived gap. Typically, it seems the people asking such questions don't have a lot of time into their training, but they still feel they have learned all there is to learn about it.





Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that in my case, a decade of training is hardly adequate to say one knows it all, or even close.





Bill Mattocks said:


> This is why I often recommend that the person who suggests that their style has a hole in it to consider that perhaps their style does not have a hole in it. Perhaps they need to train more, because they are not yet qualified to judge.



It's true that any good style should offer a lifetime's worth of things to learn. You never know it all. That said, I believe that after a decade in an art you should have a good idea of the territory contained in an art even if you don't know all the details.  If someone has been studying boxing for 10 years, they should know that they aren't going to be learning kicks or chokes or sword techniques in the 11th year.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Alternatives I do not like to think about, but which may also exist, would be that the person's style isn't actually a complete system. In other words, it may actually have holes in it. This would be a sad situation indeed.


On the contrary, I would suggest that every single style  in existence is "incomplete" in some way. That's because even the best systems can only competently address the areas which the founders and practitioners who developed the system have had significant experience in. The world of violence is too large for anyone, even violence professionals or martial arts masters, to be familiar with all of it.

A 17th-century swordsman preparing for a duel. A 16 year old girl fending off a date rapist. A bouncer ejecting a rowdy drunk. A professional fighter preparing for a match with a master grappler. A senior citizen using a knife to defend against home invaders. An orderly working to restrain a mentally ill patient without injuring him. People fighting in the snow while bundled in thick coats. People fighting in the jungle. People fighting on boats. The list goes on and on. Many principles, tactics, techniques and attributes can carry over from one setting to another. Many do not. No one has the answers for everything.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I also wonder if the person wanting to change styles isn't going to lose some ability in the style they currently train in.



That's a legitimate concern, especially if the person stops training their old style entirely. If you want to continue progressing in multiple styles, then you have to find the time to practice them all. It's easier if you just want to maintain a certain level of proficiency in your original art - you still have to practice, but not as much. It's even easier if you just want to maintain certain specific skills from your original art and your new art is flexible enough to allow you to use those skills during sparring.



Bill Mattocks said:


> If I were a carpenter, I would devote my time to becoming the best possible carpenter, rather than beginning to learn plumbing in a desire to be more well-rounded.



The question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line and why? If you are a carpenter, would you say "_I just want to be the best at hammering a nail. I don't want to take time away from my hammering skills to learn how to use a power saw_."? If you are a home owner with a limited budget for repairs, could it make sense to learn some basic plumbing and carpentry so you can fix the easy stuff yourself and only call a specialist for major projects?

You might also consider an important difference between specialization in the building trades and in methods of fighting. If you encounter a plumbing issue you aren't qualified to tackle, you can always call in an expert. If you are in a fight and encounter a situation you aren't prepared for, it's rarely practical to hand the problem over to someone else.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I have never, ever, had a situation where I asked "How would we do X or Y," and our instructors do not have an answer, and by answer I don't mean a BS blow-off crap answer but a real example that obviously works against a resisting opponent.



It can be tricky to evaluate techniques that "obviously work" when you don't have experience in a given domain. Ground-fighting is an easy example of this. There are lots of advanced practitioners in various stand up arts who teach "anti-grappling" or "ground defense" techniques that they believe in, that their students believe in, and that fail utterly against even a moderately competent grappler.

(I'm not saying everybody needs to become expert in a ground fighting style. Unless you are preparing for MMA match or happen to pick a fight with a wrestler, you can probably get by with just a few fundamental skills for protecting yourself on the ground and getting to your feet. I'm saying that even for those basics there are some very skilled martial artists teaching techniques that are ... extremely suboptimal, to put it politely.)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 5, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First of all, what does it mean to be 'well-rounded'?


If we just talk about the striking art, in a WC thread, I suggested to rotate the body to make punching arm and chest as 180 degree to gain extra distance and extra power. Your right arm, chest, left arm can be treated as one arm. This is the "one arm" concept. Some WC people said that's against their WC principle.

IMO, the term "well-round" is not to allow any MA system to put any physical limitation on yourself.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 5, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But then I have to ask if the person making the request is really certain that they art they currently study doesn't have the necessary applications in it to fill that perceived gap.  Typically, it seems the people asking such questions don't have a lot of time into their training, but they still feel they have learned all there is to learn about it.  I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that in my case, a decade of training is hardly adequate to say one knows it all, or even close.  Having achieved the first of ten grades of black belt, one can hardly say one has a firm grip on what the entire system can do in capable hands.  It's like being able to name all the tools in the toolbox, but not being able to use each of them to their full potential.
> 
> This is why I often recommend that the person who suggests that their style has a hole in it to consider that perhaps their style does not have a hole in it.  Perhaps they need to train more, because they are not yet qualified to judge.



I'm having a hard time following some of the logic you are using, so I apologize for that in advance.

For this discussion, I'm going to stick with the example of the particular arts you chose (_karate plus judo, wrestling, etc._), as it makes things clear, though you could have easily chose others as well. 

How long should it take before someone has exposure to all the system has to offer, or at least the majority of it?  I'm not talking about mastery of the system, or even competence, I am talking about exposure.  So, in your karate example, does training in a dedicated fashion for a few years really not provide you with enough exposure to see what the system comprises in regards to range, technique, etc.?  Presumably the Karate studio in question, if it is a recognizable style, has a curriculum that students get to see (I certainly wouldn't train in a place that didn't).  Plus, students can certainly interact with and observe their teachers, the senior students, and often in the case of workshops or seminars, their teacher's teacher. 

Do you really think that Karate student needs to study for 10+ years before they figure out that there really isn't much of a ground game?  If we flip the script, does the Judoka really need study for 10+ years before they figure out that, no, there really isn't a deep striking system hidden down the road somewhere?  Certainly, the ability to utilize the techniques of any martial art should get better with age (providing one has the physical attributes), and while that may allow someone to work around gaps or deal with them more effectively, it does not eliminate them. 

I can certainly agree with your suggestion to speak to your instructor and get his/her perspective.  What I cannot agree with is the idea that one should just keep on training and hope that those things get figured out down the road.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> I'm having a hard time following some of the logic you are using, so I apologize for that in advance.
> 
> For this discussion, I'm going to stick with the example of the particular arts you chose (_karate plus judo, wrestling, etc._), as it makes things clear, though you could have easily chose others as well.
> 
> ...


In my opinion, the issue is not really centered around what technique, or what approach to combat, a system does not have.  Rather, the issue is more about recognizing that ones skills can be utilized in a wide range of circumstances, and one ought to be able to devise a solution to a wide variety of problems.  No system will have "everything" in it.  But, a good system ought to have a wide range of use and capability.

Example: I don't care for grappling.  I have no interest in training it.  Learning a bit of grappling to give me "well rounded" skills will not give me the ability to out-grapple a dedicated grappler.  So, I stick to what I know.  That is where I find my solutions.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 5, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> In my opinion, the issue is not really centered around what technique, or what approach to combat, a system does not have.  Rather, the issue is more about recognizing that ones skills can be utilized in a wide range of circumstances, and one ought to be able to devise a solution to a wide variety of problems.  No system will have "everything" in it.  But, a good system ought to have a wide range of use and capability.
> 
> Example: I don't care for grappling.  I have no interest in training it.  Learning a bit of grappling to give me "well rounded" skills will not give me the ability to out-grapple a dedicated grappler.  So, I stick to what I know.  That is where I find my solutions.


But there are some basic escapes, like just throwing your arm around a guy, will mess his whole game up. It is worth a seminar, or two.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

To understand what you do. It is worthwhile understanding more than what you do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 5, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> But there are some basic escapes, like just throwing your arm around a guy, will mess his whole game up. It is worth a seminar, or two.


Well, do you think that a grappling school is the only place where these things are taught?  A lot of the basics are quite universal from one system to another.  Nobody needs a seminar or two of grappling.  Any skill needs ongoing practice and polish.  What is taught within the system and is continuously practiced is worth far more that what one receives in a seminar, absent regular follow-up training.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

The thing is I bet bill basically does this anyway.

What would your style be like if for some reason you could only punch?


----------



## jobo (Jul 5, 2017)

these a ways seem to turn into what happens to your karate skills if you are up against a trained grappler,, you ether win or lose dependent on who is the best. But back in the real world grapplers are fat blokes who cant move fast and try to use their weight against you. Simple up right karate throwing, arm locks etc,should more than take care of that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 6, 2017)

Good post Bill.  I have often thought about the idea of well roundedness myself.  Especially from the point of view that one must go outside of one's primary (or so far only) martial art.  I have mentioned before that when I was in Korea, I was told that when a person reached 3rd Dan in their art, they were encouraged to study and be belted in another art.  But I think that was more to weed out those that might not be truly committed to their art, and the idea of probably becoming an instructor.  I was never told it was to make the person more well rounded.

I also agree that with most martial arts, the more you learn, the better one can be expected to develop those attributes that give superiority it self defense.  But I also understand that one may sometimes be surprised by an attack or defense they have never encountered before.  But in agreement with you, I think those things diminish as one progresses in their chosen art.

There are persons who do train in more than one art.  I don't know how much that favors "more well roundedness" but since I haven't been around such a person to evaluate their abilities.  But I suppose it may be possible. 

I will hope to hear from more of those who have and do train and learn in more than one art.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> As usual, Bill, you've made a thoughtful and well-written post. However, I'd like to offer some counterpoints to some of your ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent post.  I agree 100%.


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 6, 2017)




----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> But back in the real world grapplers are fat blokes who cant move fast and try to use their weight against you.


What color is the sky on your planet?


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> What color is the sky on your planet?


what are you taking issue with? The fact that people with low mobility but high body weight try and use their weight against you and grapple rather than use speed and movement


----------



## DanT (Jul 6, 2017)

Would you let a doctor operate on you if they told you they did washing machine repair on the side.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> what are you taking issue with? The fact that people with low mobility but high body weight try and use their weight against you and grapple rather than use speed and movement


No, it was the assumption all grapplers are fat. Grapplers are just people that don't like to trade punches, and lots of people fat or waify, want to know those tricks, and they really work.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> No, it was the assumption all grapplers are fat. Grapplers are just people that don't like to trade punches, and lots of people fat or waify, want to know those tricks, and they really work.


I said in  the real world, in the real world there arnt a load of trained grapplers roaming round looking to attack you, there are however is,a lot of fat blokes with big,arms and bigger,waist lines, who will try and grapple you based on the fact they,weigh 80lbs more than you and if they can pin you with their weight your more or less stuck


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> On the contrary, I would suggest that every single style  in existence is "incomplete" in some way. That's because even the best systems can only competently address the areas which the founders and practitioners who developed the system have had significant experience in. The world of violence is too large for anyone, even violence professionals or martial arts masters, to be familiar with all of it.
> 
> A 17th-century swordsman preparing for a duel. A 16 year old girl fending off a date rapist. A bouncer ejecting a rowdy drunk. A professional fighter preparing for a match with a master grappler. A senior citizen using a knife to defend against home invaders. An orderly working to restrain a mentally ill patient without injuring him. People fighting in the snow while bundled in thick coats. People fighting in the jungle. People fighting on boats. The list goes on and on. Many principles, tactics, techniques and attributes can carry over from one setting to another. Many do not. No one has the answers for everything.


This is close to the crux of it for me.  In my opinion, being well rounded isn't about techniques or styles or systems.  It's about context.   A cop is familiar with one context of violence and the application of technique within that context.  A cop who also competes in martial arts tournaments is familiar with another element (and the more varied the competition venues, the better).  A cop, who is a combat veteran, who competes, is even more well rounded. 

I would also distinguish between an instance of violence and a context for violence.   For example, I would say that a 16 year old girl fending off a date rapist is an instance of violence.  Being a female high school or college student who deals with this type of violence or potential violence is a context. 

And conversely, if you don't compete, don't work as a cop or a bouncer, and are not otherwise applying your skills in a context, you are not well rounded, regardless of how well trained you might be.   If all you do is train in a martial art, but have no well developed experience within a context for violence, regardless of how much you understand about that system, you aren't going to be well rounded.  That goes for BJJ, MMA, or Tibetan White Crane.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> Would you let a doctor operate on you if they told you they did washing machine repair on the side.



I actually had a rather competent orthopedist that did electronic repair on the side...but he started out as an electrical engineer and thought he could be a better doctor than the one he had so he then became a doctor


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> If all you do is train in a martial art, but have no well developed experience within a context for violence, regardless of how much you understand about that system, you aren't going to be well rounded.  That goes for BJJ, MMA, or Tibetan White Crane.



Agreed, to a point.  Diversity of experience can certainly impact things.  You are 100% spot on there.  However, there are good arguments for diversity of skill sets and the contextual framework that studying arts with differing skills based upon there reason for existing, gives you.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> To understand what you do. It is worthwhile understanding more than what you do.


To expand on this a little bit...

Even if you have no interest in ever seriously taking up a second art, it's worthwhile to occasionally explore different systems just to give you additional perspective into your primary martial art.  There's an old saying that "a fish doesn't know it's wet." When you've only ever trained one system, it's common to have a lot of unquestioned assumptions about how things are done, just because you've never seen them done differently.

When you explore a different system, you may encounter different body mechanics, tactics, and training methods. Your first goal should be to figure out _why_ they do it that way. Once you've started to understand this different approach and the advantages it gives, you can ask yourself why it's done differently in your primary art. Once you see more options for how something can be done, you are in a better place to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. That can lead you into a whole journey of discovery into how the different components of your art (principles, mechanics, tactics, techniques, and training methods) fit together.

Perhaps you study art A and spend a little time exchanging knowledge with an expert in art B. You find that art B has a way of throwing a punch which is more powerful than what you have learned in art A. So why doesn't art A use this punching method? Maybe it's because that method leaves you more open for a certain type of counter. Why doesn't art B worry about that counter? Because they have a certain game plan for when that counter comes? Why doesn't art A use that game plan? Because art A is built around a certain set of tactical priorities for a certain context and that game plan would violate those priorities. Once you see that art B is built around a different set of priorities for a different context, you begin to become more aware of the foundations your own art is built around. You are the fish who is starting to understand water.

At other times the new art might use some of the same principles as your own, but they are presented or practiced or conceptualized differently. Sometimes seeing that different explanation can give you a breakthrough in understanding how those principles are applied in your primary art.

Another possibility is that exploring a new system will make you aware of the limitations of your primary art. That doesn't necessarily mean your primary art is bad or that it needs to be changed or your need to study additional arts to "round yourself out." Every system has limits. Every combination of systems has limits. Every training method has limits. Every person has limits. That's reality. This being the case, in the words of Harry Callahan, "_a man's got to know his limitations_." When you know what you don't know, then you can adjust your game plan accordingly. When you think your system gives you something it doesn't ... let's just say that the Dunning-Kruger effect can lead to painful outcomes.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2017)

DanT said:


> Would you let a doctor operate on you if they told you they did washing machine repair on the side.


One has nothing to do with the other.  But I do think you touch on a great point, which is that well-rounded is the opposite of specialized, and there is value in both.  I wouldn't want a general practitioner to perform heart surgery.  I would want a specialist.  However, if I could only pick one doctor for everything, I'd probably want the doctor who is the most well-rounded.  He/she might not be the best choice if I ever need open heart surgery, but for aches, pains, stitches, and overall wellness, I'd go with an experienced family doctor.  Heck, he might even be able to help me with my washing machine! 


Charlemagne said:


> Agreed, to a point.  Diversity of experience can certainly impact things.  You are 100% spot on there.  However, there are good arguments for diversity of skill sets and the contextual framework that studying arts with differing skills based upon there reason for existing, gives you.


Fair enough.  It really depends on the criteria for defining "well rounded."   I think it's a fair point to acknowledge that my previous post was one of several ways to view the idea.  You can identify any framework and then define well rounded or specialized within that.  In BJJ, a guy who has a good top game, a solid guard, strong submissions and is competent from every position is well rounded.  But if they have terrible striking and poor wrestling, they would be a specialist in MMA.  A guy who is really strong as a grappler and striker may be considered well rounded within MMA, but would be a specialist outside of MMA. 

I do stand by my point, though, that training is the means to an end.  Whatever the "end" is, that's the limit of your experience.  So, if you only do forms, that's the limit.  If you spar, that's the limit.  If you compete, use the skills in your profession, that's the limit.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> To expand on this a little bit...
> 
> Even if you have no interest in ever seriously taking up a second art, it's worthwhile to occasionally explore different systems just to give you additional perspective into your primary martial art.  There's an old saying that "a fish doesn't know it's wet." When you've only ever trained one system, it's common to have a lot of unquestioned assumptions about how things are done, just because you've never seen them done differently.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you wrote, but it brought a question to mind.  Does "knowing about" or occasional exposure to things (as opposed to committed study) really make one more well rounded?  I mean, reading this forum for years has brought us all to at least a moderate degree of intellectual familiarity with a lot of styles, training models and perspectives.   But I wouldn't go so far as to say we're more well rounded... well, maybe intellectually more well rounded. 

Said a little differently, isn't the danger of dunning-kruger most present when you think you know more than you do.  Occasionally exploring another art may give you just enough information to create the unconscious incompetence you're trying to avoid.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> To expand on this a little bit...
> 
> Even if you have no interest in ever seriously taking up a second art, it's worthwhile to occasionally explore different systems just to give you additional perspective into your primary martial art.  There's an old saying that "a fish doesn't know it's wet." When you've only ever trained one system, it's common to have a lot of unquestioned assumptions about how things are done, just because you've never seen them done differently.
> 
> ...



Exactly right.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I said in  the real world, in the real world there arnt a load of trained grapplers roaming round looking to attack you, there are however is,a lot of fat blokes with big,arms and bigger,waist lines, who will try and grapple you based on the fact they,weigh 80lbs more than you and if they can pin you with their weight your more or less stuck



Well, no, that's not what you said. What you said was this:



jobo said:


> But back in the real world grapplers are fat blokes who cant move fast and try to use their weight against you.



There's a difference between "unskilled, untrained assailants who are big and slow may try to grab you" and "grapplers are fat blokes who cant move fast."  The first might be sometimes true. The second is very rarely true. Being fat and slow is a serious disadvantage in grappling, which is why most wrestlers, judoka, jiu-jiteiros, samboists, etc are in excellent shape.

No, most wrestlers, judoka, jiu-jiteiros, and samboists aren't walking the streets looking to mug people. Neither are most boxers, karateka, savateurs, etc. Your original post didn't say anything about anyone wandering around looking to attack random people. You said "real world". In the real world, a grappler is someone who trains in a grappling system.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> I agree with everything you wrote, but it brought a question to mind.  Does "knowing about" or occasional exposure to things (as opposed to committed study) really make one more well rounded?  I mean, reading this forum for years has brought us all to at least a moderate degree of intellectual familiarity with a lot of styles, training models and perspectives.   But I wouldn't go so far as to say we're more well rounded... well, maybe intellectually more well rounded.
> 
> Said a little differently, isn't the danger of dunning-kruger most present when you think you know more than you do.  Occasionally exploring another art may give you just enough information to create the unconscious incompetence you're trying to avoid.


That's why I think that occasional exploration of other arts is mostly useful for giving insights into your primary art (in the ways I mentioned) rather than making you in any way "well-rounded."  If you start thinking you are knowledgeable about a system because you took a couple of weekend seminars, then you are indeed heading into D-K territory.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I said in  the real world, in the real world there arnt a load of trained grapplers roaming round looking to attack you, there are however is,a lot of fat blokes with big,arms and bigger,waist lines, who will try and grapple you based on the fact they,weigh 80lbs more than you and if they can pin you with their weight your more or less stuck


There are a lot more wrestlers out there, than you think.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That's why I think that occasional exploration of other arts is mostly useful for giving insights into your primary art (in the ways I mentioned) rather than making you in any way "well-rounded."  If you start thinking you are knowledgeable about a system because you took a couple of weekend seminars, then you are indeed heading into D-K territory.


Thanks for the clarification.  I understand now and agree.  I  think there's value in knowing where your holes or skill gaps are, even if you have no desire or intent to address them.  Just being aware of them is helpful. 

Taking it a little further, a warning light goes off when folks say their art addresses every need.  It strikes me as the opposite of the above.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> There are a lot more wrestlers out there, than you think.



And even more former wrestlers.  The 45 year old dude who competed in wrestling from junior high to his senior year of high school still knows more than enough to put a hurting on someone on the ground who doesn't train that on a regular basis.  He might be out of shape now, and even fat, but if the fight is over in a minute that won't matter very much. Even if the fight lasts longer, the former wrestler knows how to hold a position using less than all of their strength, allowing them to recover during the fight, particularly against someone who is unskilled on the ground.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Wow, those guys are great! I need to keep training hard in my system so that I can learn how we would deal with situation X, or technique Y, and maybe I will find out how our system does it and then I can show my friends a thing or two!"


 This is how I think of the system that I train in.  Instead of looking outside of my system, I try to find the answers within the system.  However, I don't think every school can do this. If the teacher trained mostly on striking the other areas of that system are going to be lacking.  If the teacher doesn't train for self-defense purposes then there will be big gaps, and those gaps will also be numerous.

But with that said, if the person is at an advanced enough level then they should be seeking information outside of their school but within the same system.  That student should also be trying to analyze techniques in order to understand a technique without having to have the teacher always give the answer.   Most of the people that I know who want to be "well rounded" tend to be those who are just starting out or are still in the beginner level of martial arts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> And even more former wrestlers.  The 45 year old dude who competed in wrestling from junior high to his senior year of high school still knows more than enough to put a hurting on someone on the ground who doesn't train that on a regular basis.  He might be out of shape now, and even fat, but if the fight is over in a minute that won't matter very much. Even if the fight lasts longer, the former wrestler knows how to hold a position using less than all of their strength, allowing them to recover during the fight, particularly against someone who is unskilled on the ground.


These are easy statements to make and they can go both ways.

That former college boxer who is now fat and out of shape probably can still land a good left hook and lay out that former wrestler before he gets close enough to grapple.

Statements like that are easy to make.  But as I like to say, it depends on a lot of things, including the individual people involved.  Nothing is guaranteed.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> Thanks for the clarification.  I understand now and agree.  I  think there's value in knowing where your holes or skill gaps are, even if you have no desire or intent to address them.  Just being aware of them is helpful.
> 
> Taking it a little further, a warning light goes off when folks say their art addresses every need.  It strikes me as the opposite of the above.


I think the Anti-Grappling / Anti Grappling package, that is Kenpo, does address every need, until it doesn't. Higher skilled opponents require a little more attention to detail, which means you should pay attention to what they are into.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> There are a lot more wrestlers out there, than you think.


not in the uk there aren't, its a,Very minority sport, its easier to find bog snorkelers' than wrestlers'
but even if there was quite a few, im still more likely to get in a fight with an over weight bloke with a,shaved head and big bycepts, they are every where and all seemingly have an attitude as big as there waste line


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> That former college boxer who is now fat and out of shape probably can still land a good left hook and lay out that former wrestler before he gets close enough to grapple.



I was going with the analogy of the OP, but yes, that former boxer can still likely do damage as well.  No argument there.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> I was going with the analogy of the OP, but yes, that former boxer can still likely do damage as well.  No argument there.


Yeah dobt think the two are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 6, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> I was going with the analogy of the OP, but yes, that former boxer can still likely do damage as well.  No argument there.


I appreciate that.  It often seems that these observations are weighted heavily to one side and are often reluctant to acknowledge the other side.


----------



## Ironbear24 (Jul 6, 2017)

There is no knowledge that is not power.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> not in the uk there aren't, its a,Very minority sport, its easier to find bog snorkelers' than wrestlers'
> but even if there was quite a few, im still more likely to get in a fight with an over weight bloke with a,shaved head and big bycepts, they are every where and all seemingly have an attitude as big as there waste line


Untill the Russians turn up.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Untill the Russians turn up.


That's crazy.  How can someone support something like that?  They should come to the U.S. and get some lol.


----------



## thanson02 (Jul 7, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I've seen the question posed recently, but it's also been posted multiple times in the past on MT and other martial arts discussion forums.
> 
> The question, generically, goes like this:
> 
> ...



Thank you for your post Bill.  This is insightful and I feel like I have a better understanding of what you were talking about on the other post you mentioned.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 7, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> And even more former wrestlers.  The 45 year old dude who competed in wrestling from junior high to his senior year of high school still knows more than enough to put a hurting on someone on the ground who doesn't train that on a regular basis.  He might be out of shape now, and even fat, but if the fight is over in a minute that won't matter very much. Even if the fight lasts longer, the former wrestler knows how to hold a position using less than all of their strength, allowing them to recover during the fight, particularly against someone who is unskilled on the ground.



I'm 41, not 45


----------



## jobo (Jul 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Untill the Russians turn up.


yea I'm not messing with those Russian, they are a very hardy people who swing great big kettle bells about before breakfast


----------



## jobo (Jul 7, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, no, that's not what you said. What you said was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the term " real world" discounts things that though technical possible are vanishingly unlikely. . Much of the debate on here focuses on the worse possible situation. I could spend the,whole evening walking round the pubs and clubs of this fair city trying to find any one trained grappler, and most likely not manage it. Therefore the real world chance of me finding one on a remote tow path whist walking my dog, is very very remote even less so that he then attacks me with no provocation. However my city is knee deep in fat blokes, with,shaved heads big arms and pit bull, meeting them is a daily event, meeting one who wants to fight me over some minor disagreement happen all to frequently.

so real world gtapplers are 250 lb tubs of lards with a home barbell and roid rage


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> Therefore the real world chance of me finding one on a remote tow path whist walking my dog, is very very remote even less so that he then attacks me with no provocation.


Yeah, the odds of being mugged by a trained martial artist of any sort (grappler, striker, or otherwise) are relatively low. Your original post didn't say anything about muggers or unprovoked attackers.



jobo said:


> However my city is knee deep in fat blokes, with,shaved heads big arms and pit bull, meeting them is a daily event, *meeting one who wants to fight me over some minor disagreement happen all to frequently*.



If you are frequently meeting people (trained or not) who want to fight you over minor disagreements, then I would suggest you either need to change your hangouts or else work on your interpersonal skills.



jobo said:


> so real world gtapplers are 250 lb tubs of lards with a home barbell and roid rage



If you're going to use the word "grapplers" to describe any untrained person who grabs his opponent in a fight, then there are tons of skinny people who fit that definition as well. I've seen plenty of fights between untrained opponents all of sizes (and genders) where one or both resort to grabs, tackles, headlocks, etc. It's not the exclusive province of big guys.


----------



## jobo (Jul 7, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, the odds of being mugged by a trained martial artist of any sort (grappler, striker, or otherwise) are relatively low. Your original post didn't say anything about muggers or unprovoked attackers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


im using it to apply to people who have a weight advantage and using it to over come you, its not that thin people don't grapple, so much as this is the fat blokes only strategy.
its like that round here,if you wanted a fight you would only have to walk a couple of hundred yards before you found someone to oblige you, my interpersonal skills consist of " shut up you fat slob or il slap you" surprisingly most do


----------



## Flatfish (Jul 7, 2017)

I can see that.....


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 7, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> To expand on this a little bit...
> 
> Even if you have no interest in ever seriously taking up a second art, it's worthwhile to occasionally explore different systems just to give you additional perspective into your primary martial art.  There's an old saying that "a fish doesn't know it's wet." When you've only ever trained one system, it's common to have a lot of unquestioned assumptions about how things are done, just because you've never seen them done differently.
> 
> ...


Hey Tony, I wanted to acknowledge your post, you raise some points that I don't disagree with.  

There are many reasons to explore and study more than one system, including the self-discovery of simply figuring out what system is best for you. If you have no experience outside of what you have trained for XX years, then you don't even have any idea of what other approaches to training and combat are out there.  I strongly believe that not every system is a good fit for every person, for a variety of reasons.  Finding the best fit for oneself requires looking around a bit and seeing what else is out there.  Experiencing another method might cause someone to actually switch over completely, when they find something that they with connect better as a methodology, than what they had been doing before.  Ive done that a couple of times over the years myself.

In the end, people will do what they relate to and what they find interest in.  If people try to force themselves to do something in which they have little or no interest, out of a sense that it is "good for them", it won't last.  That is human nature.  That does not mean that the experience did not hold some value, and that is part of the self-discovery I mentioned above. 

In the end we all simply do what we do, and none of us are perfect, no matter what we do.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jul 7, 2017)

DanT said:


> Would you let a doctor operate on you if they told you they did washing machine repair on the side.



Depends on how many hours they devoted to washing machine repair instead of surgery!


----------



## drop bear (Jul 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> im using it to apply to people who have a weight advantage and using it to over come you, its not that thin people don't grapple, so much as this is the fat blokes only strategy.
> its like that round here,if you wanted a fight you would only have to walk a couple of hundred yards before you found someone to oblige you, my interpersonal skills consist of " shut up you fat slob or il slap you" surprisingly most do




The correct term is crappling,

TOP DEFINITION
crappling
When someone is beginning to learn a grappling martial art such as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu but cant yet be classed as being able to properly grapple.
You're not grappling man, you're still crappling.


----------



## jobo (Jul 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The correct term is crappling,
> 
> TOP DEFINITION
> crappling
> ...


 im having that


----------



## Skullpunch (Jul 8, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> 1)  First of all, what does it mean to be 'well-rounded'?
> 
> The dictionary gives many meanings, but I suspect the the people who post about wanting to become well-rounded martial artists are referring to comprehensive, including many things, or having a large variety of training.  Based on what I've read in the various threads about the subject, *it often seems that the person wishing to become more well-rounded sees or believes they have gaps in their training, which training in another style of martial arts would fill.
> 
> ...



1)  It depends on context.  In MMA, well rounded means you can handle yourself in every situation - standing, on the ground, in the clinch.  Outside of MMA circles I don't hear it used very often but when I do it's typically based to varying degrees on the MMA standard in some shape or form.  Your description that I put in bold sums it up pretty well.

2)  The last sentence here is a bit of a stretch imo.  I'm sure it's true with certain individuals but if your hypothesis is dependent on this sweeping generalization then I think it would be best if you rethink said hypothesis into one that is independent of such a hit-or-miss variable.

3)  In the case of your example above, regarding someone who is a black belt in karate that wants to improve thier ground game, I would argue that if, after 10 years of doing karate, they are STILL not a competent grappler and they want to be a competent grappler then they should've picked up a grappling art a very long time ago.  I'm sorry but if you've been training for 10 years and still don't know what you're doing on the ground but you want to know what you're doing on the ground....what can that possibly be called other than a hole in your training (or something else that means the exact same thing)?

4)  I'm in the same boat which is why I seldom, if ever train striking these days.  Even getting on the mats a couple of times per week is a struggle at times.  It's all on the individual though, when I was a crazy, hot-headed young college kid who prioritized being able to kick everyone's *** more highly than I prioritize it now I found the time to work more training in and pick up additional stand-up work.

5)  It's not that simple.  Improvement and skills within anything in life - martial arts included - do not follow a linear curve.  If we put it on a scale between 1 and 10, you don't train for 2 years to get to 1, 2 more years to get to 2, 2 more years to get to 3, etc. etc. until you reach 10.  It would be closer to the truth if you said that you go from 0 to 5 at a similar rate to going from 5 to 6.  Your biggest gains are during the early stages and while you should be getting better as you train longer, your rate of improvement slows as you get better, and that trend continues until you hit a point where one could argue that - compared to cross training - brings diminishing returns because you're at a level where even minor improvements require tremendous effort and patience.  The logic behind cross training involves this premise.  If you've been doing karate and nothing else for 5 years and you continue doing karate and nothing else for the next 2 years, unless you're dedicating your entire life to training you will only have improved so much in those 2 years because of the law of diminishing returns.  You just won't improve as much as you did in your first 2 years (unless you completely wasted your time in your first 2 years and your training was at a mcdojo).  If you've been doing karate and nothing else for 5 years and you do karate + bjj for the next 2, you might get only a tiny bit better standing or maybe even no better at all, struggling to maintain your skill in that area due to time constraints with splitting up your training - but you can improve leaps and bounds on the ground and in standup grappling, and thus become more well rounded because you've gained a larger improvement of skills across the spectrum as a whole than you did by dedicating yourself to one system.

6)  You don't have to think you've progressed as far as you can to want to do something different, you just have to either prefer to do something different or think you can progress faster by doing something different.  Also...."true purpose of training"?  Seriously?  Everyone has their own purpose for training, what somebody else's purpose for training should be is not for you to dictate.

7)  What exactly does "training for martial arts at a basic level" mean?  I don't know for sure...but considering what the word "martial" means, I've always assumed that the basic level of martial arts training is to prepare for warfare.  By that line of thinking I would argue that there are virtually no "true" and "pure" martial arts on earth anywhere outside of military systems such as MCMAP, Krav Maga, and whatever else involves combat knives, grenades, nukes, guns, drones, etc.  Even if we fixate on the eastern systems - the oldest one I know of is shuai chiao, which was designed as a means of countering attacks from horned helmets that soldiers used to wear in ancient China.  Any which way you want to slice this, it all comes back to war.  So I have to ask...are YOU training according to the basic intent of martial arts?  If so....how?  Or is it possible that you're training based not on THE basic intent of martial arts (if it even exists at all).....but YOUR basic intent of martial arts....because you're an individual....and as an individual, you and millions of other martial artists each have your own basic intent?

8)  I never thought that in my cross training days either.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jul 11, 2017)

Bill

Good post and good topic to discuss.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I've seen the question posed recently, but it's also been posted multiple times in the past on MT and other martial arts discussion forums.
> 
> The question, generically, goes like this:
> 
> ...



Bill, I do believe styles have holes in them, and historically it was not uncommon (if a person had the means) to train in several arts.   Then those people might bring back those techniques to their dojo to help fill those gaps, or to change their art to adjust to their new understanding.  Take  this quote from Wikipedia about Wado 

"From one point of view, Wadō-ryū might be considered a style of jūjutsu rather than karate. It should be noted that Hironori Ōtsuka embraced Shotokan and was its chief instructor for a time. When Ōtsuka first registered his school with the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai in 1938, the style was called "Shinshu Wadō-ryū Karate-Jūjutsu," a name that reflects its hybrid character. Ōtsuka was a licensed Shindō Yōshin-ryū practitioner and a student of Yōshin-ryū when he first met the Okinawan karate master Gichin Funakoshi. After having learned from Funakoshi, and after their split, with Okinawan masters such as Kenwa Mabuni and Motobu Chōki, Ōtsuka merged Shindō Yōshin-ryū with Okinawan karate. The result of Ōtsuka's efforts is Wadō-ryū Karate.[3]

To the untrained observer, Wadō-ryū might look similar to other styles of karate, such as Shōtōkan. Most of the underlying principles, however, were derived from Shindō Yōshin-ryū an atemi waza focused style of Jujutsu. A block in Wadō may look much like a block in Shōtōkan, but they are executed from different perspectives.
"Ōtsuka merged Shindō Yōshin-ryū with Okinawan karate. The result of Ōtsuka's efforts is Wadō-ryū Karate.[3]"

Otsuka sensei learned jujitsu first and was master of it before meeting sensei Funakoshi and embracing Shotokan then he merged the two.   Clearly he felt there were holes in Shotokan and jujitsu and from his perspective then on how to fill he created Wado.

Wikipedia also has this to say about Kenwa Mabuni

" Born in Shuri on Okinawa in 1889, Mabuni was a 17th generation descendant of the famous warrior Uni Ufugusuku Kenyu.[4] Perhaps because of his weak constitution, he began his instruction in his home town in the art of Shuri-Te (首里手) at the age of 13, under the tutelage of the legendary Ankō Yasutsune Itosu (糸州安恒) (1831-1915). He trained diligently for several years, learning many kata from this great master. It was Itosu who first developed the Pinan kata, which were most probably derived from the 'Kusanku' form.

One of his close friends, Chōjun Miyagi (宮城長順) (founder of Gōjū-ryū) introduced Mabuni to another great of that period, Higaonna Kanryō (東恩納寛量), and began to learn Naha-Te (那覇手) under him as well. While both Itosu and Higashionna taught a 'hard-soft' style of Okinawan 'Te', their methods and emphases were quite distinct: the Itosu syllabus included straight and powerful techniques as exemplified in the Naifanchi and Bassai kata; the Higashionna syllabus, on the other hand, stressed circular motion and shorter fighting methods as seen in the popular Seipai and Kururunfa forms. Shitō-ryū focuses on both hard and soft techniques to this day.

Although he remained true to the teachings of these two great masters, Mabuni sought instruction from a number of other teachers; including Seishō Aragaki, Tawada Shimboku, Sueyoshi Jino and Wu Xianhui (a Chinese master known as Go-Kenki). In fact, Mabuni was legendary for his encyclopaedic knowledge of kata and their bunkai applications. By the 1920s, he was regarded as the foremost authority on Okinawan kata and their history and was much sought after as a teacher by his contemporaries. There is even some evidence that his expertise was sought out in China, as well as Okinawa and mainland Japan. As a police officer, he taught local law enforcement officers and at the behest of his teacher Itosu, began instruction in the various grammar schools in Shuri and Naha."

Again we can see how Mabuni cross trained in several styles f karate under several different teachers and then created his own style based on their different instruction.




Bill Mattocks said:


> Alternatives I do not like to think about, but which may also exist, would be that the person's style isn't actually a complete system.  In other words, it may actually have holes in it.  This would be a sad situation indeed.  Alternatively, the instructor may not be capable of teaching the system well enough to provide those needed abilities.  Sadly, I think this may sometimes happen when you have someone training for a few years and going off to start their own training facility, having only a rudimentary grasp of their system themselves.  Their students may perceive that the style in question has holes in it because the instructor doesn't have the knowledge or training or experience to pass along the complete system.
> 
> But this is why I often ask people who feel they need some other kind of training to ask their current instructor and see what he or she thinks they should do.  The answers may be instructive.



I agree with you on this however as I have shown above with the example of Otsuka and Mabuni sensei both trained with several instructors and created their own styles.   They even trained with some of the same instructors or at least the instructors of their instructors and yet their styles are different.  They came up with different solutions to the problems of self defense.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I also wonder if the person wanting to change styles isn't going to lose some ability in the style they currently train in.  I know some people have more free time than I do, but I find it difficult to devote two training days a week to in-dojo training (from 5PM to 9:30PM) and one half-day working out at home.  I don't think I could take on more at this stage in my life.  And I know from experience that if I miss a week or two's worth of training, I lose quite a bit of my edge.  Things start to fall apart.  I have to stay in my training, or I feel my ability declining.  How then, is a person supposed to give 100% to training in two or more different styles at the same time?  I can't quite get my mind around that one.
> 
> So having discussed well-roundedness is, let me now move on to why a person would want to be (presumably) well-rounded.
> 
> From my point of view, having the belief that it takes a lifetime to truly master any given martial art, I don't know what dividing my remaining time on this earth between multiple systems would get me.  If I were a carpenter, I would devote my time to becoming the best possible carpenter, rather than beginning to learn plumbing in a desire to be more well-rounded.  In other words, and to use a common term, I would rather not be a jack of all trades, and a master of none.  In my ruder moments, simply say would you rather be good in one system, or suck at a bunch of them?



I agree it does take a lifetime to master an art, but is the person looking to master an art form; or do they want to learn to defend them selves, be a successful tournament competitor, carry on a family heritage (speaking about a person carrying on a family system) etc. etc.   All of these are valid reasons to study the martial arts but... they would all have different training objectives.   The person wanting to study karate as a discipline to train the body and the mind doesn't need to look outside of their system, although the competitor might have to in order to stay competitive as the game evolves.  Just look at how karate/TKD systems evolved as competition entered the picture.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> So I would say this about cross-training...
> 
> It's fine if that's what you want to do.  And I don't see anything at all wrong with exposing oneself to other styles of martial arts, such as with informal training or seminars or sharing knowledge, practicing moves and techniques from other styles, etc.  It's all grist for the mill.  However, there's a difference between doing that and committing to long term training in a different style, particularly if it means neglecting your current style.
> 
> And again, I think that for most of us, we're not that competent yet in our own styles that we can firmly say that we know all there is to know about it, we know it has holes that cannot be addressed in our own training, and the only answer is to train in some other styles.  I suspect more often, the problem is that the student, or the instructor (or both) are lacking.  In some cases, regrettably, it is possible that the style itself is too superficial to provide a complete experience.



I agree that committing to a long term study of a different martial art could affect your primary art, and that is a danger.  I remember one of my seminar buddies told me that his Thai Chi was taking over his Modern Arnis study of the forms (he was adapting the principles/lessons he was learning practicing Thai Chi and it was showing in his Modern Arnis forms.   My TKD background can be seen in my Modern Arnis forms while at the same time my understanding of application of movement from Modern Arnis has also transformed my TKD forms.

Yet I believe this is a natural progression of things as I've shown above, with the examples of Otsuka and Mabuni.   Now to a person now studying Wado or Shito ryu and trying to keep it in it's pure form, it would be anathema to change the system by blending in something else (or perhaps cross training) yet that is exactly what the two founders did. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> What I think is more likely, is that students become bored.  They are tired of going to class and doing the same kata, the same kihon, the same sparring.  They think they have progressed as far as they can, and they want to experience new things.  That's fine, I guess.  It betrays a lack of maturity and a lack of understanding what the true purpose of training is, I think, but if one is really that bored, I guess they need to do whatever to cure that.



I agree with students becoming bored, however I don't think that is what was going on with Mabuni and Otsuka sensei nor even Funakoshi sensei.  Again from Wikipedia

"Gichin Funakoshi *had trained in both of the popular styles of Okinawan karate of the time*: Shōrei-ryū and Shōrin-ryū. *After years of study in both styles*, Funakoshi *created a simpler system that combined the ideals of the two*.[5] He never named this system, however, always referring to it simply as "karate." Funakoshi's karate *reflects the changes made in the art by* Ankō Itosu, including the _Heian/Pinan kata_ series. Funakoshi changed the names of some of the _kata_ in an effort to make the Okinawan kata names easier to pronounce in the Japanese Honshū dialect."

Once again after studying two systems fro several years he created his own simpler system to meet his needs i.e. the way he thought it should be.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I also think some few students are too attracted to the signs of success in a given training system.  They want more belts in more styles.  They want more patches.  They want more tournament trophies.  Again, if that is truly what they want, I guess it's OK, but it also betrays a lack of understand what martial arts training is for at a basic level, in my humble opinion.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I like other styles of martial arts, and I respect the people who train in styles other than my own.  I've learned a lot from some of my friends who train in other styles, and some of the things we do in the dojo where I train are from other styles of martial arts.  It's fun, it's interesting, and in some cases, it's eye-opening.  But I never think to myself, _"Gee, maybe my system is crap and I should go train with those guys,"_ or "_Gee, maybe I have learned all I can learn and I need to become more well-rounded by training with someone else."_  What I think to myself typically is, _"Wow, those guys are great!  I need to keep training hard in my system so that I can learn how we would deal with situation X, or technique Y, and maybe I will find out how our system does it and then I can show my friends a thing or two!"
> _
> I truly believe that in my case, if there is anything 'missing' in my training, it's on me.  My instructor is world-class, and I mean that literally; he's known and respected around the world.  Just to be training with him is an honor; people see his name on my dojo patch and they're awestruck.  The system I train in is fantastic; I have never, ever, had a situation where I asked "How would we do X or Y," and our instructors do not have an answer, and by answer I don't mean a BS blow-off crap answer but a real example that obviously works against a resisting opponent.  I'm 56 and I'm pretty well over hero worship and cult of personality; my BS detector is very functional.  If it didn't work, or it only worked on non-resisting opponents, I'd know it.  So if there are ANY holes in our system, that is on me 100%.  Why would I want to abandon that and train elsewhere?  I started pretty late in life, and I can guarantee I won't master this system before I take the big dirt nap.  *So I don't think I would even consider training in any other system.  No time!*



Referring to your comment in bold.   If that suits your needs then great, all of the power to you.

I'll close with this; for me cross training has greatly impacted my understanding of the martial arts over the past 36 years of study.  Although I consider myself a Jack of all trades, master of none", but the phrase "eternal student" of some actually fits me better.   I'm 56 as well and an instructor who seeks not to give my students blow off answers, yet I don't have answer for everything.  Speaking of which I have a class in 40 minutes so I need to go.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jul 11, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Good post Bill.  I have often thought about the idea of well roundedness myself.  Especially from the point of view that one must go outside of one's primary (or so far only) martial art.  I have mentioned before that when I was in Korea, I was told that when a person reached 3rd Dan in their art, they were encouraged to study and be belted in another art.  But I think that was more to weed out those that might not be truly committed to their art, and the idea of probably becoming an instructor.  I was never told it was to make the person more well rounded.



In our American Karate/TKD association we are encouraged to study and be ranked in another art, in fact many of our black belt instructors have time with other systems.  The association also holds continuing education classes for the senior brown belts and black belts often bringing in instructors who have experience in other arts to teach as a way to broaden the instructors knowledge base and learning experience.   In fact I think to pass to 6th dan, you must have studied another art until 1st dan.   So for our association it isn't a method to weed out those who aren't committed to the art or to the idea of becoming an instructor, rather it is the opposite.



oftheherd1 said:


> I also agree that with most martial arts, the more you learn, the better one can be expected to develop those attributes that give superiority it self defense.  But I also understand that one may sometimes be surprised by an attack or defense they have never encountered before.  But in agreement with you, I think those things diminish as one progresses in their chosen art.



I too believe that with most arts the more you learn the better one can be expected those attributes that give superiority in self defense, but for the most part I believe that in regards to armed attacks or to using weapons in a defensive manner this doesn't hold true.   I feel the same way with the over sport orientated systems.

For example in regards to the weapons I also study and teach Presas Arnis (which is a blend of Modern Arnis and Kombatan Arnis).  Our American Karate/TKD association has had me teach over the years several 1-2 hour long classes for not only the brown and black belts but also for the general student population at our annual seminar and banquet/awards day.   So I have taught a variety of students/instructors of different ages, ranks, sexes, etc. etc. in primarily impact and edged weapons use and defense.   I also am currently teaching a small group of these same type of students of various ranks who come from a American Karate background our Presas Arnis curriculum on a monthly basis.   So as much as we want to say a weapon is just an extension of the hand that isn't really true.  Because if it was then the more experienced the person was the more comfortable they should be using a weapon but I often times find the reverse is true.  

I feel using a stick or a knife as it being a great equalizer, meaning that a white belt can be just as confident using it as a senior black belt.   Truthfully I've had instructors dismiss the idea of cross training in weapons telling me they'd feel more confident dropping the weapon and fighting empty hand instead of using the weapon (even if the other person had a weapon).

In regards to the sport orientated systems, I think of the sport form of TKD.  Take the emphasis on kicking to the head because it is more crowd pleasing, more exciting to watch.  In the olympic TKD style I don't think you can punch to the head, but you are encouraged to kick there.  OK so from a SD stand point focusing on doing the sport is taking away from the time you could be spending on more SD related material.   Likewise focusing on sport XMA type weapons kata practice while maybe exciting to watch; throwing my weapon in the air to catch it and screaming at the top of my lungs really has no real application SD wise no matter how many years you do it.   Likewise if my focus was on the more SD related side of the spectrum to be really competitive on the XMA or open karate circuit I need a weapons coach, a gymnastic coach (for my flips and butterfly kicks), strength and conditioning coaches, all of which might make me a better kata competitor but not really help me defend my self. 



oftheherd1 said:


> There are persons who do train in more than one art.  I don't know how much that favors "more well roundedness" but since I haven't been around such a person to evaluate their abilities.  But I suppose it may be possible.
> 
> I will hope to hear from more of those who have and do train and learn in more than one art.



I do train more than one art and it does help me and hinder me as well.  For instance I currently train/teach American TKD, Kobudo (more traditional weapons), and Presas Arnis (which is a combination of two styles of FMAs, but they are related), as well as other FMAs.   My study of the FMAs is really where my focus is, but my main teaching duties throughout the week centers more around the TKD.

So how does it help.  By studying both Kombatan and Modern Arnis helped me to see different sides of similar systems.  Both arts were developed by two brothers who had different training experiences but still learned from the same family roots.   So while one art focuses a lot on the self defense side of things (i.e. Modern Arnis), Kombatan taught more weapon groups i.e. double stick, single stick, stick and knife, knife, empty hand, along with some staff, palm stick etc. etc.   Modern Arnis as I learned it here in America in the mid 90's focused more on the singe stick, empty hand and a little double stick, but because of GM Remy's friendship with Wally Jay there is a much deeper influence on the locking, trapping, take down and throws than the Kombatan side.   Because there is cross over between arts I got a different perspective of things than say the pure Modern Arnis or Kombatan student.

Likewise another area that has been helped by cross training is in my study of the FMAs and Kobudo.   I've taken the double stick component from Kombatan and applied it to the Sai, Tonfa, Kama (weapons found in Kobudo), exploring different ways to train and teach double weapons, disarming etc etc.  I've applied some of the flexible weapon disarm principles and applied them to the nunchaku etc. etc.  This has opened up a lot of growth for me over the past few years.

Modern Arnis has impacted my study of American TKD basic techniques quite a bit, as well as our kata or forms.   Learning from different instructors in Modern Arnis has helped me to gain insight into different principles of take downs, locking, and body management as well as empty hand vs weapon defense, both impact and edged.

But there is a down side to this.
I don't have the great developed kicking skills anymore, I don't spend time practicing many of the kicks I learned because now they hurt me (probably since I didn't keep them up in the first place).   I don't know all of the advanced TKD forms (I have no interest in them really), so I can't pass them on to my black belts.

In regards to my Kobudo training sometimes my other skills/knowledge gets in the way of my training.   Sometimes I feel as if I'm going backwards, and it's very frustrating for me and some of my students.  A few of my students and I take a once a month formal Kobudo class and what seems natural to us isn't what is being taught (technique or skill wise) to the general student base for one reason or another.   Another way it impacts me negatively is that in regards to kata sometimes I don't look the same as the others because I tend to blend or flow more from my FMA background.   Over time some things change (kata wise) and I tend to not accept the change (this is my 9th year in the program) and question things.

I tend to not quite go along with the program (in some circumstances) and that isn't good really for my students or the other students on the floor.   I don't put in as much time perfecting a kata's technique as I do thinking about why do we do it this way etc. etc.?   So my performance of the kata suffers.

But there are many unexpected benefits to cross training
One has been working with another GM in the FMAs; recently one of my students/assistant instructor and I started to learn a completely different escrima system underneath a GM who relocated to our area for a short while.  GM Art sought out our FMA cross training group (the MAPA) to introduce himself and he offered to teach us his system.  So 1-3X a month we get together with him and learn his system.   Now it is totally different from Modern Arnis/Kombatan Arnis (it's a mix of Serrada and Defondo), and being students again we see similarities between our styles but we learn from his perspective, it not only validates our training in some ways but also gives us new insight into techniques and training concepts that I then bring back to my classes.   On top of this we made a very good friend and training mentor.

Likewise through my seeking out other instructors in Modern Arnis like Datu Dieter Knuttel, SM Dan Anderson, Datu Tim Hartman, our school has developed friendships and training relationships with these (and other) instructors, all of which helps my school grow in the understanding of Modern Arnis.   While I don't teach their respective systems per say, since they all have their own versions of Modern Arnis, I do teach some of their material and their material has helped my students as they pick and chose what works for them as well.

So in closing I am a big believer in cross training and working with others, I have been studying the martial arts for 36 years, I'm not a purest of any system by any means, and the more that I teach the more I find myself teaching drills and stuff that were never "taught" to me, rather I'm making my own way now based on the teaching and understanding that these and other instructors have taught me but still teaching a "core art(s)" (Presas Arnis and American TKD).   Well time for my afternoon classes.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 11, 2017)

Mark Lynn said:


> In our American Karate/TKD association we are encouraged to study and be ranked in another art, in fact many of our black belt instructors have time with other systems.  The association also holds continuing education classes for the senior brown belts and black belts often bringing in instructors who have experience in other arts to teach as a way to broaden the instructors knowledge base and learning experience.   In fact I think to pass to 6th dan, you must have studied another art until 1st dan.   So for our association it isn't a method to weed out those who aren't committed to the art or to the idea of becoming an instructor, rather it is the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks.  Very insightful.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> To understand what you do. It is worthwhile understanding more than what you do.


that is deep.. and concise too


----------



## JP3 (Jul 12, 2017)

Fan of getting into other styles for a time, learning by immersion, into the other, the new, thing.... then returning to the main style/art whatever.  Of course, with the caveat that the main art/style thing just might change over time.

I am Not a fan, personally... meaning for me... of training in two different arts during the same time frame, i.e. doing TKD one day, judo the next, like that. I think you sell the learning of both short, in a physical education sense, as the muscle memory formation is not brought to fruition nearly as quickly in that fashion.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 13, 2017)

Every system I have ever come across had a failing in one area or more than likely multiple areas.  I have never came across a system that addressed everything and was complete.  They were after all created by men or women and have the short comings and short sighted nature that accompanies humans.  That does not mean that there are some systems that are very broad and are more complete it just means that even those broader systems have weaknesses.

I am a firm believer in learning a system of your choice and becoming proficient in it and then learning from other instructors possibly in different systems to broaden your horizon.  That does not mean leaving your initial system of training.  Just broadening your horizon and experiencing different perspectives.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 13, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Every system I have ever come across had a failing in one area or more than likely multiple areas.  I have never came across a system that addressed everything and was complete.  They were after all created by men or women and have the short comings and short sighted nature that accompanies humans.  That does not mean that there are some systems that are very broad and are more complete it just means that even those broader systems have weaknesses.
> 
> I am a firm believer in learning a system of your choice and becoming proficient in it and then learning from other instructors possibly in different systems to broaden your horizon.  That does not mean leaving your initial system of training.  Just broadening your horizon and experiencing different perspectives.


Brian what do you think to the idea that every art contain a means of addressing shortcomings strictly from within it self?? or is that not possible or likely? thank you x


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 13, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Brian what do you think to the idea that every art contain a means of addressing shortcomings strictly from within it self?? or is that not possible or likely? thank you x



Hi Jenna, arts are built typically for a very specific reason or a narrow degree of multiple reasons.  While you may be able to take and employ your training in another area that is wasn't specifically developed for it may not always be the optimal solution to your problem.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 13, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hi Jenna, arts are built typically for a very specific reason or a narrow degree of multiple reasons.  While you may be able to take and employ your training in another area that is wasn't specifically developed for it may not always be the optimal solution to your problem.


The best way to escape is to know the escape.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 14, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hi Jenna, arts are built typically for a very specific reason or a narrow degree of multiple reasons.  While you may be able to take and employ your training in another area that is wasn't specifically developed for it may not always be the optimal solution to your problem.


Yes that make sense.. thank you! Is like you cannot make deep fried chicken in a broiler kind of thing yes? 

Though there are multiple different solutions to the same problem too you would agree with that?? 

I think for me in my art some -if not a majority in my experience- of practitioners have either forgotten or misinterpreted the core tenets of the art, or they were never made aware of them in the first place which lead to the situation where they feel compelled to modify their broiler to deep fry the chicken wings.. Fried chicken wings is their compulsion! possibly that is why they do not fit their hakama no more haha.. Now I am hungry


----------



## Jenna (Jul 14, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> The best way to escape is to know the escape.


what if you know the escape and but cannot escape.. like off of Alcatraz? (because the tourboat has left you there) ha


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 14, 2017)

Jenna said:


> what if you know the escape and but cannot escape.. like off of Alcatraz? (because the tourboat has left you there) ha


Well then you would need to give me a call and I would come and get you.  I work just down the road from Alcatraz.


----------



## Balrog (Jul 14, 2017)

Latecomer to the thread.....

IMNSHO, being a well-rounded martial artist means that I have one martial art that I am working toward expertise in.  I also know a little bit about other martial arts, but I am not expert in them.  It's like college - I have a major, but I take classes in other things as well to make me more knowledgeable overall.

For example, my primary martial art is Taekwondo.  But I do know a little groundfighting from BJJ, some joint manipulation from Aikido, basic stick work from Escrima, etc.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jul 14, 2017)

JP3 said:


> *Fan of getting into other styles for a time, learning by immersion, into the other, the new, thing*.... _then returning to the main style/art whatever.  Of course, with the caveat that the main art/style thing just might change over time._
> 
> I am Not a fan, personally... meaning for me... of training in two different arts during the same time frame, i.e. doing TKD one day, judo the next, like that. I think you sell the learning of both short, in a physical education sense, as the muscle memory formation is not brought to fruition nearly as quickly in that fashion.
> 
> Just my $0.02.



JP3 I agree with your first statement in a sense(bold) if you mean say studying with friends seminar etc. etc. but not if it is I'm going to study 3 months of Aikido then return to say TKD for say 6 months, then try boxing for 4 months and return again to TKD, etc. etc.   Personally I believe that will retard your growth in the TKD as a beginner or intermediate student.   If you've been studying say TKD for several/many years then I can see doing an art for a few months and going back to the primary.   I agree though that by doing this your own art or your own understanding of your primary art will probably change (italics)

Same thing with your 2nd; point I agree as a beginner I would not recommend training two arts at once.   As a more seasoned martial artist I believe you can train two or more at the same time.  Although unless they are very similar I don't think you will progress in those arts/styles as fast as if you were studying one at a time.   As to your example of learning to diverse arts such as Judo and TKD at the same time; as a beginner the muscle memory issue I think is spot on.  However if you've been studying one art for a long time and train that on Mon/Wed and feel like training another art Tues/Thurs you'll already have the muscle memory from the primary, so I think then building muscle memory in the 2nd art won't be as much of an issue.

For me I think it all boils down to what is your goal or purpose for doing so (training in multiple arts)?   If it is to gain rank or to learn a complete system than I believe your focus should be on one.  If it is to compete then whatever makes you the better competitor, no matter how many systems you study.   If it is to meet your own personal goal of education and study then do what you want.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jul 14, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Every system I have ever come across had a failing in one area or more than likely multiple areas.  I have never came across a system that addressed everything and was complete.  They were after all created by men or women and have the short comings and short sighted nature that accompanies humans.  That does not mean that there are some systems that are very broad and are more complete it just means that even those broader systems have weaknesses.
> 
> I am a firm believer in learning a system of your choice and becoming proficient in it and then learning from other instructors possibly in different systems to broaden your horizon.  That does not mean leaving your initial system of training.  Just broadening your horizon and experiencing different perspectives.



Brian

I agree with your point about every system having weaknesses in one area or another.  I believe martial arts (styles/systems) were developed to meet certain needs during a certain time in a certain culture, taking those systems out of the context they were created in/for, then their weaknesses/short coming would show up.  However in their setting they might reign supreme.  This is why over time I think as people get more exposure to multiple arts they change their primary arts (if they are in the position to do so) to reflect the changing needs.

I think back to an example that I heard from Dan Inosanto 30 odd years ago at a seminar, where he was saying about how in an open area the TKD kicker had an advantage, whereas in a phone booth (that dates the example doesn't it?) then the person who is use to fighting in close has the advantage since the TKD kicks are negated.  However even in the open where the TKD kicker might have an advantage a person with a weapon could negate the kicking advantage.  Or what if it's raining and it heavy mud then the silat guy might have the advantage over the high kicker and so on.  In a pool the person who played water polo might reign supreme.

I also agree in learning from other instructors in similar arts and systems.   I my own experience I have learned from GM Remy Presas Modern Arnis and it is he who taught me the core art, and really the person I received the most instruction from.  However since his passing I learned from several of the 1st generation students of his such as; Datu Hartman, Datu Dieter Knuttel, SM Dan Anderson, the MoTTs, and others and they all have given me different insight in Modern Arnis and the FMAs as a whole.  I believe that helps me to be a more well rounded Modern Arnis player, and as a whole a more well rounded martial artists as well.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Jul 14, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hi Jenna, arts are built typically for a very specific reason or a *narrow degree of multiple reasons*.  *While you may be able to take and employ your training in another area that is wasn't specifically developed *for it may not always be the optimal solution to your problem.



Brian

I respectively disagree (referring to the bolded part of your comment), I think arts can be more open ended then we think.   Motion is motion and everyone's view of the purpose of say the motion of a drill can be different and you can find that motion across multiple systems that were developed independently of each other.   For instance while the high forehand, low back hand, high back hand motion of say a double stick Sinawali pattern is used in one system as a warm up drill, in another system it might be used as an an entry or a way to bridge a gap between two people, in another system it might be used to teach joint manipulation or empty hand skills etc.etc.  Take the same motion and it can be a inward block, downward block, high block of TKD.

Another area (of growth and understanding) for me has been adapting the more traditional weapons (sai, tonfa, kama) to techniques, concepts and drills from the FMAs double stick material.  Granted each weapon has it's own unique characteristics but there is some crossover in training drills and use between them.

As practitioners become more exposed to multiple systems they might start to see the crossover between them, and as the arts change (as they become more global in a sense, instead of just Japanese, Korean, etc. etc.) I think people start to see this more and more. 



Balrog said:


> Latecomer to the thread.....
> 
> IMNSHO, being a well-rounded martial artist means that I have one martial art that I am working toward expertise in.  I also know a little bit about other martial arts, but I am not expert in them.  It's like college - I have a major, but I take classes in other things as well to make me more knowledgeable overall.
> 
> For example, my primary martial art is Taekwondo.  But I do know a little groundfighting from BJJ, some joint manipulation from Aikido, basic stick work from Escrima, etc.



Balrog

In college as in the martial arts it's also possible to have multiple degrees in different fields of studies, or major and minor arts.  I mention this because even after becoming an expert in one art, it doesn't mean that you to settle on only know a "little" about other arts. How far you want to go in an art or multiple arts is totally up to the individual practitioner.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 14, 2017)

Hi Jenna,

Yes I would agree that quite often there are multiple solutions to the same problem.  However, there is typically an option that is the most efficient.  Often other options lead to further problems.

I also looking at Mark's post would agree that the deeper you train in systems the more cross referencing you see.  Yet, even with cross referencing that does not mean that a technique or skill set is the optimal for any given situation.  Just that it may work in an area it wasn't specifically developed for.  *May being the key word there.*

Motion is motion but.... there is good motion, bad motion, motion intended for a specific purpose and motion used erroneously at the wrong time and more.  The point is to utilize effective motion at the right time in the right circumstance so that you are successful.  There have been several systems in recent years that have tried to take their specific skill set and apply it in another area that it was not intended for.  They in turn created some thing that didn't really work as well as they thought it would or in turn marketed it to work.  Experts in the area that they marketed it in could easily see the mistakes, flaws and outright poor skill sets that they had developed.  *So while motion is motion not all motion is the same or created equal!
*


----------



## drop bear (Jul 16, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Brian what do you think to the idea that every art contain a means of addressing shortcomings strictly from within it self?? or is that not possible or likely? thank you x



You can gloss over them so peoples are less likely to notice. But you don't address them.

So if I can't punch but can kick. I can spend my time avoiding punching exchanges.

But I will never learn to punch that way.

Notice that MMA cross trains when it doesn't technically have to. Everyone could just train MMA. But my belief is if you do different styles you are forced to engage in the mechanics of that style. You can't cheat as easily.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can gloss over them so peoples are less likely to notice. But you don't address them.
> 
> So if I can't punch but can kick. I can spend my time avoiding punching exchanges.
> 
> But I will never learn to punch that way.


Why though is there a necessity to learn to punch at all if kicking is your strength or preference? 

Like for the sake of argument, say you were strongest at kicking or it were a preference or even a physical necessity for you, punching was almost like against your dogma.. Not an actual thing just like for sake of argument yes?  Then what would you see as the issue with capitalising on your kicking, train the living crap out of kicking against every foreseeable type of attack to the extent that punching would offer almost no additional benefit? Thank you


----------



## drop bear (Jul 17, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Why though is there a necessity to learn to punch at all if kicking is your strength or preference?
> 
> Like for the sake of argument, say you were strongest at kicking or it were a preference or even a physical necessity for you, punching was almost like against your dogma.. Not an actual thing just like for sake of argument yes?  Then what would you see as the issue with capitalising on your kicking, train the living crap out of kicking against every foreseeable type of attack to the extent that punching would offer almost no additional benefit? Thank you



Yeah. You can train how you want. If you dont want to ever punch that is fine.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 18, 2017)

First, I think it really depends on "why" a person is really studying the arts.  If it is to learn and master a system of martial arts then they need to dedicate themselves to that one art.  If it is just to be able to "handle themselves" in a street confrontation (again, VERY nebulous on what that means.  Criminal assault?  Drunk guy at the bar?) then that is also a very different animal.

BUT, I agree with Bill in regards to his style of Isshin-ryu (and the other traditional karate styles).  Historically, the okinawans all 'trained' and learned a system of sport grappling call "tegumi".  They would have been familiar with many of the holds and takedowns of a grappling art.  So, what the traditional karate styles have in them is "ground fighting".  It is how to fight from the ground with a standing attacker or how to attack a person that is on the ground, and also ground avoidance and ground escape.  Their goal was to never "grapple" on the ground that we are most familiar with.  If you look at the "Bubishi" you will see many grappling applications, including things like the single leg takedown that we see in wrestling.

So, this is where the "well rounded" part, to me, comes in when we look at our own art.  We look to the most familliar and common attacks (Patrick McCarthy has a great tool called the "Habitual Acts of Violence") and then find the solutions to those in our katas/forms. We then start to drill those things with increasing resistance until we "own" the move.  I think something that can speed up the process is "cross referencing".  Looking at applications from other arts that are similiar to the movements in your own art to get other ideas of applications and potentials from the movement.  

I remember reading an article by Charles Goodin (Hawaiian Karate Museum) when talking about applications and he suggested looking into the self-defense techniques of American Kenpo to find applications to the karate katas.  You don't need to give up your art to go learn kenpo, but seeing what the movements look like and comparing them to your katas, can give you ideas and insights in deepening your study.

Lastly, I do think it is important to have knowledge of other arts to understand their strategies and attacks to know how to best counter them.  To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "if you know only yourself you will win half the time, if you know yourself and your enemy you will win all of the time".


----------



## Jenna (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. You can train how you want. If you dont want to ever punch that is fine.


I cannot see videos from this unfortunately and but I was wondering how would you rate your self in terms of pragmatism? defensively I mean

and how much of a part does pragmatism play in being well-rounded


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> I said in  the real world, in the real world there arnt a load of trained grapplers roaming round looking to attack you, there are however is,a lot of fat blokes with big,arms and bigger,waist lines, who will try and grapple you based on the fact they,weigh 80lbs more than you and if they can pin you with their weight your more or less stuck


Interestingly, in reviewing videos of attacks, I don't notice a preponderance of overweight people going for grapple more than skinny people. Some people punch (well or badly) and some people grapple (well or badly), and I've not seen a heavy link to body type in either case. I'll need to look for it specifically next time I'm doing that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> To expand on this a little bit...
> 
> Even if you have no interest in ever seriously taking up a second art, it's worthwhile to occasionally explore different systems just to give you additional perspective into your primary martial art.  There's an old saying that "a fish doesn't know it's wet." When you've only ever trained one system, it's common to have a lot of unquestioned assumptions about how things are done, just because you've never seen them done differently.
> 
> ...


This, very much this.

For those of us who have a distinct primary art, there's a lot of value in wandering into foreign territory. Much of what I understand about NGA, for instance, is based upon what I've learned or experience in and from other arts. My prior experience in Karate and Judo definitely informed my early learning in NGA. My exploration in wrestling, MMA, BJJ, FMA/small-circle Jujitsu (a blended approach), Aikido, and a bunch of other bits and pieces has definitely colored my understanding and approach.

Sometimes I find things I consider weaknesses in the approach I learned (not sure if it's what I was meant to learn - might be my fault I learned it that way). Sometimes I discover strengths I didn't understand and wasn't exploiting. Sometimes I just find out what I, personally, suck at. Always I learn something that enhances both my personal arsenal and my understanding and ability to teach NGA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> I agree with everything you wrote, but it brought a question to mind.  Does "knowing about" or occasional exposure to things (as opposed to committed study) really make one more well rounded?  I mean, reading this forum for years has brought us all to at least a moderate degree of intellectual familiarity with a lot of styles, training models and perspectives.   But I wouldn't go so far as to say we're more well rounded... well, maybe intellectually more well rounded.
> 
> Said a little differently, isn't the danger of dunning-kruger most present when you think you know more than you do.  Occasionally exploring another art may give you just enough information to create the unconscious incompetence you're trying to avoid.


That's a valid point. There is definitely some danger that we get to thinking we know more than we do. Hell, I see this regularly with instructors talking about how to counter another style and clearly (to someone who knows the style in question), they are proposing something that would not work. Some of the value in continually exposing ourselves to people in other styles is that they show us on a regular basis how little we know. I've had enough experience with Ueshiba's Aikido, for instance, to know that there's much of their approach I actually don't understand. I've seen people in NGA with little exposure to that art confidently make claims about it that I know to be inaccurate - Dunning-Kruger, indeed. So, exposure to other styles and practitioners is one of the ways to protect against D-K. You see this in BJJ, and it's one of the things you recommend about the art, in general. It's something Drop Bear sees in MMA, and he similarly recommends it. People interact between schools/gyms, so if you're not as good as you think you are, someone will help you improve your awareness pretty soon. This is the same thing we're talking about with interaction between styles.

And I will argue that what we learn (intellectually) on MT can contribute to us being more well-rounded, in that it makes us aware (if we're willing to be honest with ourselves) of what we do not know. If I just look at videos of Wing Chun, for instance, there's much that seems to make sense. But when I hear someone on the WC forum talk about their power generation, it doesn't make sense to me. Clearly, I know less about the mechanics of WC than my viewing of a video would lead me to believe. Awareness of that lack of understanding is part of being more "well rounded", IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> Taking it a little further, a warning light goes off when folks say their art addresses every need. It strikes me as the opposite of the above.


Agreed, entirely. 

Except for Ameri-Do-Te, of course.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The correct term is crappling,
> 
> TOP DEFINITION
> crappling
> ...


I'm adding that to my CV.


----------



## mograph (Jul 18, 2017)

To me, being "well-rounded" for its own sake is not a valuable goal. Instead, I see these goals as valuable:

being able to respond to the situations _that I'm likely to encounter_
exercising most of my body without neglecting major areas (don't skip leg day!)
But it still seems to come down to the first point: _responding to likely situations_. I'm not a bouncer, nor do I compete, frequent rough bars or live in a rough neighborhood. I'm fifty-seven, easily ignored, and not too bad at mild conflict de-escalation. So do I want to spend limited  time and money learning to respond to situations that a younger, more aggressive man might encounter? Nope. It makes more sense for me to focus on health and efficient use of my body (structure). 

I also agree with earlier points that an artist might find all he/she needs in his/her own style, and might not need to fill those needs by switching to another style. I also agree that if you compete, it makes sense to learn about other styles, and ideally, spar against practitioners of those styles if you are likely to find yourself facing them. 

I also see the value in _clarifying_ the definition, concept or framing of our own styles by learning more about other styles: we often can better understand something by seeing what it is _not_. But this still suggests retaining a focus on our own style as our dominant, personal, or "home" style.

However, as we age and learn more about ourselves, we might change how we _think_ -- so our current training _methods_ might not work for us as we change. In those situations, it might pay to check out another _studio_ teaching the same style before we change _styles_. Of course, I recognize the issues inherent in switching studios, especially after having invested time in one studio/teacher.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Fan of getting into other styles for a time, learning by immersion, into the other, the new, thing.... then returning to the main style/art whatever.  Of course, with the caveat that the main art/style thing just might change over time.
> 
> I am Not a fan, personally... meaning for me... of training in two different arts during the same time frame, i.e. doing TKD one day, judo the next, like that. I think you sell the learning of both short, in a physical education sense, as the muscle memory formation is not brought to fruition nearly as quickly in that fashion.
> 
> Just my $0.02.


Agreed that it can slow down both arts. It can also prevent problems. I'll use as an example two real people. One was a training partner, who trained Shotokan Karate while training Nihon Goshin Aikido. The other is a student who trained Shotokan Karate for 8 years, then started training NGA. The one who co-trained the two managed to integrate them well, and never really had a problem with conflicts between the two. The one who trained Shotokan first often finds himself struggling against his well-trained movements, which often keep him too far away for proper NGA technique execution. 

There are advantages both ways, IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Brian what do you think to the idea that every art contain a means of addressing shortcomings strictly from within it self?? or is that not possible or likely? thank you x


I think it's possible, but not optimal. My primary art contains the principles for effective ground work. But if someone wants to get really good at ground work, they'll do it much faster by cross-training in BJJ. Why? Because those guys focus on it a lot more, and are really good at doing so. A mediocre BJJ instructor can probably teach solid ground control and escape better than an exceptional NGA instructor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Yes that make sense.. thank you! Is like you cannot make deep fried chicken in a broiler kind of thing yes?
> 
> Though there are multiple different solutions to the same problem too you would agree with that??
> 
> I think for me in my art some -if not a majority in my experience- of practitioners have either forgotten or misinterpreted the core tenets of the art, or they were never made aware of them in the first place which lead to the situation where they feel compelled to modify their broiler to deep fry the chicken wings.. Fried chicken wings is their compulsion! possibly that is why they do not fit their hakama no more haha.. Now I am hungry


I thought I was following your reasoning there at first, Jenna, then I was just thinking of food.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think it's possible, but not optimal. My primary art contains the principles for effective ground work. But if someone wants to get really good at ground work, they'll do it much faster by cross-training in BJJ. Why? Because those guys focus on it a lot more, and are really good at doing so. A mediocre BJJ instructor can probably teach solid ground control and escape better than an exceptional NGA instructor.


To expand on this a bit more ...
Sometimes this is the case even when the specific techniques being looked at are shared in common between the two arts.

Suppose you are a practitioner of Generalist Do, an art designed to offer a well rounded approach with some high-percentage moves for most situations you are likely to encounter. This art might be centered around stand-up striking, but also includes some basic throws, some basic defenses and escapes from the ground, some basic weapons use and disarms. If you go to an expert in a more specialized art (like BJJ), they will likely be able to show you nuances and details of your basic moves that you probably wouldn't have learned from your original teacher. You don't necessarily have to learn the whole arsenal of the specialist, but it's worth tapping their expertise to improve your fundamentals.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think it's possible, but not optimal. My primary art contains the principles for effective ground work. But if someone wants to get really good at ground work, they'll do it much faster by cross-training in BJJ. Why? Because those guys focus on it a lot more, and are really good at doing so. A mediocre BJJ instructor can probably teach solid ground control and escape better than an exceptional NGA instructor.


That make sense too yes thank you.. let me ask you some thing else then yes? 

With ground work in mind, which will you suggest to a student is more productive use of her training time - a. cross train in a ground style to address perceived shortcomings in NGA, or b. work to eradicate points of weakness within NGA that could result in a ground fight at all? I do not know if I have put that clearly enough.. I mean the solution to a problem of potentially (and it is disputable) limited ground work skill in NGA can be to go to another gym and do ground work with them, or, to work in your own dojo within NGA to see and rectify what is happening when you try to pull each other on the ground.. why? with the aim of terminating the opponent progress decisively against their intent to force you on the ground at all.. like the solution then can be within the system itself no?? 

What would you think?? thank you x




gpseymour said:


> I thought I was following your reasoning there at first, Jenna, then I was just thinking of food.


Ha yes samesies.. that is pattern of my days.. being all beautifully mindful of the whole universe then just get utterly distracted by pizza aroma out the back of some little camionetta and forget where I am supposed to be going pffft..


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 18, 2017)

Jenna said:


> With ground work in mind, which will you suggest to a student is more productive use of her training time - a. cross train in a ground style to address perceived shortcomings in NGA, or b. work to eradicate points of weakness within NGA that could result in a ground fight at all? I do not know if I have put that clearly enough.. I mean the solution to a problem of potentially (and it is disputable) limited ground work skill in NGA can be to go to another gym and do ground work with them, or, to work in your own dojo within NGA to see and rectify what is happening when you try to pull each other on the ground.. why? with the aim of terminating the opponent progress decisively against their intent to force you on the ground at all.. like the solution then can be within the system itself no??
> 
> What would you think?? thank you x


The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.

The problem is that _anyone_ can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.

If you argue that you are training for self-defense and are unlikely to encounter an attack from an expert wrestler, you should consider the additional variables which can make going to the ground more likely in a street scenario. How about being blind-side tackled by a much larger assailant on a slippery or uneven surface?

If you bet everything on never being taken down, then you are in a boat load of trouble if you ever end up on the ground with a larger attacker on top of you. I'm not saying everybody should become expert at fighting while on the ground, but the fundamentals of being able to defend yourself, escape a bad position and get back to your feet are extremely useful, even to a stand-up martial artist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> To expand on this a bit more ...
> Sometimes this is the case even when the specific techniques being looked at are shared in common between the two arts.
> 
> Suppose you are a practitioner of Generalist Do, an art designed to offer a well rounded approach with some high-percentage moves for most situations you are likely to encounter. This art might be centered around stand-up striking, but also includes some basic throws, some basic defenses and escapes from the ground, some basic weapons use and disarms. If you go to an expert in a more specialized art (like BJJ), they will likely be able to show you nuances and details of your basic moves that you probably wouldn't have learned from your original teacher. You don't necessarily have to learn the whole arsenal of the specialist, but it's worth tapping their expertise to improve your fundamentals.


Agreed, and I can give a very specific example. I teach a basic hip throw (okay, it might actually be 3 different throws in Judo). I do it pretty well. With your deeper Judo background, you probably do it (meaning them) better. Someone active in Judo (I'm not sure how active you are in that area these days) would certainly be better at the nuances of a hip throw than I am, because it's a more core bit of kit in Judo than in NGA. There's almost certainly less of a disparity between my hip throwing knowledge and yours than between my ground escape (sweep) knowledge and yours, but I expect there's still a difference there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Jenna said:


> That make sense too yes thank you.. let me ask you some thing else then yes?
> 
> With ground work in mind, which will you suggest to a student is more productive use of her training time - a. cross train in a ground style to address perceived shortcomings in NGA, or b. work to eradicate points of weakness within NGA that could result in a ground fight at all? I do not know if I have put that clearly enough.. I mean the solution to a problem of potentially (and it is disputable) limited ground work skill in NGA can be to go to another gym and do ground work with them, or, to work in your own dojo within NGA to see and rectify what is happening when you try to pull each other on the ground.. why? with the aim of terminating the opponent progress decisively against their intent to force you on the ground at all.. like the solution then can be within the system itself no??
> 
> What would you think?? thank you x



I'd say there are three approaches (obviously, just forcing three choices here). 

For just some basic, functional ability to escape some goober on the ground, what I teach is decent. If that's all someone wants, what I teach is enough.
If someone wants to have more than that rudimentary functionality, their easiest path is to go study for a while (at least a few months) with someplace that specializes. If they want to get really good, they keep going there.
If they want to strengthen what's in NGA (a step-up I have done, myself), they can go learn some basics from a specialist, then get good at teaching that. This probably takes as much training as #2, but covers less content, since they'd need to get good enough at it to teach it.
I don't think it's reasonable to try to bring BJJ-level ground work to NGA. The only way to do that is to have that as a specialty, and then we'd be doing BJJ. The real question is what is the "gap". For me, there was a gap I saw in my original NGA training - I didn't find much of the ground work functional. So I studied a bit with other folks who knew better and used that to incorporate some of our principles more fully into ground work. For me, that fills the basic gap in the art, and what most people are looking for from it. But not necessarily in my arsenal. If I can come up with time and money (and keep myself healthy enough), I'll probably train to blue belt in BJJ, and that will fill the gap I see in my personal arsenal. For some others, they see a bigger gap, and may want to train more heavily to fill it.



> Ha yes samesies.. that is pattern of my days.. being all beautifully mindful of the whole universe then just get utterly distracted by pizza aroma out the back of some little camionetta and forget where I am supposed to be going pffft..


Great. Now I'm thinking of pizza. You're not helping.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.
> 
> The problem is that _anyone_ can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.
> 
> ...


Well stated, Tony. I definitely consider myself a stand-up fighter. But I've fallen down in training, so why shouldn't I expect that as a possibility in the street.

EDIT: And being a stand-up fighter doesn't mean I won't take someone's back and use a RNC if I'm on the ground and no other is threatening.


----------



## mograph (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> ... the fundamentals of being able to defend yourself, *escape a bad position and get back to your feet* are extremely useful, even to a stand-up martial artist.


Preach, brother.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2017)

I think the mistake is in believing that doing a bit of crosstraining will give someone the skills they need to out-grapple a grappling specialist.  That won't happen.  If you want to out-grapple a grappling specialist, then you need to become a grappling specialist.

As to dealing with the possibility of finding yourself on the ground with an adversary in a self-defense situation, yes it would be foolish to believe that could never happen to you.  So what is the solution?  The two extremes would be to do nothing to prepare for it, or become a grappling specialist.  Or you can find something in between.  You could evaluate your needs, your talents, your interests, and the time and energy you are willing to invest in it, and work on solutions to at least escape that situation so that you can then manage your defense and your ultimate escape from a more comfortable position on your feet.  What you feel is appropriate, is up to you.  Just be realistic about your decision.  

You may find these solutions already exist within the curriculum and the principles that your system practices and teaches.  Or you may decide you need guidance from other sources.

Even choosing to do nothing about it is a perfectly good decision to make, as long as you are honest about it with yourself.  If you are content with your training and you have no inclination to do something that is not already part of what you do, you can decide that is all you are interested in doing.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.
> 
> The problem is that _anyone_ can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.
> 
> ...


Yes valid points absolutely! Make plenty of sense thank you 

I prefer to exhaust the honing of the skill I have already acquired and adapted to over time in one sole system over bringing in new and (for me) often contradictory aspects from other systems.. That is not to contend validity of other systems for me this is just personal way of thinking and working..

Yes you are right, do not bet the bank on any MA outcome.. I would say do not bet the bank on any MA at all.. It is immutable truth there is always the bigger and badder than you no matter how you care to train


----------



## Jenna (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd say there are three approaches (obviously, just forcing three choices here).
> 
> For just some basic, functional ability to escape some goober on the ground, what I teach is decent. If that's all someone wants, what I teach is enough.
> If someone wants to have more than that rudimentary functionality, their easiest path is to go study for a while (at least a few months) with someplace that specializes. If they want to get really good, they keep going there.
> ...


Again yes that make sense also.. your personal arsenal necessitate you schooling your self outside of core NGA syllabus yes.. that is all cool.. 

Though can I ask you please because you are persuaded to seek additions to your core NGA then there is not implication in this that NGA is insufficient as title of this thread to be a well-rounded system that it require out side agency to fix gaps it cannot it self fix??? thank you again x


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 18, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I think the mistake is in believing that doing a bit of crosstraining will give someone the skills they need to out-grapple a grappling specialist. That won't happen. If you want to out-grapple a grappling specialist, then you need to become a grappling specialist.


Sometimes you don't have to actually out-grapple the specialist. You just have to be able to survive long enough to escape and re-establish your preferred range.

In the early days of MMA, grapplers dominated almost every fight. Then came the era of strikers who learned just enough grappling to protect themselves long enough to escape and get back to their "A" game. Finally we got to the modern era of fighters who are highly proficient in all ranges.



Flying Crane said:


> As to dealing with the possibility of finding yourself on the ground with an adversary in a self-defense situation, yes it would be foolish to believe that could never happen to you. So what is the solution? The two extremes would be to do nothing to prepare for it, or become a grappling specialist. Or you can find something in between. You could evaluate your needs, your talents, your interests, and the time and energy you are willing to invest in it, and work on solutions to at least escape that situation so that you can then manage your defense and your ultimate escape from a more comfortable position on your feet. What you feel is appropriate, is up to you. Just be realistic about your decision.



Yep. For most self-defense purposes you don't need to be able to out-grapple a specialist. I'd say a good benchmark would be this: if you are tackled to the ground by a larger, stronger opponent who has some decent natural grappling instincts or a little experience doing backyard wrestling with his friends, and this guy gets mounted on you and tries to punch your face in, can you protect yourself and get back to your feet? If so, you have enough ground fighting expertise for the vast majority of self-defense situations.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I teach a basic hip throw (okay, it might actually be 3 different throws in Judo). I do it pretty well. With your deeper Judo background, you probably do it (meaning them) better.


Maybe. My throws are actually pretty mediocre overall, although I have occasional days when things just click.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sometimes you don't have to actually out-grapple the specialist. You just have to be able to survive long enough to escape and re-establish your preferred range.
> 
> In the early days of MMA, grapplers dominated almost every fight. Then came the era of strikers who learned just enough grappling to protect themselves long enough to escape and get back to their "A" game. Finally we got to the modern era of fighters who are highly proficient in all ranges.
> 
> ...


Defense is quicker to learn than offense, I think.   I would say anyone with the equivalent of a blue belt in BJJ (not specifically that, but at about that level), will do just fine in most grappling situations.  You might not be able to win the ADCC or the Mundials, but you'll have decent body awareness, and have enough experience to avoid making unnecessary mistakes.  We're talking a year or two of training with people who know what they're doing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Sometimes you don't have to actually out-grapple the specialist. You just have to be able to survive long enough to escape and re-establish your preferred range.
> 
> In the early days of MMA, grapplers dominated almost every fight. Then came the era of strikers who learned just enough grappling to protect themselves long enough to escape and get back to their "A" game. Finally we got to the modern era of fighters who are highly proficient in all ranges.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience.  We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.

I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money.  I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small.  We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience.  We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.
> 
> I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money.  I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small.  We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.


Truly, unless you invite this kind of risk, your chances of being tackled by anyone ever are very small.  In any of these discussions, we're talking about situations that are exceedingly unlikely for people who aren't involved in high risk professions.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 18, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience.



Yep, that definitely helps. On the other hand, a lot of martial arts students didn't have that background so they've got some catching up to do even against an untrained grappler.



Flying Crane said:


> We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.



I think it's a good idea to start from the assumption that the attacker is bigger and stronger and (by virtue of luck or surprise) has the superior position. That puts the defender behind, so it's good to have some extra skill and knowledge to compensate.



Flying Crane said:


> I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money. I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small. We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.



Yeah, unless we're professional fighters we're unlikely to be defending against the arm-bars of a Royce Gracie or the punches of a Floyd Mayweather. Still, it's good to have efficient counters for the most common real world attacks. For grappling that would mean having solid defenses for tackles, headlocks, someone mounted on you punching, someone standing over you kicking or punching, etc.



Steve said:


> Truly, unless you invite this kind of risk, your chances of being tackled by anyone ever are very small.  In any of these discussions, we're talking about situations that are exceedingly unlikely for people who aren't involved in high risk professions.



Depends. For a middle-class male who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general, you're right.

However, even a middle-class female who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, isn't involved in a high-risk profession, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general has a non-trivial chance of being a target of sexual assault or domestic violence at some point in her life. Being held down by a larger, stronger attacker is a not-uncommon feature of such assaults.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep, that definitely helps. On the other hand, a lot of martial arts students didn't have that background so they've got some catching up to do even against an untrained grappler.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it really boils down to what is reasonable, and that differs from person to person.

For most people, an attack is statistically unlikely.  Yes, danger is out there, but for most people it isn't hiding around every corner.  Spending ones life obsessively training for an attack that is unlikely to come, can become a waste of a life.  Training should have a place in ones life, if one is so inclined.  But it shouldn't take over.  There are other things that are important, to have a rich life worth living.

When I was young I used to fantasize about what I would do if I won the lottery.  I thought I would spend all of my life training, in everything I could.  In hindsight, I find that thought downright depressing, to be so one-demensional and quite possibly alone in your little bubble.


----------



## Steve (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> However, even a middle-class female who lives in a good neighborhood, doesn't abuse alcohol or drugs, doesn't have anger issues, has decent social skills, doesn't hang out with a bad crowd, isn't involved in a high-risk profession, and doesn't do stupid stuff in general has a non-trivial chance of being a target of sexual assault or domestic violence at some point in her life. Being held down by a larger, stronger attacker is a not-uncommon feature of such assaults.


True.  I had in mind the random attack situation.  You're absolutely right regarding women, and a year or so of BJJ (or equivalent) is a terrific idea. 

However, it's worth noting that the issue of female self defense is a much, much bigger topic, and grappling skills is just a sliver of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Again yes that make sense also.. your personal arsenal necessitate you schooling your self outside of core NGA syllabus yes.. that is all cool..
> 
> Though can I ask you please because you are persuaded to seek additions to your core NGA then there is not implication in this that NGA is insufficient as title of this thread to be a well-rounded system that it require out side agency to fix gaps it cannot it self fix??? thank you again x


Yes, as I received it, I saw an insufficiency in NGA. I'm not aware of anyone in NGA who was at that time teaching more extensive or effective ground work (there are some doing so now). The principles were all there, but not the right techniques. By bringing in a few techniques from outside and adapting them to NGA, it now has a reasonable set of basic ground escapes.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.
> 
> The problem is that _anyone_ can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.
> 
> ...




Mark hunt, brock lesner. Mark should have trained escapes from the deck. He was always going to be taken down.

It is one thing about the wrestling vs BJJ for strikers. If you want to short cut a bit. Dont bother with submissions you focus on escapes.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I think the mistake is in believing that doing a bit of crosstraining will give someone the skills they need to out-grapple a grappling specialist. That won't happen. If you want to out-grapple a grappling specialist, then you need to become a grappling specialist.



Here is where it gets tricky. When you say specialist do you mean takedowns, submissions or escapes?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Maybe. My throws are actually pretty mediocre overall, although I have occasional days when things just click.



Do you judo much for MMA though?

I just double leg, single leg.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, and a lot of us grew up wrestling in the back yard with the neighbor kids, so we are at least starting with that level of experience.  We may be more-or-less equal to the guy who just tackled us, so on that point at least we aren't automatically behind.
> 
> I think another mistake is that some people assume it will be Royce Gracie who tackles us for our lunch money.  I think the chances of that attacker being a highly skilled person like that is very small.  We don't need to have world champion-level skills for effective self defense.



Ok. Here is where it gets even more complicated. For me, for MMA. We don't do complicated skills. so for example to be a top specialist grappler you engage in an arms race of techniques.

So for example. Here is jason scully showing 57 guard passes.






I do one and it is called punching.

(ok. I have about 3 but the same principle.)

No MMA fighter is going to need 57 guard passes. It can very easily lead you down a rabbit hole.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Do you judo much for MMA though?
> 
> I just double leg, single leg.


My wrestling is probably a bit worse than my judo, although both need work.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My wrestling is probably a bit worse than my judo, although both need work.



Yeah ditto.

My issue is it is really hard to be good at. And sucking at wrestling really sucks.

This is why strikers tend not to want to learn wrestling.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's a valid point. There is definitely some danger that we get to thinking we know more than we do. Hell, I see this regularly with instructors talking about how to counter another style and clearly (to someone who knows the style in question), they are proposing something that would not work. Some of the value in continually exposing ourselves to people in other styles is that they show us on a regular basis how little we know. I've had enough experience with Ueshiba's Aikido, for instance, to know that there's much of their approach I actually don't understand. I've seen people in NGA with little exposure to that art confidently make claims about it that I know to be inaccurate - Dunning-Kruger, indeed. So, exposure to other styles and practitioners is one of the ways to protect against D-K. You see this in BJJ, and it's one of the things you recommend about the art, in general. It's something Drop Bear sees in MMA, and he similarly recommends it. People interact between schools/gyms, so if you're not as good as you think you are, someone will help you improve your awareness pretty soon. This is the same thing we're talking about with interaction between styles.
> 
> And I will argue that what we learn (intellectually) on MT can contribute to us being more well-rounded, in that it makes us aware (if we're willing to be honest with ourselves) of what we do not know. If I just look at videos of Wing Chun, for instance, there's much that seems to make sense. But when I hear someone on the WC forum talk about their power generation, it doesn't make sense to me. Clearly, I know less about the mechanics of WC than my viewing of a video would lead me to believe. Awareness of that lack of understanding is part of being more "well rounded", IMO.


The first part of your post reminds me of the absurd "anti-grappling" techniques.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

Steve said:


> Truly, unless you invite this kind of risk, your chances of being tackled by anyone ever are very small.  In any of these discussions, we're talking about situations that are exceedingly unlikely for people who aren't involved in high risk professions.



I don't fall off motorbikes but I do wear a quality helmet.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 18, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> The first part of your post reminds me of the absurd "anti-grappling" techniques.



You can anti grapple. You just have to train it against good grapplers. More than anything good structure defeats grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> The first part of your post reminds me of the absurd "anti-grappling" techniques.


Those were on my mind when I wrote it, along with some of the "anti-boxing".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 18, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can anti grapple. You just have to train it against good grapplers. More than anything good structure defeats grappling.


Agreed. If nothing else, you need to at the very least know what good grappling is. If all someone has is that knowledge, they'll likely devise reasonable tactics against it, even if they can't practice those against decent grapplers (a handicap, obviously). Without it, nothing they devise is likely to be useful.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, as I received it, I saw an insufficiency in NGA. I'm not aware of anyone in NGA who was at that time teaching more extensive or effective ground work (there are some doing so now). The principles were all there, but not the right techniques. By bringing in a few techniques from outside and adapting them to NGA, it now has a reasonable set of basic ground escapes.


It would be different now? Like that insufficiency is rectifiable from within the art?? I mean When Nihon Goshin was formulated Shodo Morita left a gap in the system..or? Then would that imply he fail to foresee or have incomplete experience of defence that he would know he would come up short when opponent try to force him on the ground?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> It would be different now? Like that insufficiency is rectifiable from within the art?? I mean When Nihon Goshin was formulated Shodo Morita left a gap in the system..or? Then would that imply he fail to foresee or have incomplete experience of defence that he would know he would come up short when opponent try to force him on the ground?


I don't think the necessary tools (techniques) existed within the art, though the principles did. Everything I have added to my curriculum is consistent with the principes and movement of the art. 

So, I suppose someone with a good analystical mind and patience - and a good training partner or two - could have developed workable techniques from scratch. It would take a lot of time and effort, though. I just borrowed from styles with similar principles.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> It would be different now? Like that insufficiency is rectifiable from within the art?? I mean When Nihon Goshin was formulated Shodo Morita left a gap in the system..or? Then would that imply he fail to foresee or have incomplete experience of defence that he would know he would come up short when opponent try to force him on the ground?


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


>


Wait.. Isaac Newton did MA? I wonder before Isaac Newton do his martial art people would fight and punch each other up into the air.. and but they would not come back down..


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can anti grapple. You just have to train it against good grapplers. More than anything good structure defeats grappling.


Yeah.  The videos I saw (I think they were Wing Chun guys) didn't have anything realistic because the guys who were shooting in looked like they watched a 5 minute YouTube video on shooting in at best.  Anyone with a season of pee-wee level wrestling would've taken those guys down, nullifying their "anti-grappling" skills.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think the necessary tools (techniques) existed within the art, though the principles did. Everything I have added to my curriculum is consistent with the principes and movement of the art.
> 
> So, I suppose someone with a good analystical mind and patience - and a good training partner or two - could have developed workable techniques from scratch. It would take a lot of time and effort, though. I just borrowed from styles with similar principles.


And would there be no merit in finding those workable techniques from scratch?? I mean not like reinventing a wheel and but there were no like minded folk who found the same within the art and thought.. we ought to see what ways we have available in our system to address this apparent shortcoming?? I am just picking your brains because you have interesting brain to pick


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Yeah.  The videos I saw (I think they were Wing Chun guys) didn't have anything realistic because the guys who were shooting in looked like they watched a 5 minute YouTube video on shooting in at best.  Anyone with a season of pee-wee level wrestling would've taken those guys down, nullifying their "anti-grappling" skills.



There is a lot of dumb stuff out there.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> And would there be no merit in finding those workable techniques from scratch?? I mean not like reinventing a wheel and but there were no like minded folk who found the same within the art and thought.. we ought to see what ways we have available in our system to address this apparent shortcoming?? I am just picking your brains because you have interesting brain to pick



That is kind of what Jr 173 is describing.

There are not always style specific solutions. There are just solutions.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> That is kind of what Jr 173 is describing.
> 
> There are not always style specific solutions. There are just solutions.


You would say that no style at all is complete nor can be even made complete from within its own repository of stuff? 

Is def just not a demand we have for instant gratification?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> You would say that no style at all is complete nor can be even made complete from within its own repository of stuff?
> 
> Is def just not a demand we have for instant gratification?



No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.

So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.

Aparently we have already forgotton Kung fu principles does not include take down defence. What principles can we possibly apply? 

It is like learning  to swim using kung fu principles.

And this logic seriously does my head in.

Go find a guy who can defend a takedown and use their takedown defence principles. It isn't style specific. 

The search for instant gratification is what drives this desire to find answers from inside your style. Because that way you never have to learn anything new.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There is a lot of dumb stuff out there.


Another example of a guy doing anti-grappling and thinking it works because the opponent has no clue how to shoot in...






There was only one  thing this guy said that was accurate - you have to be aware of the threat of being taken down.  EVERYTHING else was absolute garbage.

PS - one of my favorites was when he says mma guys don't know how to deal with punches.

And this wasn't the specific video I had in mind, but it serves the purpose just fine.  The video I wanted was so much worse.  Seriously.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.
> 
> So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.
> 
> ...


Did you do specific styles first or did you always train mixed arts?


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> Did you do specific styles first or did you always train mixed arts?



Specific styles first. I did a lot of hybrids which were trying to do the same thing back in the day.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Another example of a guy doing anti-grappling and thinking it works because the opponent has no clue how to shoot in...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is plenty to choose from. Defending takedowns is hard. People really dont appreciate that. Top fighters dont always defend takedowns.

 It is harder if you are the instructor and you have to go through being a noob again.

Pretending is easier.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Specific styles first. I did a lot of hybrids which were trying to do the same thing back in the day.


What kind of things make you change away from your specific styles that you did first into hybrids and/or mixed arts? (I am not establishing a dossier on you or anything haha.. just interested because your route through is different from mine)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> And would there be no merit in finding those workable techniques from scratch?? I mean not like reinventing a wheel and but there were no like minded folk who found the same within the art and thought.. we ought to see what ways we have available in our system to address this apparent shortcoming?? I am just picking your brains because you have interesting brain to pick


Merit? Yes, from an intellectual perspective. But from a martial perspective, it's more efficient (and has a higher probability of success) to look at what others do that is effective, and learn from that.

The issue with starting from entirely within an art is that you have to 1) ignore what is working elsewhere and 2) work with people inside the art, who also don't know the answer. If they don't know the answer (in this case, effective ground escapes), then they aren't experienced in the attacks, since learning an attack almost guarantees an understanding of its weaknesses and how to defend against it. That means you're developing a response without having someone with experience to provide the attack.

Mind you, I'm not concerned with being able to keep @Tony Dismukes from submitting me. I'm concerned with (as someone put it recently) someone who has some natural grappling ability, or perhaps a small amount of training. So I don't need students to practice these things against a BJJ blue belt, let's say (though it's useful if they get that chance). But it's a good thing if they are using techniques that someone like that blue belt would find useful, even if they don't develop them to the same level.

Here's part of my view on this, and maybe the clearest way to say it (which is why I've used all those other words, first ). Every art was almost certainly created with a certain amount of "outside influence" (input from people other than the "founder"). So, when we look outside the walls of our own art/style, what we look for is what belongs in the style, but we haven't seen it there. I don't actually consider the techniques I've added to my curriculum to be external to NGA. They fit pretty seamlessly into the art. They are, to me, NGA techniques that (so far as I know) weren't in the earlier curriculum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> You would say that no style at all is complete nor can be even made complete from within its own repository of stuff?
> 
> Is def just not a demand we have for instant gratification?


I don't think anyone can ever learn a full set of responses to everything. Thus, no instructor can ever teach a full set of responses to everything. Given those two truths (and I consider them such), no art can ever be transmitted with a full set of responses to everything. An attempt to do so means much of  the material will be partially transmitted, and will degrade over time, leaving a new hole in the art.

The principles of an art can, theoretically speaking, cover every possible contingency. But not the techniques. And though the techniques aren't the art, if transmission (the techniques) doesn't cover an area of use that's significantly different from what is taught, it's difficult to adapt the principles to that new use in a single generation (like transferring standing technique principles to the ground).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.
> 
> So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.
> 
> ...


I like that swimming analogy, DB.

The way I see it, we can go looking for answers that already exist. We look at a wide range of them, and look for some that actually do fit the principles of the art. If we find some, "woohoo!" If we don't, then the art probably doesn't actually have principles to effectively cover that area, and it's time to either 1) accept the gap as part of the art and cross-train if we want to fill the gap, or 2) adjust the principles of the art to allow them to include something we've found elsewhere. Both of those are acceptable answers, though the second one would be a real pain in the ***.

So, back to the analogy. If I were a WC guy, and I saw some swimming videos (teaching swimming), and saw the WC principles being used, then I can teach swimming using WC principles (mostly adapting the language to fit what I found elsewhere). But I shouldn't arbitrarily try to use WC principles if they don't already fit the problem.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Here's part of my view on this, and maybe the clearest way to say it (which is why I've used all those other words, first ). Every art was almost certainly created with a certain amount of "outside influence" (input from people other than the "founder"). So, when we look outside the walls of our own art/style, what we look for is what belongs in the style, but we haven't seen it there. I don't actually consider the techniques I've added to my curriculum to be external to NGA. They fit pretty seamlessly into the art. They are, to me, NGA techniques that (so far as I know) weren't in the earlier curriculum.


No I like all of your words! that is like the inner workings of your thinking process on display  is nice to see because it is not contrived.. Yes, absolutely I agree with you, new arts are like the music of new bands.. products of a range of influences combined with a specific passion or purpose or intent from within the band them selves.. yes.. I agree with you.. I think for me I find some thing that really resonate with me personally as a 'way' and not just a syllabus and like any good song, or piece of art, the more time I spend with it, the more depth and value I find I can get from it.. Is a depth I am quite certain I would not have uncovered had I not persuaded my self to stay within its sphere.. Exactly like you say, in many cases this appear merely like inefficiency.. I get that I do not argue about that.. nor am I advocating for any thing.. just is my own thinking and but I am interested in the myriad other ways to do martial art which is why I am asking and thank you for taking time to put all of your words down, I am grateful x


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The principles of an art can, theoretically speaking, cover every possible contingency. But not the techniques.


So in this case there is a mismatch between the principles of an art and the derivative techniques of that art from its own principles?  That would be a fail for that art then yes??


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No I would say we need to look in the right place for answere.
> 
> So we take kung fu as an example. And it has no kung fu defence. So we say how do we create takedown defence with kung fu principles.
> 
> ...


I'm sure Kung Fu has takedown defense, or more likely did at one point and was forgotten, discarded, etc. over time by most practitioner and/or teachers.  If it was truly developed to fight, and people have been taking each other down since the dawn of fighting, it most likely existed somewhere.

It's not like takedowns are a thing that were just invented within the last decade or three.  There might be more modern ways to take people down and more modern approaches, but I'd highly doubt it's never been practiced formally in Kung Fu circles up until the anti-grappling guys thought they knew what they were doing.

I'm not a Kung Fu guy, nor am I a fan at heart; I'm just playing the overwhelming odds here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> No I like all of your words! that is like the inner workings of your thinking process on display  is nice to see because it is not contrived.. Yes, absolutely I agree with you, new arts are like the music of new bands.. products of a range of influences combined with a specific passion or purpose or intent from within the band them selves.. yes.. I agree with you.. I think for me I find some thing that really resonate with me personally as a 'way' and not just a syllabus and like any good song, or piece of art, the more time I spend with it, the more depth and value I find I can get from it.. Is a depth I am quite certain I would not have uncovered had I not persuaded my self to stay within its sphere.. Exactly like you say, in many cases this appear merely like inefficiency.. I get that I do not argue about that.. nor am I advocating for any thing.. just is my own thinking and but I am interested in the myriad other ways to do martial art which is why I am asking and thank you for taking time to put all of your words down, I am grateful x


That's a key bit there, Jenna. We have to temper all of this with our individual purpose/needs. I could probably develop faster in some areas by focusing less on my primary art. But I enjoy the intellectual pursuit one reaches after a certain point in an art. So, I accept that some of my personal training time isn't at peak efficiency, from a combat development standpoint. I'm okay with that, because I have other purposes to my training, as well.

So, as long as you are getting "enough" (by your own definition) of the martial/combat side of things, then there's no harm in not seeking the most efficient path in that area. Your enjoyment of/development in the depth of the art meets other needs for you, so you follow those needs. A lot of people stay with arts over long periods of time because they enjoy this deeper pursuit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> So in this case there is a mismatch between the principles of an art and the derivative techniques of that art from its own principles?  That would be a fail for that art then yes??


I don't think it's a failure. It's just the reality. We can only cover so much, and have to draw the line somewhere. It's only a failure (IMO) if the art claims to cover something, the student wants that something, and it's not really covered.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I'm sure Kung Fu has takedown defense, or more likely did at one point and was forgotten, discarded, etc. over time by most practitioner and/or teachers.  If it was truly developed to fight, and people have been taking each other down since the dawn of fighting, it most likely existed somewhere.
> 
> It's not like takedowns are a thing that were just invented within the last decade or three.  There might be more modern ways to take people down and more modern approaches, but I'd highly doubt it's never been practiced formally in Kung Fu circles up until the anti-grappling guys thought they knew what they were doing.
> 
> I'm not a Kung Fu guy, nor am I a fan at heart; I'm just playing the overwhelming odds here.


It need not have ever had it, even to be effective for fighting, if it was assumed most students would have some basics, already. This is similar to the argument that Ueshiba may not have taught all he thought was truly necessary for Aikido, because his early students all had significant experience in some basic areas (notably, probably strikes and close-body throws). He focused on teaching what they didn't have. If it was common for the folks coming to WC to have some basic grappling (and, almost automatically, some basic counters to grappling), it may not have been necessary to include that in the art.


----------



## Jenna (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's a failure. It's just the reality. We can only cover so much, and have to draw the line somewhere. It's only a failure (IMO) if the art claims to cover something, the student wants that something, and it's not really covered.


And but if it is a system of defence that cannot assist its student in all ways that student might require its defence, that is not a failure to be what it claim to be??


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It need not have ever had it, even to be effective for fighting, if it was assumed most students would have some basics, already. This is similar to the argument that Ueshiba may not have taught all he thought was truly necessary for Aikido, because his early students all had significant experience in some basic areas (notably, probably strikes and close-body throws). He focused on teaching what they didn't have. If it was common for the folks coming to WC to have some basic grappling (and, almost automatically, some basic counters to grappling), it may not have been necessary to include that in the art.


Good points.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I like that swimming analogy, DB.
> 
> The way I see it, we can go looking for answers that already exist. We look at a wide range of them, and look for some that actually do fit the principles of the art. If we find some, "woohoo!" If we don't, then the art probably doesn't actually have principles to effectively cover that area, and it's time to either 1) accept the gap as part of the art and cross-train if we want to fill the gap, or 2) adjust the principles of the art to allow them to include something we've found elsewhere. Both of those are acceptable answers, though the second one would be a real pain in the ***.
> 
> So, back to the analogy. If I were a WC guy, and I saw some swimming videos (teaching swimming), and saw the WC principles being used, then I can teach swimming using WC principles (mostly adapting the language to fit what I found elsewhere). But I shouldn't arbitrarily try to use WC principles if they don't already fit the problem.



Yeah. That is why I have been adding. Non style specific to a lot of my posts now.

Takedown defence is not a wrestling principle. It is a takedown defence principle that wrestlers use.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I'm sure Kung Fu has takedown defense, or more likely did at one point and was forgotten, discarded, etc. over time by most practitioner and/or teachers.  If it was truly developed to fight, and people have been taking each other down since the dawn of fighting, it most likely existed somewhere.
> 
> It's not like takedowns are a thing that were just invented within the last decade or three.  There might be more modern ways to take people down and more modern approaches, but I'd highly doubt it's never been practiced formally in Kung Fu circles up until the anti-grappling guys thought they knew what they were doing.
> 
> I'm not a Kung Fu guy, nor am I a fan at heart; I'm just playing the overwhelming odds here.



Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.

So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.

MMA you are a bit crap at both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

Jenna said:


> And but if it is a system of defence that cannot assist its student in all ways that student might require its defence, that is not a failure to be what it claim to be??


Not in my view. If it improves their overall ability to defend, it's a system of defense. Every system will have some holes. If a system is meant to be comprehensive, then it would be a failure (in my opinion) to have a large area (like ground defense) that isn't covered at least perfunctorily with some effective tools. But if a system is meant, for instance, to be a striking system used for self-defense, then a lack of ground grappling isn't a failure - it's simply something it wasn't meant to cover. The instructor should probably recommend students get some ground (and other) grappling experience, and perhaps bring in some seminars on it, but it need not be within the system, itself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. That is why I have been adding. Non style specific to a lot of my posts now.
> 
> Takedown defence is not a wrestling principle. It is a takedown defence principle that wrestlers use.


That's a good way of looking at it. I have several tools that I teach in my curriculum, which aren't really part of NGA - they are specifically not style specific, in my experience. Some of the takedown defenses, hip throws, leg sweep variations, and some of the ground work. Much of that didn't come from my NGA experience, but work very well within it - as with many other styles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.
> 
> So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.
> 
> MMA you are a bit crap at both.


I need to ponder that. I've been training in an art that includes both for a long time, and my personal use has graduated more and more to striking over the last 10 years or so. I've never considered the principles as contradictory, but maybe only because I've never really considered it.

Good food for thought.


----------



## Buka (Jul 20, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.
> 
> So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.
> 
> MMA you are a bit crap at both.



I don't know, the principles can work together well, some of them, anyway. The principles of a good punch come from a good base, at least the way we train. In grappling, you have to have a good base, at least the way we were taught. As an example of the blend of the two, look at a nice overhand right. You have to be in position to land it, so you're well within punching distance. If you use the proper principles and mechanics of an overhand right, you can use it as a disguise to shoot for a double or single leg. It can be a nice little cheat to get at his lower body.

Likewise, on the ground, if you have someone in your closed guard, using your core and hips to hold them, or move them to slightly different distances, or slightly left or right, you can utilize your punching, or elbows, with pretty much the same torquing principles as you would standing up. Your base would be different, but your core rotation would follow the same principles, albeit, not as strongly.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 20, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Striking principles dont really mix well with grappling principles. It is a dynamic shift that gets used in MMA a lot. So you strike. Which makes the other guy use striking defensive principles. Then you takedown because he is then vunerable to takedown principles.
> 
> So as a striking system gets better at striking they move further away from wrestling.
> 
> MMA you are a bit crap at both.





Buka said:


> I don't know, the principles can work together well, *some* of them, anyway.



The key word here is "some." A lot of concepts do carry over from one domain to another, while others conflict or at least have to be applied differently. That's why you'll never see a fighter come out in a wrestling stance for a Muay Thai match or in a Muay Thai stance for a wrestling match.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> I don't know, the principles can work together well, some of them, anyway. The principles of a good punch come from a good base, at least the way we train. In grappling, you have to have a good base, at least the way we were taught. As an example of the blend of the two, look at a nice overhand right. You have to be in position to land it, so you're well within punching distance. If you use the proper principles and mechanics of an overhand right, you can use it as a disguise to shoot for a double or single leg. It can be a nice little cheat to get at his lower body.
> 
> Likewise, on the ground, if you have someone in your closed guard, using your core and hips to hold them, or move them to slightly different distances, or slightly left or right, you can utilize your punching, or elbows, with pretty much the same torquing principles as you would standing up. Your base would be different, but your core rotation would follow the same principles, albeit, not as strongly.





Tony Dismukes said:


> The key word here is "some." A lot of concepts do carry over from one domain to another, while others conflict or at least have to be applied differently. That's why you'll never see a fighter come out in a wrestling stance for a Muay Thai match or in a Muay Thai stance for a wrestling match.


I find kicking conflicts with it more than anything else.  When I'm kicking, I'm a bit too upright to defend and shoot as well as if I'm in a boxing stance with my chin tucked and my shoulders slightly rounded.  I try to kick from a natural boxing stance, but it just doesn't flow well for me.  I'm not much of a kicker anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 20, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I find kicking conflicts with it more than anything else.  When I'm kicking, I'm a bit too upright to defend and shoot as well as if I'm in a boxing stance with my chin tucked and my shoulders slightly rounded.  I try to kick from a natural boxing stance, but it just doesn't flow well for me.  I'm not much of a kicker anyway.


I can definitely agree with that. I rarely kick, unless it's an opening move on someone not being cautious enough, or someone just gives me an opening too sweet to pass up.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 20, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I find kicking conflicts with it more than anything else.  When I'm kicking, I'm a bit too upright to defend and shoot as well as if I'm in a boxing stance with my chin tucked and my shoulders slightly rounded.  I try to kick from a natural boxing stance, but it just doesn't flow well for me.  I'm not much of a kicker anyway.



Depends how you kick as well.

Thai style kicks are a bit easy to take advantage of. Karate style or flick style kicks come off a lot less predictably but not as hard.

So then you weigh up is it worth maybe having to fight off your back to throw a hard kick.


----------

