I would, but I'm not sure my way is significantly better than starting with something with specific strengths and filling the gaps later.I agree that when an art is more specialized it will inherently have bigger gaps than more general styles. However; wouldn't you want to have to start with a more general style and gradually shrink your gaps than vice versa?
That's highly variable. I've had experienced Karateka and Taekwondo-ists come into my program and into classes where I was a student, and not be able to deal with fairly simple grip fighting (I tend to grab an extended guard arm to make room in sparring). I haven't tried taking them down early on, but I've yet to meet someone without grappling experience who wasn't relatively easy to get inside on and get to some sort of takedown, if I could get past their striking. In other words, if their striking failed to keep me away, they didn't have a good answer once I got attached.For example, karate isn't only striking, it has sweeps and anti-grappling techniques as well. The average karate guy isn't going to win any grappling competitions, but he should be able to defend himself against grabs and takedowns on the street.
I agree with that.I think Judo is a better art to start with than BJJ, given judokas do both stand up(throws, sweeps, takedowns) and groundwork. BJJ stemmed from Judo, but the founders wanted to focus on groundwork, thus making it a specialized system.
I tend to agree with that, too.I think it just comes down to your training approach. I prefer to start with a general style that covers more areas than a specialized style which only focuses on a few small areas of combat, or train both at the same time.