# Training 2 different styles



## Aspida (Nov 14, 2017)

Greetings!

A year ago i started off with Muay Thai up until May,then me and a couple of friends decided to start training Shotokan Karate and in doing so i stopped going to MT. Recently i started missing MT and wish to start training again,but i want to train Karate as well, and i'm thinking of going with both of them. And here is the question,since these 2 are completely different styles and i wanted to ask if i train both will i have any troubles with executing the moves or training, etc... ?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 14, 2017)

Quite possibly, but you won't know until you try.
Did you have any issues adapting to Shotokan? Either way, I would try both together if that's what you want to do, and just pay attention to if the principles go against each other and are causing you issues. If they do conflict, choose the one you like more.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 14, 2017)

Aspida said:


> Greetings!
> 
> A year ago i started off with Muay Thai up until May,then me and a couple of friends decided to start training Shotokan Karate and in doing so i stopped going to MT. Recently i started missing MT and wish to start training again,but i want to train Karate as well, and i'm thinking of going with both of them. And here is the question,since these 2 are completely different styles and i wanted to ask if i train both will i have any troubles with executing the moves or training, etc... ?


 I don't think you'll have as much trouble as you will one system bleeding into the other.  The mechanics of Shotokan and Muay Thai are different so expect it to bleed into each other.   It's not a death sentence for training. I will eventually even out but there will still be hints and flickers that you train 2 different systems.  

With that said, if it does cause too much conflict then do what kempo disciple suggested about choosing the one you like more.   If you don't plan on doing competitive fighting or forms competition then I wouldn't worry about it.  Do both, especially if you are just taking them to stay fit.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 14, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> With that said, if it does cause too much conflict then do what kempo disciple suggested about choosing the one you like more.   If you don't plan on doing competitive fighting or forms competition then I wouldn't worry about it.  Do both, especially if you are just taking them to stay fit.


This is a good point I didn't think about. Whatever your focus is is important. If you just want to stay fit/learn basic self-defense and be around your friends, even if they do conflict it shouldn't matter. It's only an issue if they conflict if it bothers you (you compete or feel like you're learning too slowly). It's easy to forget people may have different goals when training...


----------



## Aspida (Nov 14, 2017)

Thank you so much guys ! I really appreciate it


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 14, 2017)

If the money and time is no issue then sure


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2017)

Doing different styles forces you to engage in fighting mechanics that you may be able to avoid by specializing.

So it should make you a more complete martial artist.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 14, 2017)

Aspida said:


> A year ago i started off with Muay Thai up until May,then me and a couple of friends decided to start training Shotokan Karate and in doing so i stopped going to MT.


The MT roundhouse kick is completely different from the Karate roundhouse kick. Do you use both, or do you just use one?


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 14, 2017)

There is an argument that consistency is Important and leads to higher skills.

Differences in methodology between systems can cause inconsistency in how you train and use your techniques.  That can hinder and undermine your growth.

Training multiple systems can be a good thing, or it can be a mess, or anything in between.  

In my opinion, most people do not train one system well, much less multiple systems.  

So, you decide for yourself if the potential benefits outweigh the potential pitfalls.  Just understand that the pitfalls are real.


----------



## Charlemagne (Nov 14, 2017)

I certainly don't have a problem with people training in more than one martial art.  I would suggest however that the combination of arts that are quite different from one another would make more sense.  At some point, the combination of two striking arts, which use different mechanics and operate off of different assumptions is likely to be problematic.  It makes much more sense in my view to combine arts that compliment each other by filling in holes or providing solutions that the other art lacks. 

Having said that, it's your time and your money, so you can make your own decisions.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 14, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> I certainly don't have a problem with people training in more than one martial art.  I would suggest however that the combination of arts that are quite different from one another would make more sense.  At some point, the combination of two striking arts, which use different mechanics and operate off of different assumptions is likely to be problematic.  It makes much more sense in my view to combine arts that compliment each other by filling in holes or providing solutions that the other art lacks.
> 
> Having said that, it's your time and your money, so you can make your own decisions.



I don't know. I tried to pull guard in wrestling last night. And to be honest if that is the down side of either being able to learn submissions or learning takedowns. I will accept that every now and then in a wrestling match I might move a bit wrong for the rule set.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 15, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I tried to pull guard in wrestling last night.


One time a guy used pull guard on me. I dropped my elbow right on his throat. He was very mad and asked me why did I do that for. I told him that in Chinese wrestling, to use pull guard is a no no. In the old time, by using pull guard in a Chinese wrestling field would cause "fist fight" after the sport.

Different rule sets for different sports can cause problem. It's better to understand the difference before the match starts.


----------



## webmaster786 (Nov 15, 2017)

Yes man in my opinion. All Muay Thai and MMA champions are trained karate.If you want to join Muay Thai, do not spend all of your time training Muay Thai. That would be stupid. Take several hours a week that can be used to train Muay Thai and use it instead to train Karate.


----------



## Aspida (Nov 15, 2017)

I can do both pretty good


Kung Fu Wang said:


> The MT roundhouse kick is completely different from the Karate roundhouse kick. Do you use both, or do you just use one?


----------



## MI_martialist (Nov 15, 2017)

They are different?  There are really only two ways to fight...armed and unarmed...


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 15, 2017)

I never really understood people's rejection of training in more than one style.  I believe it is born out of jealousy and even if you are not, it is an opinion passed down to you from your instructor. Your teacher told you to only train one style so you tell your students to only train one style.  I call BS on it.
The brain has a lot of plasticity to it. It has the potential to learn more than you will ever feed it the opportunity.  Learning a martial art style is similar to learning a language. We can learn as many languages as we have effort and the will to practice. And just like language it does take a little bit more effort in the beginning for the brain to make sense and map out the similarities and the differences between the two. (Or 3 or 4)
_"If you learn baseball, you can't learn hockey or football"_
Doesn't make sense ,,,does it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I never really understood people's rejection of training in more than one style.  I believe it is born out of jealousy and even if you are not, it is an opinion passed down to you from your instructor. Your teacher told you to only train one style so you tell your students to only train one style.  I call BS on it.
> The brain has a lot of plasticity to it. It has the potential to learn more than you will ever feed it the opportunity.  Learning a martial art style is similar to learning a language. We can learn as many languages as we have effort and the will to practice. And just like language it does take a little bit more effort in the beginning for the brain to make sense and map out the similarities and the differences between the two. (Or 3 or 4)
> _"If you learn baseball, you can't learn hockey or football"_
> Doesn't make sense ,,,does it.


The sports analogy may not be a good example. Cricket and baseball will have a similar effect to what some people are talking about.  Both are are sports that use a swing to hit an incoming ball, but the mechanics are different.  A cricket swing won't help your baseball ability.   Muay Thai kicks won't necessarily make you better with karate kicks because the mechanics are differet.   karate + judo = great. Kung fu + Shuai Jiao = great.   Boxing + kung fu = not so great because boxing stances and mechanics make it difficult to do many of the kung fu techniques. Me knowing boxing won't necessarily help me with kung fu striking.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I never really understood people's rejection of training in more than one style.  I believe it is born out of jealousy and even if you are not, it is an opinion passed down to you from your instructor. Your teacher told you to only train one style so you tell your students to only train one style.  I call BS on it.
> The brain has a lot of plasticity to it. It has the potential to learn more than you will ever feed it the opportunity.  Learning a martial art style is similar to learning a language. We can learn as many languages as we have effort and the will to practice. And just like language it does take a little bit more effort in the beginning for the brain to make sense and map out the similarities and the differences between the two. (Or 3 or 4)
> _"If you learn baseball, you can't learn hockey or football"_
> Doesn't make sense ,,,does it.


My opinion isn't based on my teacher, or jealousy. I trained in kempo, then in kempo/kickboxing, had no issues there. I tried to also train in wing chun, had a lot of trouble with that. The training itself seemed good, but my body just had a lot of trouble adapting to the movements in wing chun compared to the other two. Eventually it started adapting, and I started having issues moving how I wanted in my kempo/kickboxing classes. So I quit wing chun.

I still cross train, but not WC, and I'm cautious about adding something new and trying to force it if it feels contrary to what I already know.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I never really understood people's rejection of training in more than one style.  I believe it is born out of jealousy and even if you are not, it is an opinion passed down to you from your instructor. Your teacher told you to only train one style so you tell your students to only train one style.  I call BS on it.
> The brain has a lot of plasticity to it. It has the potential to learn more than you will ever feed it the opportunity.  Learning a martial art style is similar to learning a language. We can learn as many languages as we have effort and the will to practice. And just like language it does take a little bit more effort in the beginning for the brain to make sense and map out the similarities and the differences between the two. (Or 3 or 4)
> _"If you learn baseball, you can't learn hockey or football"_
> Doesn't make sense ,,,does it.


My opinion is based on my own experiences in training multiple systems.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 15, 2017)

The biggest argument I see is the time dedicated to each art.  If I have 6 hours a week to train, I’ll get far better at either art than I will if I split that 6 hours to 3 hours of X and 3 of Y.

So a sports analogy - I decide to take up basketball and soccer at the same time.  If I spend all 6 hours practicing basketball, I’ll be far better at basketball in a year than if I only spent 3 hours a week. 

I’m a fan of training different systems/styles.  But I think someone should have a solid base beforehand, and all outside training afterwards should be to supplement and/or compliment that base style.  So if I’m a karate guy, I should get past that learning curve where everything needs a lot of work before I start boxing.  Once I’m to the point where improvements are significantly slower and more subtle, then I’ll take up boxing.  Boxing will (hypothetically) make me a better karateka - different footwork, mechanics of movement, different sparring partners, etc.  But I have to know what I’m doing well enough to know what to incorporate into my personal fighting methods and what to discard.  If I don’t know my base and myself well enough, there will be far more trial and error of figuring out what meshes well and what’s throwing me off.

But it ultimately comes down to ultimate goals.  Do you want to master one art, are you looking for a better way of exercising and socializing, or something in between?  There’s no wrong answer to that.  Personally I’d rather get really good at one thing, then take something else that’ll make me better at it and/or fill in the gaps.  I’d love to learn Judo.  I don’t have enough time to dedicate to both Judo and karate.  If I started Judo right now, I’d be halfassing both arts.  My brain doesn’t allow me to halfass anything; I need to get really good at one thing before I move onto the next.  Not everyone is like that, and it doesn’t make me or someone else better or worse.


----------



## Buka (Nov 15, 2017)

Welcome to MartialTalk, Aspida. 

You're young, have plenty of time. Give them a go for a couple years, see how it goes.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> There is an argument that consistency is Important and leads to higher skills.
> 
> Differences in methodology between systems can cause inconsistency in how you train and use your techniques.  That can hinder and undermine your growth.
> 
> ...



The pitfalls of consistent training in one style is you never inovate. You become a copy of a copy. It would be as if you only had access to one instructor and dilligently followed his method. You never really achieve understanding. Like a parrot never really learns english.

It will also effect your mental process because you focus on form rather than function.

Something works but it does not conform to the mindset. And so is discarded.

So while the perception is that you gain mastery as your ability to replicate becomes better. There is a level of ability you just cant get past.

Inovation is harder. It will mean more work and more time. But you get out what you put in in martial arts.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 15, 2017)

drop bear said:


> The pitfalls of consistent training in one style is you never inovate. You become a copy of a copy. It would be as if you only had access to one instructor and dilligently followed his method. You never really achieve understanding. Like a parrot never really learns english.
> 
> It will also effect your mental process because you focus on form rather than function.
> 
> ...


Yes and no.  Depends on the teacher and classmates.  A lot of schools have a few different people teaching, so you do get a few different perspectives on the same things.  My CI and his right-hand-man compliment each other quite well.  Their individual strengths easily make up for each others’ weaknesses. Not all places have that though.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 15, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Yes and no.  Depends on the teacher and classmates.  A lot of schools have a few different people teaching, so you do get a few different perspectives on the same things.  My CI and his right-hand-man compliment each other quite well.  Their individual strengths easily make up for each others’ weaknesses. Not all places have that though.



But in theory that should mess you up worse. Because then you have 2 different takes on the one system. If that is actually a benefit then maybe this idea of actively training mental elasticity has some merit.

There is even science behind this idea.
brain elasticity | SharpBrains


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 15, 2017)

drop bear said:


> But in theory that should mess you up worse. Because then you have 2 different takes on the one system. If that is actually a benefit then maybe this idea of actively training mental elasticity has some merit.
> 
> There is even science behind this idea.
> brain elasticity | SharpBrains


I’m not arguing brain n elasticity at all; I don’t think any reasonable person will have any major issues learned multiple systems simultaneously.  As I said in an earlier post, it depends on how much time they have to train and how good they want to get at a particular system.  Let’s say I can train Monday Wednesday and Friday nights.  If I do karate Monday, Judo Wednesday, and boxing Friday, how good will I be at any individual one of those in a year?  If I want to get really good at karate, I’d probably be best off training that the 3 nights every week instead of one night a week.

If I’m looking to be the most complete fighter I can be in a year and or complete in MMA in a year, I’d probably be best off doing all 3 simultaneously.  I’d most likely benefit from someone who knows how to tie all of those together too.

As for the 2 different teachers, it’s not two entirely different takes on the same system.  It’s different ways of communicating the same thing.  You and I can both teach Newton’s laws of motion, but we may explain it a bit differently.  If we shared a student, some things you might say might click better than some things I’d say and vice versa.  My CI and the 2nd in charge are on the same page, but their language during feedback can be different.  My CI is more of a big picture and hands off and let me work it out the minor details for myself kind of guy, whereas the other one explains the details more thoroughly and fine tuning kind of guy.  I’d be very happy with either one of them as my only teacher, but I’m better off with both of them.  Nothing either one has said has ever conflicted with what the other said.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 15, 2017)

Be good at one art or suck at multiple arts. My 2 cents.


----------



## DanT (Nov 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Be good at one art or suck at multiple arts. My 2 cents.


Unless you have the time for both. Most don't, I luckily have time to study four arts (it's all I do).

But I agree in the sense that those who only have 4-12 h a week, should stick to one art and master that.

I say stick with one for 3-4 years, get a solid foundation, and then start something else along side it if you want to.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Be good at one art or suck at multiple arts. My 2 cents.


 i dont think those are the only two options available.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont think those are the only two options available.



That's why I said it was my 2 cents.  I don't think anyone can work diligently towards mastery of any martial art whilst splitting their time between more than one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2017)

DanT said:


> Unless you have the time for both. Most don't, I luckily have time to study four arts (it's all I do).
> 
> But I agree in the sense that those who only have 4-12 h a week, should stick to one art and master that.
> 
> I say stick with one for 3-4 years, get a solid foundation, and then start something else along side it if you want to.



A 'solid foundation' is another way of saying 'sucking at'.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Be good at one art or suck at multiple arts. My 2 cents.


Really depends on the amount of time one has to train day to day and for what time period. 
A year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, more, a life time?
I am a proponent of training multiple systems 'if' one has the time to dedicate training. I have several students who train multiple arts. They don't suck; in fact they are excellent in all they train in. I have trained multiple arts for many decades. I don't suck...well, in my mind I don't, maybe I do. 

I have trained WC, Muay Thai, Wrestling, and Kali each 3 the 4 times a week for decades. Over the past 5 years I have been training Combat Submission Wrestling, BJJ, and Savate on top of the prior listed.
There are several others here who also train in multiple systems who I don't believe 'suck'. 

I believe from my experiences with many who train in multiple arts that the average person has the capability to do the same. IF they have the time to dedicate to training.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's why I said it was my 2 cents.  I don't think anyone can work diligently towards mastery of any martial art whilst splitting their time between more than one.


Why do you need to master anything if you're looking into using it for self defence then you don't need to be a master. Personally I'd rather be open to seeing as many different ways as possible. I mean look at guys like bruce lee he trained in multiple styles you saying he sucks at all his styles. Or guys like Jon jones you saying he sucks at all his styles? Or a guy like rory macdonald who hasn't got a base in anything he just started in mma.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Be good at one art or suck at multiple arts. My 2 cents.


After one guy had spent 6 years in the long fist system and 3 years in the preying mantis system. He went to study the Baji system. He then made a comment that his Baji system teacher had helped him to open his eyes. His comment made both his long fist teacher and his preying mantis teacher mad big time. As if both teachers had kept their students in darkness all these years.

Both his long fist teacher and preying mantis teacher told him that if he had studied long enough, he would understand "power generation". In just few lesson, his Baji teacher taught him by using few simple drills, he could have a complete understanding of "power generation".

In CMA, the

- long fist system is famous for "foundation development".
- preying mantis (or Zimen) system is famous for "speed generation".
- Baji (or Chen Taiji, XingYi Luhe) system is famous for "power generation".
- eagle claw system is famous for "joint locking".
- Shuai Chiao is famous for " throwing skill".

It's very common for CMA guys to cross train those systems to fulfill their "different needs". As far as the CMA is concern, sometime people will think your CMA training is not complete if you have not fully "cross trained" those systems.

When you cross train, do you have to re-learn all the basic punches and kicks? Of course you don't have to. As long as you stay in the "northern CMA" and don't mix with any "southern CMA" (such as WC), your "foundation" will always be good. 

On the other hand, if you train both long fist (northern CMA) and WC (southern CMA), you will be in big trouble.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 16, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Really depends on the amount of time one has to train day to day and for what time period.
> A year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, more, a life time?
> I am a proponent of training multiple systems 'if' one has the time to dedicate training. I have several students who train multiple arts. They don't suck; in fact they are excellent in all they train in. I have trained multiple arts for many decades. I don't suck...well, in my mind I don't, maybe I do.
> 
> ...


Agreed I think the argument of train in multiple styles and you'll be bad at all of them is just an outdated argument, I mean it's been proven since the 70s with bruce lee that you can train multiple styles and be good at them. It's shown even more today with mma fighters. I mean yeah everyone's going to have strengths and weaknesses in different things that's life. Personally I believe everyone should train more than 1 martial art even if it's not full time and just 1 or 2 classes just so they can see what else is out there because every style is different and has it's different ways. I've done kenpo for 15 years and in Muay Thai I'm seeing set ups to shots I've never seen in my life. Same the other way I see stuff in kenpo that you'd never see in Muay Thai. Obviously not everyone can train multiple styles for different reasons time, money etc but it's definentely a benefit in my eyes and it's improved me as a martial artist by leaps and bounds


----------



## Danny T (Nov 16, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Why do you need to master anything if you're looking into using it for self defence then you don't need to be a master. Personally I'd rather be open to seeing as many different ways as possible. I mean look at guys like bruce lee he trained in multiple styles you saying he sucks at all his styles. Or guys like Jon jones you saying he sucks at all his styles? Or a guy like rory macdonald who hasn't got a base in anything he just started in mma.


Some do train more for the art. Being able to fight is a side bar. For others fighting is what it is all about. Different stokes for different folks.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 16, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Some do train more for the art. Being able to fight is a side bar. For others fighting is what it is all about. Different stokes for different folks.


Absolutely and nothing wrong with that at all but what I said is if you're training for self defence, if it's just for the art your training then it's fine


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A 'solid foundation' is another way of saying 'sucking at'.


I’d agree if it said “a solid foundation is another way of saying sucking LESS at.”


----------



## DanT (Nov 16, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A 'solid foundation' is another way of saying 'sucking at'.


If they still suck at the first art then I would recommend sticking with it until they're decent.

I agree that it's impossible to master one art if you keep jumping around between arts. But mastery is attainable if you put in the hours.


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 16, 2017)

DanT said:


> If they still suck at the first art then I would recommend sticking with it until they're decent.
> 
> I agree that it's impossible to master one art if you keep jumping around between arts. But mastery is attainable if you put in the hours.


Depends on your definition of mastery.  I read a story of an old Okinawan karateka who trained his entire life.  On his death bed, one of the last things he said was (paraphrasing) “I think I’m beginning to understand Pinan 1.”


----------



## DanT (Nov 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Depends on your definition of mastery.  I read a story of an old Okinawan karateka who trained his entire life.  On his death bed, one of the last things he said was (paraphrasing) “I think I’m beginning to understand Pinan 1.”


Mastery for me means: comprehensive knowledge or skill in a subject or accomplishment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One time a guy used pull guard on me. I dropped my elbow right on his throat. He was very mad and asked me why did I do that for. I told him that in Chinese wrestling, to use pull guard is a no no. In the old time, by using pull guard in a Chinese wrestling field would cause "fist fight" after the sport.
> 
> Different rule sets for different sports can cause problem. It's better to understand the difference before the match starts.


That's not about rule sets, John. That's about etiquette, and cultural reactions to breaches thereof.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> So a sports analogy - I decide to take up basketball and soccer at the same time. If I spend all 6 hours practicing basketball, I’ll be far better at basketball in a year than if I only spent 3 hours a week.


I think the analogy is clearer if we change the language slightly. If I train basketball or soccer for those 6 hours, am I a better athlete than if I train both for 3 hours each? I think the answer to that is less clear. I am unlikely to be as skilled at either as if I had trained it, alone, but I may (or may not) be a better athlete, all-around.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont think those are the only two options available.


I agree, but I believe it is a pretty accurate assessment for the most part.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I’m not arguing brain n elasticity at all; I don’t think any reasonable person will have any major issues learned multiple systems simultaneously.  As I said in an earlier post, it depends on how much time they have to train and how good they want to get at a particular system.  Let’s say I can train Monday Wednesday and Friday nights.  If I do karate Monday, Judo Wednesday, and boxing Friday, how good will I be at any individual one of those in a year?  If I want to get really good at karate, I’d probably be best off training that the 3 nights every week instead of one night a week.
> 
> If I’m looking to be the most complete fighter I can be in a year and or complete in MMA in a year, I’d probably be best off doing all 3 simultaneously.  I’d most likely benefit from someone who knows how to tie all of those together too.
> 
> As for the 2 different teachers, it’s not two entirely different takes on the same system.  It’s different ways of communicating the same thing.  You and I can both teach Newton’s laws of motion, but we may explain it a bit differently.  If we shared a student, some things you might say might click better than some things I’d say and vice versa.  My CI and the 2nd in charge are on the same page, but their language during feedback can be different.  My CI is more of a big picture and hands off and let me work it out the minor details for myself kind of guy, whereas the other one explains the details more thoroughly and fine tuning kind of guy.  I’d be very happy with either one of them as my only teacher, but I’m better off with both of them.  Nothing either one has said has ever conflicted with what the other said.



See for me èach practitioner has a subtly different take on their martial arts. Their own innovation. and of course they conflict.

It is what makes a style more robust.

Otherwise all you learn is to defeat your own system. Kind of the wing chun problem.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 16, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's not about rule sets, John. That's about etiquette, and cultural reactions to breaches thereof.


In BJJ. both pull guard and jump guard are legal. In Chinese wrestling, since when you use either pull guard or jump guard, your body will touch on the ground first. You already lose that round and that round is over.

Most wrestler will have disadvantage when compete in Chinese wrestling. When a wrestler uses "single leg", one of his knee is touching the ground already. This is OK by Chinese wrestling rule set. But if you can apply a bit of pressure to force one of his arm, or both knees to touch the ground, he will lose that round because he has 2 points touching the ground besides his feet.

The difference of the "sport" rule set make a difference in how you may train.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 16, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In BJJ. both pull guard and jump guard are legal. In Chinese wrestling, since when you use either pull guard or jump guard, your body will touch on the ground first. You already lose that round and that round is over.
> 
> Most wrestler will have disadvantage when compete in Chinese wrestling. When a wrestler uses "single leg", one of his knee is touching the ground already. This is OK by Chinese wrestling rule set. But if you can apply a bit of pressure to force one of his arm, or both knees to touch the ground, he will lose that round because he has 2 points touching the ground besides his feet.
> 
> The difference of the "sport" rule set make a difference in how you may train.



Hence why you train multiple styles so that should someone come up with a rule like that you can adapt.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I agree, but I believe it is a pretty accurate assessment for the most part.


I believe every opinion that people have posted on this thread is valid.  But that opinion is really only true for themselves. Everyone is different with different goals and different capabilities.  For every person like you or Bill who love their chosen art and see benefit in focusing on the one style there are others who benefit from multiple styles.  There are many people who can and do study more than one style AND are extremely good at them, in fact better than a large percentage of practioners. To deny that these people don't exist is nonsense. To hold the opinion that mastery can only happen in a single style is a denial that they exist. In fact historically it is blatantly false.  Tatsuo Shimabuku trained in 2 styles and I'm sure some ancestors of your style did so as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I believe every opinion that people have posted on this thread is valid.  But that opinion is really only true for themselves. Everyone is different with different goals and different capabilities.  For every person like you or Bill who love their chosen art and see benefit in focusing on the one style there are others who benefit from multiple styles.  There are many people who can and do study more than one style AND are extremely good at them, in fact better than a large percentage of practioners. To deny that these people don't exist is nonsense. To hold the opinion that mastery can only happen in a single style is a denial that they exist. In fact historically it is blatantly false.  Tatsuo Shimabuku trained in 2 styles and I'm sure some ancestors of your style did so as well.


There are always exceptions.  Most people are not the exception.

That is my opinion, based on my own standards.

I disagree that a better than large percentage of people are good at multiple styles.  From what I have seen, a better than large percentage are not very good at one style.

I stand by my earlier assessment: training in multiple styles can be beneficial, or it can be a disaster, or anywhere in between.  It depends on a lot of things.  It is up to the individual to decide for themselves if the potential benefits outweigh the potential pitfalls.

For most people, on average, I don’t recommend it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> So a sports analogy - I decide to take up basketball and soccer at the same time.  If I spend all 6 hours practicing basketball, I’ll be far better at basketball in a year than if I only spent 3 hours a week.


The foundation that you have developed in basketball may not apply to soccer. If we use the math major analogy, After you have learned probability, you may want to lean statistics, non-parameter statistic, ... The foundation that you have built on the probability can still be applied in statistics, non-parameter statistic, ...

All the students in *Central Guoshu Institute* (中央國術館) in China all had to learn:

- Long Fist.
- Baji,
- Taiji,
- XingYi,
- Shuai-Chiao,
- boxing,
- ...

Back in 1928 - 1936 in China, the "cross training" was a must.

Central Guoshu Institute - Wikipedia


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 16, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I disagree that a better than large percentage of people are good at multiple styles. From what I have seen, a better than large percentage are not very good at one style.


Maybe I wrote that poorly. That is not what I meant.
What I meant was that it is possible for an individual to study more than one art and be better than most at those styles. 
I think if we really got into specifics we would agree more than disagree on this.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 16, 2017)

You guys are funny.


----------



## Brian King (Nov 16, 2017)

Aspida said:


> Greetings!
> 
> A year ago i started off with Muay Thai up until May,then me and a couple of friends decided to start training Shotokan Karate and in doing so i stopped going to MT. Recently i started missing MT and wish to start training again,but i want to train Karate as well, and i'm thinking of going with both of them. And here is the question,since these 2 are completely different styles and i wanted to ask if i train both will i have any troubles with executing the moves or training, etc... ?



You stated that you "started missing MT" (snip) then asked if you will have any troubles training both styles setting up an either or question/answer. Answer A- no, go ahead and train both, Answer B - Yes, you will have trouble training both, so pick an art and stick to it.

Might there also be an answer C? What do you feel you are missing from the MT training? Is there a way of satisfying that missing whatever in within the other art or some other area of your life and relationships?

Good luck with your quandary and search
Regards
Brian King


----------



## JR 137 (Nov 17, 2017)

drop bear said:


> See for me èach practitioner has a subtly different take on their martial arts. Their own innovation. and of course they conflict.
> 
> It is what makes a style more robust.
> 
> Otherwise all you learn is to defeat your own system. Kind of the wing chun problem.


I see what you’re say now.  By conflict, I thought you meant opposing views that’ll mess up the students.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 17, 2017)

Mark Lynn

Curious as to what you dislike:
The fact that “Some do train more for the art” and that “Being able to fight is a side bar” for them.
or
The fact that “For others fighting is what it is all about.“
or
That there are “Different stokes for different folks.”

Thank you for your time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 17, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In BJJ. both pull guard and jump guard are legal. In Chinese wrestling, since when you use either pull guard or jump guard, your body will touch on the ground first. You already lose that round and that round is over.
> 
> Most wrestler will have disadvantage when compete in Chinese wrestling. When a wrestler uses "single leg", one of his knee is touching the ground already. This is OK by Chinese wrestling rule set. But if you can apply a bit of pressure to force one of his arm, or both knees to touch the ground, he will lose that round because he has 2 points touching the ground besides his feet.
> 
> The difference of the "sport" rule set make a difference in how you may train.


That is a difference of rule sets. The prior post was not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 17, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> There are always exceptions.  Most people are not the exception.
> 
> That is my opinion, based on my own standards.
> 
> ...


I think partly the difference might be how we define “good at a style”. I know some folks who can’t navigate the curriculum of each art, but are quite good at the parts that focus on, and put those together into a cohesive personal approach. I also know folks who are excellent at the curriculum of one art, and some (not all) are good at executing outside the context of that art. Which ones are good?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think partly the difference might be how we define “good at a style”. I know some folks who can’t navigate the curriculum of each art, but are quite good at the parts that focus on, and put those together into a cohesive personal approach. I also know folks who are excellent at the curriculum of one art, and some (not all) are good at executing outside the context of that art. Which ones are good?


 
Simple. Everybody sucks. There are no masters. Keep training. Eventually you die. That's all there is. Nobody has enough time in one life to master even one martial art. Multiple arts mean less mastery of each.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Simple. Everybody sucks. There are no masters. Keep training. Eventually you die. That's all there is. Nobody has enough time in one life to master even one martial art. Multiple arts mean less mastery of each.


Every time you state this I wonder...do you think founders have mastered their art?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Nobody has enough time in one life to master even one martial art.


The Shuai-Chiao system has over 60 different categories of throws, a total over 300 different throws. For example, just the "foot sweep" categories, there are more than 30 different ways to do "foot sweep". Was there any person on earth who could master all those 300 throws? I don't think so. 

You may want to

- publish a book with 300 throws.
- put up a DVD with 150 throws.
- give a workshop with 50 throws.
- give public demo with 30 throws.
- wrestle on the mat with 15 throws.
- fight on the street for 5 throws.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 19, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> do you think founders have mastered their art?


One Shuai-Chiao teacher said, "If you have learned throw A and throw B from me, you can leave, and find yourself another teacher. I may know a lot of MA material, but I'm only good at throw A and throw B. Any other MA teacher can also teach you the other MA material as good as I can teach you". I like that teacher's "honest attitude".

When my teacher was young, he wanted to learn an old master's "door guarding skill". That old master didn't want to teach him. My teacher kicked on that old master's front door, cursed all his family members. The old master came out, used his "door guarding skill" to beat my teacher up. My teacher ran away and said, "Thanks for the lesson." Did my teacher want to learn the entire MA system from that old master? My teacher just wanted to learn the old master's famous "door guarding skill".


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One Shuai-Chiao teacher said, "If you have learned throw A and throw B from me, you can leave, and find yourself another teacher. I may know a lot of MA material, but I'm only good at throw A and throw B. Any other MA teacher can also teach you the other MA material as good as I can teach you". I like that teacher's "honest attitude".
> 
> When my teacher was young, he wanted to learn an old master's "door guarding skill". That old master didn't want to teach him. My teacher kicked on that old master's front door, cursed all his family members. The old master came out, used his "door guarding skill" to beat my teacher up. My teacher ran away and said, "Thanks for the lesson." Did my teacher want to learn the entire MA system from that old master? My teacher just wanted to learn the old master's famous "door guarding skill".


I actually agree with this a lot. I agree that everyone has something they specialize in. My disagreement with this comes with the idea that you cannot teach something you don't specialize in.
 Most martial artists I know have some sort of specialty, or something that they excel in. Personally, I'm good at closing the distance, and retreating again. By that logic, this is what I should teach. And when I was teaching, it was because of this. I taught judokas how to close distance, to get into grappling range, so they could be more effective overall. My only issue is that teachers are not always the same as people who mastered the material. Sometimes you can teach a technique even if you have not had the repetition and practice to have mastered it yourself. 

Personal example: I know how to throw a front kick and side kick to maintain distance until I choose to do my focus (engage, elbow/knee, disengage). However, I don't practice those as much anymore, so they are far from perfect. I could still teach exactly how to do them, and if I focused on teaching that (ex: If I was teaching self-defense, I would likely teach how to throw a front or side kick and sprint away from that) my students would likely surpass me in my kicking abilities. 

The point of this is: you can practice what you like, and may be excellent at what you like. That doesn't impact your teaching abilities. If I practice a throwing art, like your example, I may excel at foot throwing techniques (Osoto Gari, Kosoto Gake, etc), but I should still be capable of teaching hip throwing techniques (O Goshi, Uki Goshi, etc.). Even if I have not practiced it enough to feel satisfied myself,that does not mean I can't teach it to someone else, to the point where they surpass me.

As stated, my focus is: Starting from outer distance, breaking distance with punches and elbows, utilizing foot sweeps, and breaking distance when failed. That is how I handle most sparring matches if my goal is winning. That does not mean that I cannot teach kicks, or punching while not trying to close distance. I know the technique behind those, and can teach it, it is just not what I personally focus on.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One Shuai-Chiao teacher said, "If you have learned throw A and throw B from me, you can leave, and find yourself another teacher. I may know a lot of MA material, but I'm only good at throw A and throw B. Any other MA teacher can also teach you the other MA material as good as I can teach you". I like that teacher's "honest attitude".
> 
> When my teacher was young, he wanted to learn an old master's "door guarding skill". That old master didn't want to teach him. My teacher kicked on that old master's front door, cursed all his family members. The old master came out, used his "door guarding skill" to beat my teacher up. My teacher ran away and said, "Thanks for the lesson." Did my teacher want to learn the entire MA system from that old master? My teacher just wanted to learn the old master's famous "door guarding skill".


Another point that came to mind in this: if you do not know how to do something, you should not try to teach it. In my above post I talked about how i would teach kicks even though they're not my specialty; however, I know how to do the kicks, and have successfully used them in sparring matches. I just haven't practiced them with enough repetition to my satisfaction. If you have not practiced throws/kicks/pins/etc. to a point that you're confident you can do them on a resisting opponent, you should not be teaching them. Wanted to add that in so people didn't assume I was suggesting people teach things they are not trained in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Simple. Everybody sucks. There are no masters. Keep training. Eventually you die. That's all there is. Nobody has enough time in one life to master even one martial art. Multiple arts mean less mastery of each.


Perhaps. I am certain I am better at my primary art because of the time I’ve trained outside it. And even if that time had made me less technically masterful within NGA, it would still (in my case) make me better at defensive fighting. Since my goals don’t actually include mastery of NGA (that would be a by-product of the training), I don’t measure my ability in an art by mastery, but by application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Every time you state this I wonder...do you think founders have mastered their art?


I think most of them would say they certainly hadn’t when they founded it. Depending upon how we (they) define mastery, some might feel they did later. I recall that some have been quoted as saying they never did. 

The issue to me is that definition. If mastery means complete comprehension and total skill, then nobody gets there. If it means deep comprehension and a high skill level, I’ve met a few masters.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Every time you state this I wonder...do you think founders have mastered their art?


No one has. That they were light years beyond me is not in dispute.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think most of them would say they certainly hadn’t when they founded it. Depending upon how we (they) define mastery, some might feel they did later. I recall that some have been quoted as saying they never did.
> 
> The issue to me is that definition. If mastery means complete comprehension and total skill, then nobody gets there. If it means deep comprehension and a high skill level, I’ve met a few masters.



But "deep" is then subjective and everyone will hold a different opinion on who is and who is not a master.

Is it related to time spent training? Ability to fight? Ability to teach? Number of techniques? Fame or public acclaim? Books or videos published? High rank in an organization?

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Simple. Everybody sucks. There are no masters. Keep training. Eventually you die. That's all there is. Nobody has enough time in one life to master even one martial art. Multiple arts mean less mastery of each.


Exactly so why not go out and do other things if that's what you're into, if you're never going to master it why not get good at some other styles to


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Exactly so why not go out and do other things if that's what you're into, if you're never going to master it why not get good at some other styles to



The destination will not be reached.  The path is what matters.  Stay on the path and keep moving forward.

Let's put it another way.   I will never be fluent in Japanese.  But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese.  The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages.  I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The destination will not be reached.  The path is what matters.  Stay on the path and keep moving forward.
> 
> Let's put it another way.   I will never be fluent in Japanese.  But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese.  The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages.  I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.


As I've said before that's a frankly very old fashioned attitude. It's been proven that people can learn multiple martial arts and use them effectively there's countless people who know more than one martial art and are great at each of them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 19, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> if you do not know how to do something, you should not try to teach it.


Many MA teachers develop some new techniques during their old age. Since those teachers no longer spar/wrestle, those techniques have not been tested. If that teacher teaches it to his students, and also his student teaches to his students, bad techniques may be created in the MA world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The destination will not be reached.  The path is what matters.  Stay on the path and keep moving forward.
> 
> Let's put it another way.   I will never be fluent in Japanese.  But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese.  The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages.  I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.


That’s a decent example, except that languages are either very similar (Romance languages, for instance) or very dissimilar (English and Russian). With dissimilar tongues, knowledge of one doesn’t help learn the other, and can easily cause interference (conflicting grammar). Every art I’ve either trained or dabbled in was made easier by the other arts I’ve trained and dabbled in.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The destination will not be reached.  The path is what matters.  Stay on the path and keep moving forward.
> 
> Let's put it another way.   I will never be fluent in Japanese.  But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese.  The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages.  I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.


Also yeah but Japanese is useless when you go to France


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Also yeah but Japanese is useless when you go to France



If you intend to go to France, don't learn German, Japanese, and Italian, perhaps.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> As I've said before that's a frankly very old fashioned attitude. It's been proven that people can learn multiple martial arts and use them effectively there's countless people who know more than one martial art and are great at each of them.



You say "learn" and "use them effectively," and "great at each of them."  I say sucks at more than one style, and they would have been much better at one style if they had stayed with it.

Attitudes can be old-fashioned.  It doesn't make them wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many MA teachers develop some new techniques during their old age. Since those teachers no longer spar/wrestle, those techniques have not been tested. If that teacher teaches it to his students, and also his student teaches to his students, bad techniques may be created in the MA world.



If my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You say "learn" and "use them effectively," and "great at each of them."  I say sucks at more than one style, and they would have been much better at one style if they had stayed with it.
> 
> Attitudes can be old-fashioned.  It doesn't make them wrong.


True but when there's countless examples of video evidence stating the opposite of that attitude it's kind of proves that it is wrong. 

Like I said there's nothing wrong with just sticking with one style nothing at all but there's also nothing wrong with doing more than 1 and when doing more than 1 you can end up being very good at both.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> With dissimilar tongues, knowledge of one doesn’t help learn the other,


actually it does. while the language is dissimilar and there wont be similar root words like english and spanish share,  you will have the experience to know what strategies and techniques worked for you and what ones didnt. i also believe that as you exercise and strengthen those sections of the brain it gets easier.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> True but when there's countless examples of video evidence stating the opposite of that attitude it's kind of proves that it is wrong.
> 
> Like I said there's nothing wrong with just sticking with one style nothing at all but there's also nothing wrong with doing more than 1 and when doing more than 1 you can end up being very good at both.



What do videos 'prove'?  I mean exactly?

Let me explain it another way.  You have X number of years left to you.  You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training.  The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same.  So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left.  That's how many hours you have to train.

You can spend 100% of those hours training in one style.
You can spend 50% of those hours in training in each of two styles.
And so on.

With each additional style, you decrease the amount of time you have to continue training in one style.

That's math.  You can like that or not like that, you can't change it.

The assumption appears to be that one can train 'enough' in a given style that additional training would not make a significant difference.

That is where we apparently disagree.  I feel that there is no end to the path, no perfection to be had, no end-of-the-road for training.  You will not get to the point where you have learned all there is to learn.   So any time you take away from training is time you do not have to get further down that road.

"Very good at both" means nothing to me.  What is "very good at both?"  It's purely subjective, as I said before.  You think you can point to this guy or  that guy and say their videos 'prove' they are "very good."  I say that they'd be better at one style if they only training in that style than if they divided their time.

In any case, this discussion seems to come up a lot.  Let me be very blunt about it.  New people show up on MT all the time and ask for advice in training in X, Y, and Z, styles.  Which ones should they choose?  Which blend is the 'best'?  And blah blah blah.

You know what?  Everybody chips in with their favorite arts like it was a damned coffee shop, and who cares.  What I think is that the new people who ask these questions are not going to train at all, let alone in multiple styles.  They aren't serious, they're tire-kickers.  They're looky-loos.  They won't spend more than a week inside a real martial arts studio in their lives.  The same goes for the endless supply of people asking about learning from books or videos.  Not only does it not work, they won't do it anyway, so what is the point exactly?  They are lazy bums who won't ever get off their fat arses and train in any case.  Wannabes and never-wases.

Bottom line is this, though.  OP asked for opinions.  This is my opinion; train in one style or suck at two of them. You don't like that opinion, that's fine.  I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.  I am offering my opinion.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 19, 2017)

one style ,,,multiple styles....   i think it is an argument of values.   what is the perceived outcome of each path and how do you value those outcomes.
if someones goal is to be a "master" or to master an art,  that is great but others place no personal value on that outcome.  some people value effective fighting ability.  and contrary to many peoples belief those two things are not mutually exclusive nor are they interdependent.  
depending on ones values they will see one path or the other as valuable and the opposite path as "a waste of time"


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What do videos 'prove'?  I mean exactly?
> 
> Let me explain it another way.  You have X number of years left to you.  You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training.  The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same.  So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left.  That's how many hours you have to train.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about silly demos I'm talking about guys fighting and using their skills. fighters who only train one style would be beaten very easily so its pretty much vital in that world to know more than one. look at the old ufcs the guys who only knew one style got tapped in seconds. yes mma isnt everything but your making a broad assumption that covers everyone are you saying these professional fighters suck are you saying people like bruce lee sucked.

Me I train Muay Thai twice a week and Jiu Jitsu 3 times a week. I couldn't train more Muay Thai if I wanted to as apart from open gym that's all the classes abaliable at the moment and for gi Jiu Jitsu If I was just doing it I couldn't do much more apart from a comp session on Sundays. So in both styles I'm training just as much if not more as people who only do 1 style so how can I suck at both when I do train both styles pretty much the maximum amount of times


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I'm not talking about silly demos I'm talking about guys fighting and using their skills are you saying these professional fighters suck are you saying people like bruce lee sucked.



Everybody sucks.  He would have been better if he had lived to train longer.



> Me I train Muay Thai twice a week and Jiu Jitsu 3 times a week. I couldn't train more Muay Thai if I wanted to as apart from open gym that's all the classes abaliable at the moment and for gi Jiu Jitsu If I was just doing it I couldn't do much more apart from a comp session on Sundays. So in both styles I'm training just as much if not more as people who only do 1 style so how can I suck at both when I do train both styles pretty much the maximum amount of times



You can train on your own when the gym isn't open.  You want me to change the math, I can't.  And you can click 'dislike' all you want, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> actually it does. while the language is dissimilar and there wont be similar root words like english and spanish share,  you will have the experience to know what strategies and techniques worked for you and what ones didnt. i also believe that as you exercise and strengthen those sections of the brain it gets easier.


True enough. I was speaking strictly of the knowledge of the language, but the activity of learning a language brings its own benefits.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What do videos 'prove'?  I mean exactly?
> 
> Let me explain it another way.  You have X number of years left to you.  You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training.  The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same.  So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left.  That's how many hours you have to train.
> 
> ...


To use a math approach, you’d have to consider diminishing returns. 29 years of an art versus 40 years isn’t twice as good at the art. 20 years of two arts might yield better personal results than 40 years of a single art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Everybody sucks.  He would have been better if he had lived to train longer.
> 
> 
> 
> You can train on your own when the gym isn't open.  You want me to change the math, I can't.  And you can click 'dislike' all you want, it doesn't bother me.


Training on one’s own for grappling is useful, but far less than half as useful as training with a partner, IMO.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The assumption appears to be that one can train 'enough' in a given style that additional training would not make a significant difference.


i will only speak for myself ,,, that is not my assumption.  not even close.



Bill Mattocks said:


> You have X number of years left to you. You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training. The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same. So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left. That's how many hours you have to train.
> 
> You can spend 100% of those hours training in one style.
> You can spend 50% of those hours in training in each of two styles.
> ...


your assumption is that spending 100 % of your time doing a chosen art will create a "better" result...but we would have to agree on what better is.
the assumption is also made that the chosen style is worth that kind of dedication, that there is a complete scope to the training.  that ,  that is all you need.

this is where the divergence occurs.  lets say John Doe actually does get off the couch and signs up at his nearest Dojo.  and spends the next fifty years training in a style called  "*Takemy DO"*   at the end of his life he realizes that he wasted his life learning something that has no value.  for 50 years his teacher taught him to defend himself against someone attacking him with a piece of fruit.
(insert Montey Python skit here)





the decision was made to stay with one style based on ignorance.  he had no comparison on whether the style was effective or what he even really wanted to learn.   this is a real life situation.  many many people spend way too long in a crap style constantly being advised by the teacher that _"they just dont understand yet,, train more and you will"   _they are led along like a cow by the nose being milked for every penny they got,,, until that day comes that they wake up and realize their error in judgment.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Everybody sucks.  He would have been better if he had lived to train longer.
> 
> 
> 
> You can train on your own when the gym isn't open.  You want me to change the math, I can't.  And you can click 'dislike' all you want, it doesn't bother me.


Um yeah Well he didnt die because he trained multiple styles though...he trained in wing chun, boxing, kickboxing, judo, Jiu Jitsu, karate and pretty much every style he could and he's considered one of the best in the world and really no I couldn't because I barely have any space, I have a bag which I use every morning and every evening before bed so I wouldn't be training more anyway.

And sure will do


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Everybody sucks.


This is the part I disagree with most, Bill. I know many people who don’t suck.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> To use a math approach, you’d have to consider diminishing returns. 29 years of an art versus 40 years isn’t twice as good at the art. 20 years of two arts might yield better personal results than 40 years of a single art.



"Better personal results."  Again, subjective.

However, you do make an excellent point.  If one trains for 10 years, it is not correct to assume that they learned 50% by year five.  It's more a situation that fits itself to the 80/20 rule, I think.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Training on one’s own for grappling is useful, but far less than half as useful as training with a partner, IMO.



No doubt, but he said MT, I believe.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> To use a math approach, you’d have to consider diminishing returns. 29 years of an art versus 40 years isn’t twice as good at the art. 20 years of two arts might yield better personal results than 40 years of a single art.


That's absoloutely the case with me. I feel a lot fitter and stronger by doing both than I did from just one. Since both use very different muscles and have different types of strength


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is the part I disagree with most, Bill. I know many people who don’t suck.



It depends upon the yardstick being used.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It depends upon the yardstick being used.


Just because your yardstick is in one place doesn't mean everyone's is in the same place. Not everyone wants to be some guru who can spend hours talking about the technical details on how to throw a jab.theres loads of extremely talented people are very good at more than one style. Just because it doesn't reach /your/ standards doesn't mean they're not good


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> "Better personal results."  Again, subjective.
> 
> However, you do make an excellent point.  If one trains for 10 years, it is not correct to assume that they learned 50% by year five.  It's more a situation that fits itself to the 80/20 rule, I think.


All “better” will be subjective here. That’s not a problem with the term, just a property of it. Whatever subjective “better” we use, my statement will usuallly fit. 

Oddly, time shifts away from a sweet spot in learning MA. If that sweet spot is at Year 10 (it varies by person and art), the first 5 years don’t usually yield as much result as the second 5. The third 5 are likely as fruitful as the second, and the fourth as fruitful as the first. After 40 years, the improvements are generally slight and gradual. In my experience, progression is generally (not always) faster in the second art and beyond, assuming a foundation from the first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> No doubt, but he said MT, I believe.


I was thinking of the other half of his training. Probably a grappler’s bias. I doubt solo training for striking is as fruitful, either, though more useful than for grappling.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 19, 2017)

from my experience i will say that 50 % of the people i have met in my lifetime who do martial arts have chosen a crap martial art.  out of that percent maybe 10 percent stuck with it for a long time and are now psychologically "stuck"  in that style ,,,possibly  for the rest of their lives.  why ?  because they have too much invested.  the emotional collapse that will happen if they admit to themselves they spent their lives "mastering"  fruit defenses which are totally meaningless.  to admit this error would be to admit they are a fool.   instead they will double down and dig in their heels and insist that what they do has value,,, its just that others do not understand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It depends upon the yardstick being used.


I can’t think of a reasonable yardstick that would make my statement untrue. Perfection is the only one I can come up with, and that’s wholly unreasonable, even if it were achievable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Just because your yardstick is in one place doesn't mean everyone's is in the same place. Not everyone wants to be some guru who can spend hours talking about the technical details on how to throw a jab.theres loads of extremely talented people are very good at more than one style. Just because it doesn't reach /your/ standards doesn't mean they're not good



A) The same is true of your yardstick, right?  If mine is subjective, so is yours.  Which was my point.
B) I never said anything about being a guru.  Is there something I've said with reference to a jab which offends you?  If so, please let me know.
C) There you go again with "extremely talented."  Yes, that's purely subjective.  
D) Yes, if they don't reach *my* standards, it does mean they are not good - by my standards.  Let's say I am fed a vegetable and I don't like it.  I say it tastes bad.  Everyone else in the world insists that no, it is delicious.  Is it therefore delicious to me and I am lying?  No, it is still terrible - to me.  My standards are my standards.  And so are yours.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I can’t think of a reasonable yardstick that would make my statement untrue. Perfection is the only one I can come up with, and that’s wholly unreasonable, even if it were achievable.



It's not achievable, you are correct.  Let's say the yardstick is the potential one has in the time one has left, assuming one does not cease training in a given art to go train in something else.  That's my yardstick.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A) The same is true of your yardstick, right?  If mine is subjective, so is yours.  Which was my point.
> B) I never said anything about being a guru.  Is there something I've said with reference to a jab which offends you?  If so, please let me know.
> C) There you go again with "extremely talented."  Yes, that's purely subjective.
> D) Yes, if they don't reach *my* standards, it does mean they are not good - by my standards.  Let's say I am fed a vegetable and I don't like it.  I say it tastes bad.  Everyone else in the world insists that no, it is delicious.  Is it therefore delicious to me and I am lying?  No, it is still terrible - to me.  My standards are my standards.  And so are yours.


Yeah but I'm not going around saying who sucks and who doesn't. I could say if you train one style you suck because you're one dimensional but I don't because I'm not that arrogant.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Yeah but I'm not going around saying who sucks and who doesn't. I could say if you train one style you suck because you're one dimensional but I don't because I'm not that arrogant.



I'm not saying anyone doesn't suck.  We all suck.  Is that arrogant?

But I am interested in something you brought up that you are now not addressing.  You seem to have an issue with me personally.  Apparently something to do with "some guru who can spend hours talking about the technical details on how to throw a jab."

Again, I ask, if you have a personal issue with something I've said regarding the use of a jab, I'd like to hear it.  I am beginning to get the message that your comments and your use of the 'dislike' button has more to do with something personal than with a disagreement with the current matter at hand.

If it's personal, we can fix that.  I'll simply place you on ignore; you can do likewise with me; and we can go about our merry ways.  If you wish to take issue with anything I've said about a jab and how to throw it, I wish you'd come out and say it instead of making snide comments.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not saying anyone doesn't suck.  We all suck.  Is that arrogant?
> 
> But I am interested in something you brought up that you are now not addressing.  You seem to have an issue with me personally.  Apparently something to do with "some guru who can spend hours talking about the technical details on how to throw a jab."
> 
> ...


Um no I don't lol I really don't care what people online say why would I have anything personal against you I don't know you, I don't care about you, you're a name on a screen this is a forum to discuss martial arts I'm discussing it, I press disagree because......I disagree simple as that. You want to put me on ignore go for it makes no difference in the slightest to me


----------



## drop bear (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The destination will not be reached.  The path is what matters.  Stay on the path and keep moving forward.
> 
> Let's put it another way.   I will never be fluent in Japanese.  But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese.  The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages.  I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.



So shouldn't I really focus on one technique?

All this variation will just mess me up.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Um no I don't lol I really don't care what people online say why would I have anything personal against you I don't know you, I don't care about you, you're a name on a screen this is a forum to discuss martial arts I'm discussing it, I press disagree because......I disagree simple as that. You want to put me on ignore go for it makes no difference in the slightest to me



Then why bring it up?


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So shouldn't I really focus on one technique?
> 
> All this variation will just mess me up.


Yeah I mean basically all different Martial arts are are different techniques. I like to learn as much as I can. Ones I like I'll keep and use once I don't like I'll keep training when we do them but won't be part of my main sparring or rolling arsenal it's simple as that it's just different techniques personally I simply wanted to see what else is out there and not just keep training the same stuff I've known for years for the rest of my life. Fact is I got my black belt recently and now there's nothing /new/ to learn yes I get other stuff better but I like learning new stuff. At black belt in karate once you have black you're just fine tuning your stuff and mainly spending more time teaching and frankly I'm 21 I don't want to be teaching from now for the rest of my life hence me doing new styles


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then why bring it up?


Bring what up....it was an example...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> if you train one style you suck because you're one dimensional ...


Agree with you 100% there.

Before you get married, should you just date one girl, or should you date as many girls as you can? How will you be able to know which girl is the future wife that you are looking for?

If I had faith into my Taiji teacher when I was 7, I could spend 30 years Taiji training with him. I'll still be a "Taiji for health" guy for the rest of my life. If I didn't cross train Chinese wrestling after my long fist training, I would never know that I like wrestling more than I like striking,


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there.
> 
> Before you get married, should you just date one girl, or should you date as many girls as you can? How will you be able to know which girl is the future wife that you are looking for?
> 
> If I had faith into my Taiji teacher when I was 7, I could spend 30 years Taiji training with him. I'll still be a "Taiji for health" guy for the rest of my life. If I didn't cross train Chinese wrestling after my long fist training, I would never know that I have more potential in wrestling than in striking,


Yeah but I was actually being sarcastic there. If people just want to train one style then good on them that's perfectly fine it's all about choice. I'm just totally against the silly idea that if you train more than one style you suck at both.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I'm just totally against the silly idea that if you train more than one style you suck at both.


I'm also totally against the silly idea that the first girl that you ever meet, she should be your future wife. I had dated many girls before I found my wife. I had cross trained many MA systems before I decided what MA system that I want to spend the rest of my life into it.

Training 2 different styles is like dating 2 girls at the same time. It's absolutely normal if you are not ready to get married soon.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 19, 2017)

If you are a boxer and if you have never tried wrestling, how do you know that you will not be the best wrestler on this planet?


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 19, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Yeah I mean basically all different Martial arts are are different techniques. I like to learn as much as I can. Ones I like I'll keep and use once I don't like I'll keep training when we do them but won't be part of my main sparring or rolling arsenal it's simple as that it's just different techniques personally I simply wanted to see what else is out there and not just keep training the same stuff I've known for years for the rest of my life. Fact is I got my black belt recently and now there's nothing /new/ to learn yes I get other stuff better but I like learning new stuff. At black belt in karate once you have black you're just fine tuning your stuff and mainly spending more time teaching and frankly I'm 21 I don't want to be teaching from now for the rest of my life hence me doing new styles


I will point out that different styles are not merely collections of different techniques.  There is a lot more to it than that.

It might be worth it for you to train different systems simply so you can begin to understand that.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill;
Yep we all suck...at something...and at what true potential could be at any one point. Perfection is unattainable but betterment is. We will always suck when compared to being better. If this has been your point, I agree.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 19, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Bill;
> Yep we all suck...at something...and at what true potential could be at any one point. Perfection is unattainable but betterment is. We will always suck when compared to being better. If this has been your point, I agree.



That has been part of my point.  The other part being that applying 100% of the time available to whatever it is we are doing will have a better result than splitting our efforts between two things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not achievable, you are correct.  Let's say the yardstick is the potential one has in the time one has left, assuming one does not cease training in a given art to go train in something else.  That's my yardstick.


I consider that an unreasonable measure. That doesn’t make it unreasonable for you to use, mind you, but I can’t see how it serves you.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That has been part of my point.  The other part being that applying 100% of the time available to whatever it is we are doing will have a better result than splitting our efforts between two things.


Sure...however, if one's goal were to be the best well rounded martial artist one could be whether it be standing striking, standing grappling, throws and takedowns, grappling and striking on the ground, hand held weapons, etc. the time one would spend say grappling would be lessen in order to gain skills in standing striking. So grappling could suffer a bit but one's overall skill sets would be increased thereby increasing one's overall abilities. If one were to train in art that does very little to no striking is one actually better?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That has been part of my point.  The other part being that applying 100% of the time available to whatever it is we are doing will have a better result than splitting our efforts between two things.



You don't see it in MMA.

Nobody, even at the elite level just trains one style. And they could because there is nothing stopping people just training MMA.

Instead it is a combination of judo boxing Muay thai. Whatever.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 19, 2017)

As a concept.

Using judo to be better at beej.

Judo and BJJ Cross-training - Grapplearts


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That has been part of my point.  The other part being that applying 100% of the time available to whatever it is we are doing will have a better result than splitting our efforts between two things.


You apply 100% of your time to karate?  Wow.  That’s a level of commitment I’m pretty sure no one has.


----------



## Steve (Nov 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You don't see it in MMA.
> 
> Nobody, even at the elite level just trains one style. And they could because there is nothing stopping people just training MMA.
> 
> Instead it is a combination of judo boxing Muay thai. Whatever.


This is where application pays off.   It’s much more difficult to learn something if you never apply it.  Application actually creates mental  bandwidth that can be used to learn other things.  Because these athletes apply their skills, they are not wasting energy in a training loop.  

Because I drive a stick shift every day, I don’t have to continuously keep learning how to drive.  

Simply put, if you aren’t learning the skills so that you can do them, maybe one system is the max.  Ninja, karate, aikido... maybe one at a time.  Systems where you use them for some purpose, I would say more than one is very possible.  Baseball, football, basketball, judo, wrestling, BJJ, judo, kyokushin karate, chess, clarinet...  you could probably learn any three or four before you run out of time.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Nov 19, 2017)

do both bro so you can find the difference


----------



## drop bear (Nov 19, 2017)

Steve said:


> This is where application pays off.   It’s much more difficult to learn something if you never apply it.  Application actually creates mental  bandwidth that can be used to learn other things.  Because these athletes apply their skills, they are not wasting energy in a training loop.
> 
> Because I drive a stick shift every day, I don’t have to continuously keep learning how to drive.
> 
> Simply put, if you aren’t learning the skills so that you can do them, maybe one system is the max.  Ninja, karate, aikido... maybe one at a time.  Systems where you use them for some purpose, I would say more than one is very possible.  Baseball, football, basketball, judo, wrestling, BJJ, judo, kyokushin karate, chess, clarinet...  you could probably learn any three or four before you run out of time.



Except there will always be some sort of application.

Even areas like dance where form outweighs function. I am pretty sure elite level dancers will cross train.

Ballet? Mabye, maybe not. It seems pretty strict.

Or not apparently. Looks like it reflects the judo/BJJ attitude.

https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/ballet-and-modern-dance/


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I will point out that different styles are not merely collections of different techniques.  There is a lot more to it than that.
> 
> It might be worth it for you to train different systems simply so you can begin to understand that.


Um,..I do


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Except there will always be some sort of application.
> 
> Even areas like dance where form outweighs function. I am pretty sure elite level dancers will cross train.
> 
> ...


Agreed.  Application is how the training is used.  If the training is used to perform in competition, that is what you're training for.  If the training is used so that you get really, really, really good at training, the system itself becomes the application. 

 I think as people move beyond proficiency in an art and into the higher levels of expertise, it's pretty easy to see the dysfunction.  Where you have styles that are seldom applied outside of the style, the evaluation and analysis of the art turn inward.  You start to see folks 'finding" things in the style and looking for deeper meaning.  You start to see the style discovering new applications and it's amazing that everything you need is there. 

The dialogue around the training changes, too.  You start to hear discussion about spirituality, and deeper meanings to all of the movements.  This tends to lead people to be more insular and less open to cross training. 

Now, none of the above is a problem, if one's goals and objectives are aligned to the training.  If you're looking for spirituality and this resonates with you (whatever "this" might be), great.  It only becomes an issue if you think you're learning something you are not actually learning. 

And to bring this back around to this thread, if there is conflict between what you're learning and what you think you're learning, some amount of mental static is created.  How much depends on you.  If you're training in a style as described above, and start to cross-train in another style, the issue isn't that you're training two styles.  It's that you're seeing alternatives perspectives on things you might previously have taken at face value.   That cognitive dissonance might never be fully resolved, which would keep you from excelling in either style.

This cognitive dissonance is less likely to occur in styles where the goals are consistent with the application, and application is not just encouraged but facilitated.  This application could be professional or not.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 20, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Um,..I do


Your prior post did not convince me of that.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 20, 2017)

Steve said:


> Agreed.  Application is how the training is used.  If the training is used to perform in competition, that is what you're training for.  If the training is used so that you get really, really, really good at training, the system itself becomes the application.
> 
> I think as people move beyond proficiency in an art and into the higher levels of expertise, it's pretty easy to see the dysfunction.  Where you have styles that are seldom applied outside of the style, the evaluation and analysis of the art turn inward.  You start to see folks 'finding" things in the style and looking for deeper meaning.  You start to see the style discovering new applications and it's amazing that everything you need is there.
> 
> ...



brilliant,  


Steve said:


> If the training is used so that you get really, really, really good at training, the system itself becomes the application.
> 
> .... the evaluation and analysis of the art turn inward. You start to see folks 'finding" things in the style and looking for deeper meaning. You start to see the style discovering new applications and it's amazing that everything you need is there.



i call this *inbreeding  

*
the problem is that "everything you need" is not in any system and it is a case of people putting a round peg in the square hole.  (ever notice that the round one will fit in the square but not vise versa)


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 20, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> brilliant,
> 
> 
> i call this *inbreeding
> ...


Well, “everything that you need” is a matter of debate, and often simply a matter of preference.

I honestly don’t care what technique or approach to combat that someone uses if he needs to defend himself.  If he is successful, then he had “what he needed.”  Doesn’t matter if he took the assailant down and twisted him into a pretzel before choking him out, or punched him in the nose.  If it worked and he then escaped, he had exactly what he needed.

I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that.  Being “well rounded” is a myth.


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, “everything that you need” is a matter of debate, and often simply a matter of preference.
> 
> I honestly don’t care what technique or approach to combat that someone uses if he needs to defend himself.  If he is successful, then he had “what he needed.”  Doesn’t matter if he took the assailant down and twisted him into a pretzel before choking him out, or punched him in the nose.  If it worked and he then escaped, he had exactly what he needed.
> 
> I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that.  Being “well rounded” is a myth.


This is exactly the kind of "logic" that results from inbreeding.  If everything is a matter of preference, then there are no objective standards.  Because no one "needs' anything, everyone is free to mine their styles for any kind of esoteric meaning or significance they want without feedback or analysis. 

If the esoteric studies are what you are looking for, great.  If you're looking for practical skills, this perspective is symptomatic of a very difficult way to acquire them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that.  Being “well rounded” is a myth.


MA is like to find the right key to open the right lock. Does one single MA system have all the keys? I don't think so.

If I'm a wrestler, I may not know how to block a punch. I can spend the rest of my life in wrestling, I still won't know how to block a punch.

Until one day someone knocks me down, I will never know that I should not stick out my head like this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> MA is like to find the right key to open the right lock. Does one single MA system have all the keys? I don't think so.
> 
> If I'm a wrestler, I may not know how to block a punch. I can spend the rest of my life in wrestling, I still won't know how to block a punch.
> 
> Until one day someone knocks me down, I will never know that I should not stick out my head like this.


Every situation does not require a different solution.

You ought to be able to find a solution within your training methods.  If an appropriate solution wasn’t already mapped out for you in the formal curriculum, then....wait for it...YOU DEVISE SOMEHING ON THE SPOT.  if you can’t do that, then all you have learned is to mimick and to follow what others tell you to do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> MA is like to find the right key to open the right lock. Does one single MA system have all the keys? I don't think so.
> 
> If I'm a wrestler, I may not know how to block a punch. I can spend the rest of my life in wrestling, I still won't know how to block a punch.
> 
> Until one day someone knocks me down, I will never know that I should not stick out my head like this.


A Wrestler will need to learn how to not get punched, but surely can find something within his wrestling skills to deal with an assailant who is trying to punch him.  He should not need to undertake a formal study of karate or boxing before he has any hope whatsoever of handling an assailant who is trying to punch him.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Every situation does not require a different solution.
> 
> You ought to be able to find a solution within your training methods.  If an appropriate solution wasn’t already mapped out for you in the formal curriculum, then....wait for it...YOU DEVISE SOMEHING ON THE SPOT.  if you can’t do that, then all you have learned is to mimick and to follow what others tell you to do.



It think there is pretty solid evidence that this isn't the case.

The first 10 UFC's spring to mind.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, “everything that you need” is a matter of debate, and often simply a matter of preference.
> 
> I honestly don’t care what technique or approach to combat that someone uses if he needs to defend himself.  If he is successful, then he had “what he needed.”  Doesn’t matter if he took the assailant down and twisted him into a pretzel before choking him out, or punched him in the nose.  If it worked and he then escaped, he had exactly what he needed.
> 
> I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that.  Being “well rounded” is a myth.



in my own training i often heard the saying  "all is in sanchin"  that sanchin is all you need.   its a foundational kata  yes but honestly you do need to learn more than that.
it seems we are not looking at this from the same perspective.  i do not disagree with you.  but i have been around many people that "see hidden" techniques in kata that just are not there.  the perfect story for this was when the top Okinawan master came and everyone was asking about the application for the techniques in the kata and his answer was that he didnt know the answer because those techniques are not in the kata.....but its ok if you want to practice that.  people were seeing things that simply were not there.   thats what i mean by a round peg in the square hole.  it might work but than it might not because your basing the application on your own imagination.  the end result is you end up changing the way you do kata to match some imaginary application that was never there and the actual application is now lost.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 20, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> in my own training i often heard the saying  "all is in sanchin"  that sanchin is all you need.   its a foundational kata  yes but honestly you do need to learn more than that.
> it seems we are not looking at this from the same perspective.  i do not disagree with you.  but i have been around many people that "see hidden" techniques in kata that just are not there.  the perfect story for this was when the top Okinawan master came and everyone was asking about the application for the techniques in the kata and his answer was that he didnt know the answer because those techniques are not in the kata.....but its ok if you want to practice that.  people were seeing things that simply were not there.   thats what i mean by a round peg in the square hole.  it might work but than it might not because your basing the application on your own imagination.  the end result is you end up changing the way you do kata to match some imaginary application that was never there and the actual application is now lost.


I understand your point and I agree.

I guess what I disagree with is that it seems to me that some people operate on an assumption that X system cannot handle Y system, so someone who does X must also do Y or else they will be surely defeated.

Well ok, one approach is to spread your energies over several systems with the goal of getting good enough with each of them to be functional within what they do.  The pitfall is that your energy and time is spread too thin and you never get very good at any of the skills from the many systems.

Another approach is to spend a lot of your time working with one methodology in order to become very good with it, and searching for solutions to all problems within that training.  Because they do exist.

That doesn’t mean one system has “everything” in it.   But it does mean that if you have good training in a good system, it ought to equip you with tools appropriate for dealing with whatever might come at you.

Seems that me that people are quick to write off what they do and can’t see the value that it holds.  I think it can be a symptom of too many options.  People are always looking at the next school over and jump ship before they really understand and develop meaningful skill in what they were already doing.  Rinse and repeat.


----------



## MA_Student (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Your prior post did not convince me of that.


Meh dont care. I do end of story


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I understand your point and I agree.
> 
> I guess what I disagree with is that it seems to me that some people operate on an assumption that X system cannot handle Y system, so someone who does X must also do Y or else they will be surely defeated.
> 
> ...


i get what your saying and i agree.  my thought is, what ever you do, it is your job to be better at what you do than what the other guy does.  so if i am a striker my strikes should be good enough to nullify what ever you do.

the OP talked about TKD and MT.  if his TKD school does not do any contact sparring, it would not be a bad thing for him to find an MT school that does.  most schools (not styles)  have a focus and lack some aspect of training, so the opportunity for growth in that area is not there.  cross training for this reason is not a bad thing


----------



## Steve (Nov 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Every situation does not require a different solution.
> 
> You ought to be able to find a solution within your training methods.  If an appropriate solution wasn’t already mapped out for you in the formal curriculum, then....wait for it...YOU DEVISE SOMEHING ON THE SPOT.  if you can’t do that, then all you have learned is to mimick and to follow what others tell you to do.


I think this is a very dishonest application of the false dichotomy fallacy.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 4, 2017)

If you want to do multiple styles then go for it


----------

