Being Well Rounded

[Flying Crane]

So, what are your thoughts on this? If someone was really that good of a puncher, kicker or grappler, they dont need any other ranges of fighting?

My thoughts are that you don't need to be skilled in all ranges of fighting, to be an effective fighter, or to be able to effectively defend yourself (these are not the same thing, by the way).

You do need to be very good at applying your skills against people who might try to attack you using different methods and different ranges.

Just a friendly observation, but I think you've been having the same discussion over and over for a while. If you enjoy adding BJJ and escrima to your kenpo, then have at it. If you feel it adds something to your skills and your enjoyment of the arts, you don't need anyone else to validate what you are doing. If you feel that your approach is somehow "better" or more realistic or smarter than others, that's also fine.

But not everyone will agree that this is necessary. I don't say that it's a bad thing to do. But I do say that it's not necessary. You can be very very effective by concentrating your skills in one area, and learning to apply them against all others.

 

[MJS]

My thoughts are that you don't need to be skilled in all ranges of fighting, to be an effective fighter, or to be able to effectively defend yourself (these are not the same thing, by the way).

True, they are 2 seperate things. Perhaps I should have been more specific but for the sake of the thread, both fighting and SD could be looked at. In the ring, well, we all know the importance of that. SD purposes...well, you could be the greatest boxer on the block, but should you find yourself on the ground, depending on the postion you wind up in, those great punching skills could go right out the window.

Of course, there are also people who think that they will never end up in a certain position. How they can predict that is beyond me, but anyway...

You do need to be very good at applying your skills against people who might try to attack you using different methods and different ranges.

And IMHO, part of that is being able to understand how those people operate, in which case, looking at something that specializes in a given area, may be necessary.

Just a friendly observation, but I think you've been having the same discussion over and over for a while. If you enjoy adding BJJ and escrima to your kenpo, then have at it. If you feel it adds something to your skills and your enjoyment of the arts, you don't need anyone else to validate what you are doing. If you feel that your approach is somehow "better" or more realistic or smarter than others, that's also fine.

But not everyone will agree that this is necessary. I don't say that it's a bad thing to do. But I do say that it's not necessary. You can be very very effective by concentrating your skills in one area, and learning to apply them against all others.

One thing that I've never done, is say that people need to drop art 1, and take up arts 2 ,3 ,4 and 5. I've suggested and encouraged that people keep an open mind and look at what else is out there. Sure, some of the recent discussions, have been on a similar wave length, but I guess thats the nature of the draw. As for talking about my arts that I do....I simply do so because a) I enjoy those arts, b) those arts are great at what they were designed for and c) to simply use as examples. Many times people will ask about crosstraining, what arts go well together, so I use mine as an example. However, those arts again are just examples. There are many things that I'm sure will blend just fine.

Do I think that my approach is the best? It works for me, but to each his own. I dont claim to have the market cornered on the best mix for SD. Again, anyone is free to do as they choose. Then again, there are others that share my thinking as well, so I guess its safe to say that its just not a case of me talking about it, but others as well.

As far as this thread goes, I simply found a comment that someone else made, interesting, and thought it would make for good discussion.

 

[seasoned]

I like the way Master Ken Corona puts it: learn several styles or have many teachers, but master one style and have one master teacher.

I can't imagine going quite deep into virtually any art out there without finding similarities and borrowings into other art forms. Go high enough in Tae Kwon Do and you find some Kung Fu. Go high enough in Kung Fu and you're sure to find some Okinawate, etcetera.

I think I'd rather have a really good understanding of the theme of an art - the underlying theory and be able to use it well for my own purposes and delve into other things to serve my own personal needs for supplementation.

I totally agree, everyone needs a base from which to project from. Be it ground or stand up, pick one as your main art and then add to it as needed.

 

[Flying Crane]

and I wasn't kockin' ya either. I was just making an observation.

The example of yourself and your background was a good analogy for Everyman.

I will say, tho, that if I found myself on the ground, the last thing I would try to do would be to engage AS A GRAPPLER. Sure, understanding what a grappler might do and how he might engage is useful knowledge. But I would not try to beat him at his own game. So, as a striker, finding myself on the ground doesn't mean that I now need to grapple. What it means is that I need to use mystriking skills and scrambling skills to get away and get up.

And I don't believe the the person I'm gonna need to defend against is going to be a skilled grappler. I just don't believe the Gracies are out to mug me for my lunch money.

I'm speaking from the perspective of SD, since I don't have any interest in competition.

 

[MJS]

and I wasn't kockin' ya either. I was just making an observation.

I know. You and I have had some great discussion on various threads here. I enjoy your input.

The example of yourself and your background was a good analogy for Everyman.

Thanks.

I will say, tho, that if I found myself on the ground, the last thing I would try to do would be to engage AS A GRAPPLER. Sure, understanding what a grappler might do and how he might engage is useful knowledge. But I would not try to beat him at his own game. So, as a striker, finding myself on the ground doesn't mean that I now need to grapple. What it means is that I need to use mystriking skills and scrambling skills to get away and get up.

Couldn't agree more, and I hope I didn't give that impression. When I grapple, I prefer to work on a few basic things, rather than get all complicated. I'm certainly not going to roll, in a SD situation, for 30min, looking for a submission. If something happens to present itself to me, and I honestly feel that I could effectively take advantage of that 'gift' then I might go for it, but otherwise, my main goal is to get the hell out of dodge and back to a standing position.

This is what I use grappling for. For my own benefit, I like to test certain things, in my own 'lab', so to speak, so I can see how things work against someone who specializes in a certain area. Can I make the Ram (takedown/tackle) techniques work against someone really trying to shoot in on me? How do grapplers operate? Can I use the Kenpo weapon techs. as is, or do I need to take into consideration other ways a blade can be used against me?

IMO, having a better understanding of those things, will help me to use my striking, various defenses, etc., more effectively. But for me, I like to have that buffer to fall back on.

And I don't believe the the person I'm gonna need to defend against is going to be a skilled grappler. I just don't believe the Gracies are out to mug me for my lunch money.

I'm speaking from the perspective of SD, since I don't have any interest in competition.

Agreed and I've said the same thing myself many times. OTOH, I'd probably be more inclined to say that I'd have a better chance of facing someone with good grappling skill vs someone with good knife skill. MMA is so popular, wrestling can be found in many schools and colleges, the odds of me facing a grappler could be high.

 

[Draven]

So, what are your thoughts on this? If someone was really that good of a puncher, kicker or grappler, they dont need any other ranges of fighting? Now, I really dont like to use the UFC as a 'written in stone' example, due to the fact that there're obvious differences between the ring and the RW, but if we look back to the early days, where we pretty much saw nothing but 1 dimensional fighters, we saw many of the stand up guys, turn into fish out of water, once they hit the ground.

Well I often write the earily UFCs off as WWE events because most f the fighters were completely 1 deminsional & I feel set up for Gracie to win. His brother was part owner after all. However, I cannot say where not lessons learned there as well. Such as the need to be well rounded, you saw strikers who's only groundfighting skill was the ground & pound dominate grapplers who couldn't strike & strikers who couldn't grapple flop around maddly while being choked out.

Going back before the UFCs Sport Jujitsu under the ISJA made that point perfectly clear. I think being well rounded enough to go beyond techniques & look at something you don't quite agree with (in my case the earily UFCs) & still see merit in what was done and what it proved there is a must.