# Complete System? Is there one?



## bart (Mar 16, 2004)

I know this has been brought up before, but I want to question again the idea of a "complete" art. Looking at the developmental process involved in learning the martial arts we can see a consistent movement toward "completeness". But I think that ultimately there is no such thing as a "complete" art. What art can recognize , strategize, address, and then train for every possible contingency? It seems a bit of an overreach to claim that your art is "complete" in that sense. The best we can get is a constant development toward that end.

I would like to pose a few questions to those on the list that claim that their art is complete: 

1. What is your definition of "complete"? 
2. What are the components of your art that make it attain that definition of "complete"? 
3. How does a proponent of a self-defined "complete" art explain the existence of techniques and strategies that exist in other arts, but not their own?

Thanks.


----------



## bart (Mar 16, 2004)

I posted this originally in the Eskrima Digest, but I wanted to see what people here thought about this topic. The original thread was about Balintawak and whether it's complete or not. I raise issue with the idea of a "complete" art. But I'm open to different interpretations.


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2004)

bart said:
			
		

> I know this has been brought up before, but I want to question again the idea of a "complete" art. Looking at the developmental process involved in learning the martial arts we can see a consistent movement toward "completeness". But I think that ultimately there is no such thing as a "complete" art. What art can recognize , strategize, address, and then train for every possible contingency? It seems a bit of an overreach to claim that your art is "complete" in that sense. The best we can get is a constant development toward that end.
> 
> I would like to pose a few questions to those on the list that claim that their art is complete:
> 
> ...



Interesting thread and I'm sure it will spark quite the debate.  Ok--to answer your questions.

Of course, EVERYBODY is gonna tell you that there system is complete.  This may or may not be true, depending on who you talk to.  What 1 persons idea of complete is, is DEFINATELY gonna be different from the next.  My answers to you questions are as follows.

1- Being complete, IMO, means having knowledge in all of the ranges of fighting-- punching, kicking, clinching, and grappling.  Now, if you talk to a Kenpo student they will tell you that Kenpo has all of this.  Yes and No.  Sure there are grappling moves, such as a lapel grab, but I'm talking about defense on the ground and having a good understanding of it.  

2-  I've done Kenpo for 17yrs.  I crosstrain in Modern Arnis to give me my weapon (stick & blade) skills, as well as the locking, trapping, and limb destruction moves that it also contains.  I also train in BJJ, and the reason for that is obvious.  And if it isnt, here is the reason.  We have all heard the pros and cons of rolling on the ground, but IMO, if you should happen to find yourself there, you better know what to do, otherwise, you could find yourself in a world of trouble.  

3- As I said before, you have bits and pieces of things in ALL arts.  What people need to look at, is exactly how much of those bits and pieces actuallly exist in their art.  I used the Kenpo as an example.  You have your standing grappling, and sure, some techs. can be applied to the ground.  But, I look at it this way.  If you really want to learn something and really have a good understanding of it, then you need to go to someone who specializes in what you're seeking.  And if that means crosstraining in another art to get that, then so be it.  How can you say that you can learn more about ground fighting in Kenpo than you could learn from Rickson Gracie??  

Mike


----------



## DoxN4cer (Mar 16, 2004)

Gotta agree with you, Mike. People wouldn't cross train if "their" system wasn't lacking in something. Once you recognize where the shortcomings of the system you train in you had better find somebody who can fill in the blanks for you.

Some systems come close, but no system is 100% complete and infallable.  

Everybody claims that they teach a complete system and many openly cross train, but few will give credit where it's due. Not many, that would be admitting that what they learned is incomplete.

Tim Kashino


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 16, 2004)

I dont think the question should be directed to the art but to the individual. I think it should be what art makes you a complete person. A person able to deal with various situations in the proper maner.

What do you think ?

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				bart said:
			
		

> I know this has been brought up before, but I want to question again the idea of a "complete" art. Looking at the developmental process involved in learning the martial arts we can see a consistent movement toward "completeness". But I think that ultimately there is no such thing as a "complete" art. What art can recognize , strategize, address, and then train for every possible contingency? It seems a bit of an overreach to claim that your art is "complete" in that sense. The best we can get is a constant development toward that end.
> 
> I would like to pose a few questions to those on the list that claim that their art is complete:
> 
> ...


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2004)

Chicago Green Dragon said:
			
		

> I dont think the question should be directed to the art but to the individual. I think it should be what art makes you a complete person. A person able to deal with various situations in the proper maner.
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> ...



Thats a good point.  Everybody does the arts for a different reason.  So, I suppose as long as that person is getting what they want out of it, I guess thats all that should matter.

Mike


----------



## bart (Mar 16, 2004)

Chicago Green Dragon said:
			
		

> I dont think the question should be directed to the art but to the individual. I think it should be what art makes you a complete person. A person able to deal with various situations in the proper maner.
> 
> What do you think ?
> 
> ...




IMHO, I agree. Firstly, I believe the arts are about defending yourself and the people and things that you care about. By developing ourselves within that specific framework of need we can allow ourselves to grow in ways that more forgiving enterprises such as quilting or chess cannot do. But overall, effectiveness is primary. Now developmentally, training in the arts is first a process of taking our predecessors' discoveries and applying them to our own lives and circumstances, making them our own and then using what we've learned to develop further and discover new principles and methods or rediscover ones that have been lost.  

My problem with the idea of completeness within an art is that it gets in the way of the efficacy of the art. By believing that what you are doing is complete, you are excused from developing and furthering the arts yourself. By believing that what you are doing is complete you are making yourself blind to the fact that know one can know all things. Essentially your mind becomes closed and the system becomes stagnant. This is especially dangerous with the confidence in fighting ability that people gain in training. 

I also get that my understanding of what is "complete" may differ GREATLY from what someone else may believe. I'm interested in understanding what those other opinions are though, because some people that I respect greatly view their arts as "complete".


----------



## DoxN4cer (Mar 16, 2004)

I agree as well. "Complete" can be a relative term depending on what you're looking for in your exploration of martial arts. 

I suppose "settling" on one system as "complete" and following its leaders in blind faith is just as bad as claiming that your system is "complete" and ripping off drills and "higher concepts" from other systems without giving credit were it is due. Either way it robs the individual of potential growth. Following in blind faith stffles independent thought and creativity.  Ripping off material from others sacrifices consistancy as well as one's integrity.    

Tim Kashino


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Mar 16, 2004)

bart said:
			
		

> I posted this originally in the Eskrima Digest, but I wanted to see what people here thought about this topic. The original thread was about Balintawak and whether it's complete or not. I raise issue with the idea of a "complete" art. But I'm open to different interpretations.


I personally don't think Balintawak is a "complete" system.  I don't think my instructor does either.  There's a good chance that this "complete system" concept is specifically geared for the more commercialized martial arts world.  I doubt, backyard martial arts afficionados care about whether their art is "complete" or not, they are more interested on whether it works when the time comes to use it.

I have just began training in Balintawak.  It's a purely one stick eskrima style, with empty-hand techniques, as well as knife defenses.  What is useful about Balintawak, is not the weapons or techniques, but rather it's concentration on strategy, timing, ability to read your opponent, and non-telegraphic offensive hits.  I've only been training a few weeks, but the goal has already been clearly outlined for me.

So, for me, it's not so much whether an art is "complete" or not, but whether it is useful or not.  Once I am able to reach the end goal of Balintawak, I can combine these with power and speed.  But, more importantly, once I have attained these, I can easily cross into other styles and systems, and have an easier time mastering these styles.


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 16, 2004)

I believe that you can always better your best. So if you become proficient in a martial art and are able to deal with things that happen in a situation. You can still better your best by learning new techniques from your system or other styles that are out there.

So the completeness is never really complete.

The eternal student that knows there is always more to learn or something new to do....... A person just has to be humble enough to see it and give it a try when they do.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian: 



			
				bart said:
			
		

> IMHO, I agree. Firstly, I believe the arts are about defending yourself and the people and things that you care about. By developing ourselves within that specific framework of need we can allow ourselves to grow in ways that more forgiving enterprises such as quilting or chess cannot do. But overall, effectiveness is primary. Now developmentally, training in the arts is first a process of taking our predecessors' discoveries and applying them to our own lives and circumstances, making them our own and then using what we've learned to develop further and discover new principles and methods or rediscover ones that have been lost.
> 
> My problem with the idea of completeness within an art is that it gets in the way of the efficacy of the art. By believing that what you are doing is complete, you are excused from developing and furthering the arts yourself. By believing that what you are doing is complete you are making yourself blind to the fact that know one can know all things. Essentially your mind becomes closed and the system becomes stagnant. This is especially dangerous with the confidence in fighting ability that people gain in training.
> 
> I also get that my understanding of what is "complete" may differ GREATLY from what someone else may believe. I'm interested in understanding what those other opinions are though, because some people that I respect greatly view their arts as "complete".


----------



## Rocky (Mar 17, 2004)

What good is a complete art unless you complete it?

 A method/art  has a much better chance of being complete vs. a style/art. I teach a method/art, Cuentada De Mano is a method/art, therefore if you don't become complete it is not because of the art. In CDM we concentrate on not just developing certain body mechanics and moves, but also how to grow as a martial artists, if you see an area your are weak in then you seek out the ansewer whereever you can find it, and make it yours,  it is the "ART" or "METHOD" of progressing. 

 No matter what anyone says it boils down to what you put into it. 


Rocky


----------



## DoxN4cer (Mar 17, 2004)

Rocky said:
			
		

> What good is a complete art unless you complete it?
> ... No matter what anyone says it boils down to what you put into it.
> 
> 
> Rocky



Well said, Rock. Hey man, what's up with that book you were working on?

Tim Kashino


----------



## Rocky (Mar 17, 2004)

Actually the Balintawak book is done I just need to take pics and get it to Ted, its been done for about 4 year!!!!!!!!!!! I know Iam procratinator big time. Hell I have thre or four articles on CDM and Modified un - grouped Balintawak. I just get going on two many things at once. Now I got 3 kids, two business, plus real estate. I think I can do it this summer.

Rocky


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 17, 2004)

Rocky said:
			
		

> Actually the Balintawak book is done I just need to take pics and get it to Ted, its been done for about 4 year!!!!!!!!!!! I know Iam procratinator big time. Hell I have thre or four articles on CDM and Modified un - grouped Balintawak. I just get going on two many things at once. Now I got 3 kids, two business, plus real estate. I think I can do it this summer.
> 
> Rocky


Rocky,

If you need someone to hold a light or micrphone or get hit for you, just let me know and I will help you out.

:asian:


----------



## bdparsons (Mar 17, 2004)

Maybe it's not so much a question of a "complete art" as it is a question of a "competent art". Is the art you study competent it what it proposes to teach? Completeness in any martial art must be defined by parameters. By whose parameters do we decide? I know walking into a BJJ school that they are not proposing to teach me how to be a stand-up striker, or a stick fighter. They have goals to teach me what their art does best, ground fighting. I personally am always leery of anybody telling me they are going to teach me a "complete" fighting system. No one has all the answers, some just have more than others.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## DoxN4cer (Mar 17, 2004)

bdparsons said:
			
		

> Maybe it's not so much a question of a "complete art" as it is a question of a "competent art". Is the art you study competent it what it proposes to teach? Completeness in any martial art must be defined by parameters. By whose parameters do we decide? I know walking into a BJJ school that they are not proposing to teach me how to be a stand-up striker, or a stick fighter. They have goals to teach me what their art does best, ground fighting. I personally am always leery of anybody telling me they are going to teach me a "complete" fighting system. No one has all the answers, some just have more than others.
> 
> Respects,
> Bill Parsons
> Triangle Kenpo Institute



Ah ha!!! A fresh point of view. Excellent twist to the thread... completeness vs. competence... hmmm. How about Comprehensive vs Complete? I guess that's sort of similar. There has been some really great dialog along these lines on the Eskrima Digest lately as well. Gat Puno Abon Baet had some inssteresting things to say about completeness and mastery of martial arts.    

Hey Rock, shoot me a message when your book is done. 

Tim Kashino


----------



## KyleShort (Mar 17, 2004)

I'll assume that we are discussing completeness in the context of self defense.  In my mind the problem lies in the idea of a system.  What is a system?  Is it a collection of predefined techniques designed to respond to specific events?  Or is a system a vessel?  Does the system act as a vessel with which the practitioner discovers the fundamental precepts of human to human combatives? We all know that human bio-mechanics does not change from person to person or system to system, and we also know that there are a finite number vulnerablilities of the human anatomy.  Furthermore, we know that the proper response to a viloent assault is found in a combination of urgency and dammage as commanded by necessity and law.  Whether it is the psychological response to necessity, or an understanding of human vulnerability and bio-mechanics...we are still talking about principles.

During a violent assault, these principles dynamically manifest themselves as the event progresses.  So if your system is treated as a static collection of techniques, then no it is not complete.  Cross training in different systems will get you closer, but not nearly close enough, to being able to handle all of the different situations that you may encounter.

Ultimately I think that you need to use your system as a training vessel and focus on the fundamental precepts of combat.  The techniques that your sytem contains should serve as example manifestations of core principles.  With this approach, you should be able to get complete training while utilizing a given system as your vessel.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 17, 2004)

Tony Blauer says...

"Survival training is not complicated. The 'truth' is rather simple, but will require a paradigm shift, which may be difficult for a community that notoriously waits for a tragedy to change SOP's and tactics. Real fighting - STREET SURVIVAL - *has little to do with a technique, martial arts or finesse.* Street survival training is about ATTITUDE, PREPARATION and INTEGRITY. Learn to discern fact from fantasy. Commit to the truth and pursue excellence."


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 17, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Tony Blauer says...
> 
> "Survival training is not complicated. The 'truth' is rather simple, but will require a paradigm shift, which may be difficult for a community that notoriously waits for a tragedy to change SOP's and tactics. Real fighting - STREET SURVIVAL - *has little to do with a technique, martial arts or finesse.* Street survival training is about ATTITUDE, PREPARATION and INTEGRITY. Learn to discern fact from fantasy. Commit to the truth and pursue excellence."



Under that blanket of thought, it puts the onus on the individual to seek out complete training instead of seeking a single art that is complete.

Within a self defense context, completeness of training would have to mean that you are at least familiarized with the possible threats that would be faced, and train in applications/drills/tactics/responses that would neutralize the threat and allow for escape.  This doesn't have to mean that it is a 'tab A into slot B' art.  It could be a bag of fundamental movements that push basic conceptual and tactical goals that the student learns to apply in a variety of situations.  Either concept or technical approach had better cover all the ranges and skills necessary at every range to be complete:  

Situational awareness/assessment (OODA loops, color codes), 

firearms defenses, both with and against said weapon(cover/concealment/disarm/disfunction), 

non ballistic long weapons (sticks,clubs, tire irons, bats...), 
kicks, 
non ballistic short weapons (saps, knives, screwdrivers...), punches/palmstrikes, close range (elbows, knees, standing grappling), 
ground fighting (mount, guard, disengage, bites, gouges chokes...).

To be 'complete', students would have to have some firearms recognition and operation training, so they know what and where to grab, rates and ranges of fire.... where the safety is so they can either use (personal choice) or more effectively defend against firearms.  Also some non ballistic weapon (long/short) training to effectively defend against as well as employing said weapon in these situations.  And, of course the empty hand techniques and applications that most people associate with martial training.

I think there are 'complete' tactical systems or schools of strategy, but I don't think there are any complete arts. IMO, arts are a subset of systems that focus on specific applications of tools within the tactical/strategic theory of the system.  Example:  TKD would be based on the same operational doctrine/tactical theory that would outline individual firearms employment, team operations, unit doctrines...all the way up to whole armies for the Korean military.  The operational/tactical theory would be the overall framework.  The faster that a person in this kind of 'system' understand which tactical theories and concepts are being emphasised and repeated at every level/scale, the better he will be able to flow and respond appropriately.


----------



## Joe Eccleston (Mar 17, 2004)

Rocky said:
			
		

> Actually the Balintawak book is done I just need to take pics and get it to Ted, its been done for about 4 year!!!!!!!!!!! I know Iam procratinator big time. Hell I have thre or four articles on CDM and Modified un - grouped Balintawak. I just get going on two many things at once. Now I got 3 kids, two business, plus real estate. I think I can do it this summer.
> 
> Rocky


hi, rocky... will the book be strictly martial arts (i.e. techniques, steps, pictures of people striking...) , or will you also have history and biographies included about balintawak.  hopefully, you'll get it out within this year.  i'll definitely get a copy.  in gm taboada's site, they are also coming out with a book.  so, far i don't think there has been a book about balintawak.


----------

