A Lot of One System vs A Little of Many

[ap Oweyn]

Absolutely agree. Mastery to me simply means the condition which comes with a long-term immersion in a style, with the hopefully attendant wisdom that sometimes accompanies such experience. Personally, I claim no mastery, I am merely competent. However, by training in multiple styles, I'd not even possess that.

It's not a foundation that is always desirable, I confess. I know only a bit about a lot of things, like fence building and automobile body work and automotive painting and carburetor repair; enough to muddle through with a low-grade 'meh' ability. On the other hand, I've not chosen to become good at those things; I only devoted enough time and energy to be able to perform them with low-grade but acceptable-for-me results. That's fine. It still beats not being able to do them at all. In such things, I often use the maxim "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good."

If I were studying martial arts for exercise, or social interaction, or competition, or even self-defense only, I might think differently than I do.

However, when people ask my opinion, that is my opinion.

Thanks Bill. That's helpful.

I think there's a few things worth clarifying in this overall discussion. The first, I've already brought up. (And I may have done these out of order, in retrospect.) "Mastery" is a very subjective, vague notion. And, as a benchmark, that's a tough one. We can assign specific ranks or material to "mastery." Or we can take the approach someone once used to describe explicit material. Something like "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

If we're going to use concrete metrics for that concept, we have to be able to elucidate what those are. Otherwise, it's all completely arbitrary and turns into "X is doing it right. Y is doing it wrong." If the benchmark is the technical performance and/or intellectual understanding of a particular body of knowledge (a style in this case), then someone has to make an assessment about the degree to which they've done that. "This person's kata is consistently performed well enough in accordance with standards established over time that... " But that's still a person making an assessment of themselves (dodgy) or another person (still deeply subjective).

If someone is studying more than one art, then they're perhaps creating some of those same metrics for themselves. Which can also be really dodgy. Or helpful. It's really dependent on the people involved. And, even then, it's equally subjective. So, where a devotee to a particular style might view mastery as their command of that style, someone who studies more than one thing might identify an exterior metric for mastery. "The ability to cover striking and grappling," "Prowess with both empty hand and weapons," etc. Whatever the case. (I know there are styles that cover both, at least nominally. But I'm not entirely convinced by them.)

So here's my second thought (which I should have led with really). There's an obvious distinction between someone who studies multiple styles and someone who dabbles. Dabbling will never result in skill. But "dabbling" is just a word assigned to the idea of doing two or more things half-heartedly. It's perfectly possible to do one thing half-heartedly too. Meaning that it's perfectly possible to be a "jack of one trade, master of none."

To me, the successful study of more than style generally involves developing an organizational principle for yourself, and building around that. That principle is typically going to come from one style in the mix. In other words, you can usually see one style that occupies a sort of dominant position. The easiest example is MMA. You've got grapplers who learn enough boxing to not get knocked out. Or kickboxers who learn to sprawl well enough not to get taken down in the opening moments of a fight.

But, really, that's true of everyone who studies more than one thing, I expect. For me, FMA was my "chassis," and other things were built onto it. (This despite taekwondo being the first style in which I spent real time.) So, when I box, I do it southpaw. Because, despite being right-handed, I'm used to leading with my dominant weapon. If I tried to box orthodox, I'm sure I'd be terrible at it.

To me, the primary difference between the two approaches is who identified that organizing principle. Was it someone somewhere in your lineage? Or was it you? If it was you, what are you basing that on? Do you have the experience necessary to identify an organizing principle?

It's absolutely possible to do multiple styles badly. But it's also possible to study one thing without understanding it deeply. I've got no problem at all with either approach. Do what speaks to you. You know?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

When someone says they have mastered X and now want to learn Y, I wonder about X, or about their self-assessment that they've mastered it.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that do not involve having mastered their own.

When someone feels frustrated by their progress in X and bounces to Y hoping to find some inner contentment that they didn't find in X, I wonder about their ability to be patient with themselves and stick to a path.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that do not involve lacking inner contentment or a lack of patience.

Maybe it's me. I seem to be one of the few who doesn't feel a need to collect belts or experience multiple systems.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that don't involve a need to collect belts.

You seem to have some misperceptions about the reasons people will try a new system. So below I'll list a couple:

1. You move to a new area, and your old style is no longer available.
2. The place you were learning closes down, and now your old style is not available.
3. You have more free time, and instead of picking up videogames or another sport in addition to your current style, you decided you want to pick up another martial art. Possibly one that's different enough the only thing they have in common is that they're both called martial arts.
4. You're training for the purposes of being the best fighter you can, and realize that there's something specific that your system is lacking.
5. You're learning to apply your system better against other systems, to prevent it from becoming insular, and see more reasons X, Y or Z would have been done.
6. You're looking for a deeper understanding of your own style, and sometimes that can happen when you see a different style. I discovered the use of a technique in kempo when I started kali - the application I had always been given never made sense, but the second a knife was in my hand, it made perfect sense. Jowga had a similar revelation when he saw hoshin demonstrate a technique and it fit something he'd been trying to find an answer to for a while.
7. Your needs have changed over the years (ie: you used to need a high intensity, high contact art like muay thai, but you've had two knee surgeries and now that's not giving you the benefits it used to, or you moved away from a safe area where you felt comfortable learning tai chi for health, and now want to learn something self defense focused)

 

[Prince_Alarming]

My approach to martial arts is the same as my approach to sex. Get what you can, where you can. Or rather, it will be again once my hand heals

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are many reasons to learn a new system that do not involve having mastered their own.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that do not involve lacking inner contentment or a lack of patience.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that don't involve a need to collect belts.

You seem to have some misperceptions about the reasons people will try a new system. So below I'll list a couple:

1. You move to a new area, and your old style is no longer available.
2. The place you were learning closes down, and now your old style is not available.
3. You have more free time, and instead of picking up videogames or another sport in addition to your current style, you decided you want to pick up another martial art. Possibly one that's different enough the only thing they have in common is that they're both called martial arts.
4. You're training for the purposes of being the best fighter you can, and realize that there's something specific that your system is lacking.
5. You're learning to apply your system better against other systems, to prevent it from becoming insular, and see more reasons X, Y or Z would have been done.
6. You're looking for a deeper understanding of your own style, and sometimes that can happen when you see a different style. I discovered the use of a technique in kempo when I started kali - the application I had always been given never made sense, but the second a knife was in my hand, it made perfect sense. Jowga had a similar revelation when he saw hoshin demonstrate a technique and it fit something he'd been trying to find an answer to for a while.
7. Your needs have changed over the years (ie: you used to need a high intensity, high contact art like muay thai, but you've had two knee surgeries and now that's not giving you the benefits it used to, or you moved away from a safe area where you felt comfortable learning tai chi for health, and now want to learn something self defense focused)

Good points.

 

[HighKick]

There are many reasons to learn a new system that do not involve having mastered their own.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that do not involve lacking inner contentment or a lack of patience.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that don't involve a need to collect belts.

You seem to have some misperceptions about the reasons people will try a new system. So below I'll list a couple:

1. You move to a new area, and your old style is no longer available.
2. The place you were learning closes down, and now your old style is not available.
3. You have more free time, and instead of picking up videogames or another sport in addition to your current style, you decided you want to pick up another martial art. Possibly one that's different enough the only thing they have in common is that they're both called martial arts.
4. You're training for the purposes of being the best fighter you can, and realize that there's something specific that your system is lacking.
5. You're learning to apply your system better against other systems, to prevent it from becoming insular, and see more reasons X, Y or Z would have been done.
6. You're looking for a deeper understanding of your own style, and sometimes that can happen when you see a different style. I discovered the use of a technique in kempo when I started kali - the application I had always been given never made sense, but the second a knife was in my hand, it made perfect sense. Jowga had a similar revelation when he saw hoshin demonstrate a technique and it fit something he'd been trying to find an answer to for a while.
7. Your needs have changed over the years (ie: you used to need a high intensity, high contact art like muay thai, but you've had two knee surgeries and now that's not giving you the benefits it used to, or you moved away from a safe area where you felt comfortable learning tai chi for health, and now want to learn something self defense focused)

There are many reasons to learn a new system that do not involve having mastered their own.

I do not feel a person has to 'master' a style before moving onto another one, but a good level of competency makes the transition easier.
I fully understand if a person tries a style and decides it is not for them as long as they move onto something else.

There are many reasons to learn a new system that don't involve a need to collect belts.

I like to believe my journey has been somewhat logical.
1.) Started practicing TKD in 1982 after being very athletic in high school/college. Got rather obsessed and almost made it to the '88 Olympics, getting beat out 1-1/2 matches from going. Opened our first school in '86 (long story of it's own) and currently own two school locations.
After my competition time, I started to step back and look at martial arts from a wider perspective. Also in 1986 I became a LEO and began to dive deep into more self defense tactics and strategies.
2.) To augment the lack of hands in TKD, I started practicing Shotokan and was belted in 1997.
3.) Tuhon Bill McGrath moved to Nashville to train LEO for several counties. I began training with him in late 1994 and because 1st level instructor in 1999. Became 2nd level instructor in 2010.
I dabbled in Kung Fu enough to get to green sash.
For fun, I attached a list that you might be interested in. I converted it from Excel to a PDF so the formatting may be wonky.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A different system will prioritise different strengths. And that forces us to develop a deeper understanding.

This is complete true. When I trained the long fist system, the term "compress and release" was never addressed. I didn't know that

- the more that I compress, the more power that I can generate.
- the less that I compress, the more speed that I can have.

In other words, I didn't pay attention on power and speed, and I didn't know power (body push arm) and speed (body chase arm) are contradicting to each other.

Cross training helped me to open my eyes.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

2.) To augment the lack of hands in TKD, I started practicing Shotokan and was belted in 1997.

My primary long fist system has a lot of kicks. But it doesn't have hook kick, spin hook kick. flying knee, flying side kick, ... If I don't cross trained, I won't be able to do those kicks for the rest of my life and I can't accept that.

If Bruce Lee only trained the WC system, could he do those kicks in the move? I don't think he could.

 

[isshinryuronin]

My primary long fist system has a lot of kicks. But it doesn't have hook kick, spin hook kick. flying knee, flying side kick, ... If I don't cross trained, I won't be able to do those kicks for the rest of my life and I can't accept that.

I've done quite well without those kicks, most of which are not in my system either. My school did practice the flying side thrust kick while jumping over a hurdle. That was fun.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I've done quite well without those kicks, most of which are not in my system either. My school did practice the flying side thrust kick while jumping over a hurdle. That was fun.

Back in the 70, if you can't kick as Bruce Lee did, you won't be able to get any student. When a student walked into a MA school, the first thing they would ask was "What kicks will I learn here?"

Bruce Lee's triple kicks comb was "one must train skill" back then.

 

[Fungus]

When someone says they have mastered X and now want to learn Y, I wonder about X, or about their self-assessment that they've mastered it.

When someone feels frustrated by their progress in X and bounces to Y hoping to find some inner contentment that they didn't find in X, I wonder about their ability to be patient with themselves and stick to a path.

I sometimes wonder this in other situations, but I think there are other explanations too:

For example, rather than beein impatient to "sticking to a path", one migth rather be more comitted to sticking to a goal, than to the path, that was just assumed to be the best one. So is the priority to follow a particular path, or to reach some sort of goal at a higher pace?

Seeing things from multiple angles is rarely a bad thing, just to make sure you are following the right path for you. But goals can be different. Getting a higher belt may not be the goal. formal ranks or belts is not something that motivates me. My goal is to more internal satisfaction.

 

[Buka]

Question for those that teach -

If an instructor from another school taught you a variation of a technique, that worked much better and made more sense than what you taught, would you teach that new variation to your students?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Question for those that teach -

If an instructor from another school taught you a variation of a technique, that worked much better and made more sense than what you taught, would you teach that new variation to your students?

Of course. That happens all the time for me.

 

[isshinryuronin]

rather than beein impatient to "sticking to a path", one migth rather be more comitted to sticking to a goal, than to the path, that was just assumed to be the best one.

If there is a goal, there must be a path to it. However, one may be on a path with no goal. But like the old saying, "better a bad plan than no plan at all," being on a path is better than lost with no path at all. If you stick to a path sooner or later it will take you somewhere.

 

[Buka]

Of course. That happens all the time for me.

Me, too. And it blows my mind now even more than it used to. I remember the first time I experienced BJJ. (91, maybe 92)

My God, I couldn’t even sleep that night. My mind was going every which way. I kept thinking, “how have I never seen this before?”

Martial Arts are just the best. They really are.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Question for those that teach -

If an instructor from another school taught you a variation of a technique, that worked much better and made more sense than what you taught, would you teach that new variation to your students?

If you are a TKD guy and you learn the MT roundhouse kick, will you replace your TKD roundhouse kick (pull back after kick) with MT roundhouse kick (go through after kick), or will you do both?

 

[Buka]

If you are a TKD guy and you learn the MT roundhouse kick, will you replace your TKD roundhouse kick (pull back after kick) with MT roundhouse kick (go through after kick), or will you do both?

I taught my students everything I knew.
Different people move differently, especially with kicking- because of height, weight, hip structure, flexibility, length of leg, personality etc etc.

My goal was always to make them a better Martial Artist than I was. And once they were, I’d send them to one of my teachers schools.

Most still came down a few times a month, and I could notice their improvement. It was wonderful.

So, yes, I would do both.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I would do both.

I like the MT roundhouse kick better than the TKD roundhouse kick for the following reasons:

- I can use it to close the distance and move in.
- I can use it to set up another kick.
- The MT roundhouse kick meets the power generation principle "body push/pull limb".

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Question for those that teach -

If an instructor from another school taught you a variation of a technique, that worked much better and made more sense than what you taught, would you teach that new variation to your students?

No. I teach the Isshinryu that I was taught. I don't have permission to modify it. I am more than willing to learn other techniques from other instructors, or from other systems, but if I show it to anyone else, it's with the understanding that this is not something I am 'teaching'.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Question for those that teach -

If an instructor from another school taught you a variation of a technique, that worked much better and made more sense than what you taught, would you teach that new variation to your students?

When my Chinese wrestling teacher lived in my house, I tried not to teach any long fist that I had learned from my long fist teacher to my students.

I made a mistake one time I visited my long fist school while my long fist teacher was not there. I mentioned Chinese wrestling to my long fist brothers. My long fist teacher was mad at me for that big time.

Now both of my MA teachers are not in this world. I can change anything that I want to.

 

[Fungus]

This is an interesting philosophical question that applies to many things, not just MA.

If there is a goal, there must be a path to it. However, one may be on a path with no goal. But like the old saying, "better a bad plan than no plan at all," being on a path is better than lost with no path at all. If you stick to a path sooner or later it will take you somewhere.

From my perspective (mainly lessons outside MA, more from theories of inference), a common situation is that the path is precisely what is the unknown, and the "goal" is often merely a vision that gives you a momentary direction, but only one step at a time. This has change alot of my philosophy in life in general to focus on what you can decide here and now, to the point where the "quest of inference" itself, or to "learn with elegance", is just as important as the original vision. I rather make rational decisions and end up making the wrong guess, than make an irrational deciusions and get lucky. This is just part of my philosophy.

That said, I suspect there are also a strong social factor in changing MA or style. I heard people that changed style, not for the style itself, but beacuse the local MA club was just so much better in various ways. I do kyokushin, and I think the local club is great, good place, good people, but that doesn't prevent me from playing with wing chung techniques in sparring or find anything that fits my person better. Kihon and kata, is what it is, but in sparring you can do whatevber you like as you follow the basic rules, this is very "creative" and this is what I love. I would be suffocated if i could not do any "free stuff" or improvise. My goal is to get better in control and improvisation in free fighting situations (constrained then to the karate rules, but still). If this is withing "kyokushin" umbrella or something else, is honsetly not important for me. but I would not want to change style now because I like my local club, and i think the kyokushin compromise with high contact but no head strikes.