Conflicts between styles you train...

[geezer]

This thread is addressed to anybody who trains in more than one style. What do you do when one of the fundamentals of one style directly contradicts one of the basic precepts of the other. If you practice doing things both ways, chances are that you will do neither correctly. If you simply choose what you think works best, you will severely limit your progress in the other system. Or, you may decide to quit one system and devote yourself exclusively to the other. But any choice you make will be difficult and limiting.

My question is, how many of you who study two or more Martial Arts have come up against such conflicts of core technique? Can you give a specific example? And, how did you end up resolving the problem?

 

[mook jong man]

I haven't resolved the problem , when I left Wing Chun I did Doce Pares for a while , a little bit of Krav Maga and then Kali Ilustrisimo for about a year.

The latter three all use a stance with one foot forward , and in the case of Kali Ilustrisimo your body is extremely side on. In the knife sparring I would always start off with good lunging footwork and have my body side on , but when I got in close I found myself squared up , using both hands equally , and feet in Yee Chi Kim Yeung Ma like back in Wing Chun.

What can you do ? , when you've done one martial art for a long time you will fall back on that training in times of stress.
I enjoyed my time in the other martial arts I trained in , even though I don't train formally anymore I still practice the stuff from all of them.

Wing Chun is my core art , and I am mediocre at best in the others . But they do provide a welcome change , when I am sick of practicing Wing Chun I get the sticks / knife out , or practice some Krav.
Its like a breath of fresh air and keeps me training.

 

[Omar B]

For me the challenge is chambering for punches and kicks. I come from the Kyokushin/Seido lineage and when I moved over to Choi Kwang Do for a few years I was totally lost at first, then I worked out with some Tang So Do guys and I was even more lost. The question was always, where does the move start. In TSD most of the kicks are chamered by lifting the knee straight up and adjusting to roundhouse, side or what have you in flight while in the Japanese system you chamer a roundhouse at the side, etc. This is not to talk crap about other styles, I find TSD a pretty good system but I got lost and whacked on the legs by the instructor a few times. I will say though that the chambering at the front does ad a bit of speed and unpredicability.

 

[Kwan Jang]

I've cross trained for decades and have rarely seen conflicts between at least the principles of different systems. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what you are lookng for? Sometimes I'll hear questions about the difference between a MT roundhouse kick and a karate/TKD round. Or a boxing cross compared to a shotokan reverse punch. If this is what you are looking for, my advice would be to treat them as seperate tools for different effects despite the fact that they travel in similar trajectories.

For example, a TKD round is more properly used as a probing strike to measure distance and create openings. It is more of a long distance speed technique very comparable to a jab. Used in this manner, it's proven a very valuable technique for me for those purposes. The MT round is a power kick using the shin (rather than the upper instep and ankle) with a lot more pivot, therefore it's a closer range shot. I mainly use the karate/TKD version with my lead leg for speed and my MT round for my rear leg (and have done so since 1980).

Comparing a cross to a reverse punch: a cross has more flow for combos and more power due to greater hip rotation. A reverse punch can be a safer punch to throw at times if you are in danger of someone capturing the limb. When I am firing to the body or especially striking from a mount or from in an opponents guard in ground strking, I prefer a reverse punch. If you are throwing the reverse punch from the hip like in traditional katas, this is very effective IF it's a push/pull action with a captured limb (perferably a joint lock). This is the reason the opposite hand and elbow comes back with equal force. If your instructor doesn't understand this, then this would seem to be the root of the problem.

To me, the principles are going to be the same regardless of the styles. Control distancing, gain superor positioning, set point control, relax and explode. ect. Depending on rule sets for sparring or rolling, certain habits will emerge because under that rule set, they are successful. In olympic TKD competition, fighters will often have their hands down to check the chambers of a kick. Since the rules don't allow punches to the head under this ruleset, this is a more valuable place to put their hands (though suicidal outside of this ruleset and developing really bad habits IMO). Even in MMA, because you wear a steel cup both defending against and using a groin strike to pass the guard is often overlooked as an option.

Other than the artificial restrictions that occur either in training or competiton, virtually all styles are going to try to teach the same principles though they may go about it in different ways and in a different syntax. They may also have a difference in priorities of strategy. As an example, TKD and karate will often prefer to keep the fight at a distance and pick the opponent apart ala Lyoto Machida. Where someone in a grappling system will usually want to close the gap and eliminate space. Regardless of which strategy you prefer, they are still only parts of the whole of being a well rounded and effective fighter. IMO, the main problem is that far too many instructors don't get this and don't see the forest for the trees.

 

[geezer]

I haven't resolved the problem... in the case of Kali Ilustrisimo your body is extremely side on. In the knife sparring I would always start off with good lunging footwork and have my body side on , but when I got in close I found myself squared up , using both hands equally...

Mook, you don't practice mind-reading too, do you? This is exactly the conflict that motivated me to start this thread! As you may know, after Wing Tsun, my second art is Eskrima. I've mainly done Latosa Escrima and more recently, Torres' DTE system. The DTE is a bit like Ilustrisimo in regards to body angle. And, being a 'chunner, I always tend to square up to use both hands when I get in close. Just like what you said. I love the DTE, and my instructor can really make it work. But I've spent years trying to ingrain my WT/WC reflexes, and I don't want to try and unlearn them now.

So for the time being, my compromise is to use a mixture of Latosa and Torres Eskrima when I'm holding a weapon and go back to what I know best for my empty hands. Nice to find that I'm not alone in this predicament.

 

[FearlessFreep]

"
For example, a TKD round is more properly used as a probing strike to measure distance and create openings. It is more of a long distance speed technique very comparable to a jab. Used in this manner, it's proven a very valuable technique for me for those purposes. The MT round is a power kick using the shin (rather than the upper instep and ankle) with a lot more pivot, therefore it's a closer range shot. I mainly use the karate/TKD version with my lead leg for speed and my MT round for my rear leg (and have done so since 1980).
"


Thanks. I train with both roundhouses and try very much to address the "either/or" but try to treat them as both useful techniques that have tactical use in the appropriate situation so it's nice to hear it articulated so well

What I find a bit more interesting is not 'difference in techniques' but 'difference in philosophy' and what I'm finding in Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido (and no, I'm not talking linear versus circular; they both use them both).

An example would be a counter to a cross. Fairly basic TKD would be to use a left high outside block to hit the bicep or preferably the shoulder, this is 'power on power', the block as a strike against the opponents weapon. Fairly basic HKD would be to use a left hand parry into a right high outside block, but this would be a soft block to redirect the energy of the opponents motion. I believe both are effective and both even use much of the same body mechanics for the same technique, but they apply it in complete different ways based on a difference in philosophy "stop the attack with powerful counterattack" versus "redirect the energy of the attack in order to position for a counterattack". Both even use the energy of the attack against the opponent, but in different ways

I don't know if training both approaches, both counters, could cause a moment of hesitation at a point of need. I imagine you would just reflexive go to one or the other because I believe in that point of need you are more concerned about self preservation than philosophy. I would think that the techniques you train are derived from a philosophical approach, but you train technique, not philosophy, so you're just going to respond physically based on repetitive training


* Note - both my Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido training has been from instructors who are masters in their own art but are willing to adapt practical techniques from other arts and experience, so I may not properly represent either art but my intent is not 'art versus art' but 'philosophy versus philosophy' and not as antagonism but as contrasting ideals

 

[FearlessFreep]

" Even in MMA, because you wear a steel cup both defending against and using a groin strike to pass the guard is often overlooked as an option."

To say nothing of using the cup as a fulcrum point for your arm bar

 

[geezer]

I've cross trained for decades and have rarely seen conflicts between at least the principles of different systems. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what you are lookng for?

To me, the principles are going to be the same regardless of the styles. Control distancing, gain superor positioning, set point control, relax and explode. ect... IMO, the main problem is that far too many instructors don't get this and don't see the forest for the trees.

OK, I agree with what you are saying for the most part regarding principles or concepts. For example, in Latosa Escrima I learned core concepts including power, speed (distance and timing), focus, transition, and balance. In Torres (DTE) Eskrima: angle (positioning), "diamond-point" (instantaneous transitioning) and forward energy are stressed. In Wing Tsun we emphasize simplicity, efficiency, economy of motion, forward pressure and so forth. Different systems may use different vocabulary, but as you pointed out, usually the concepts or principles of combat are more or less universal.

On the other hand, techniques and approaches to applying these concepts can take very different, even opposing paths. In Wing Tsun, for example, we stress simultaneous attack and defense, and emphasize yielding and deflecting rather than rigid blocking. It would be very hard, if not impossible to practice both approaches and expect to be able to use them under pressure. The hard-style, rigid response tends to "short circuit" the more difficult to internalize "yielding" response.

Another example would be the WT falling method, as compared to a judo-style fall with the characteristic break-fall using your arm to slap the mat. In WT we learned falls on hard surfaces and were taught never to slap, but to curl our bodies and keep our arms in front of us, ready to defend with punches. Of course there was much more to it than that, and I really don't care to debate "which is best". That isn't my concern here. I'm just giving you an example of two opposing reflexes. Even though each may have it's proper place and justification, you really have to decide to train one way or the other. Sometimes there is no middle ground.

 

[searcher]

I try to train both ways of doing anything. I know it may contradict theother style, but I work it as if it a different technique. I don't believe that you need to choose one over the other. If that were the case, I would still be at style #1 and would not have had the chance to open my mind and diversify my techniques.

This is JMO and has/does work for me.

 

[ACJ]

I think that you should look at why each art has a differing philosophy on a particular concept. Is it for different situations? For instance you would sometimes stand differently when confronted with a weapon as opposed to someone who is unarmed. Does it have a historical basis? Perhaps the art was designed specifically to suit the environment in which it was created. Was it created to suit somebody? People often find 'their' art in which things work best for them, and one philosophy is not better than another just better suited to different people.
You should then look at why you are learning an art's philosophy, maybe in there you will find your answer to why you should train both, or why you should only train one and which one.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I train in the arts of jodo and iaido, both sister arts. We will also practice many schools of kenjutsu just to mess ourselves us.

Striking with a jo or with a sword are essentially the same movement, so there really isn’t much confusion.

You have to have the little switch inside your head, that you can turn on and off, OK I’m doing X now, it’s done this way, change, I’m doing Y now, it’s done this way.

 

[Tez3]

" Even in MMA, because you wear a steel cup both defending against and using a groin strike to pass the guard is often overlooked as an option."

To say nothing of using the cup as a fulcrum point for your arm bar

You shouldn't use the cup really, use the hip, you'll get the arm closer to the ground, hurts more if they try resisting. Get into the habit of using the hip, without the cup you are asking for trouble.

 

[geezer]

I try to train both ways of doing anything. I know it may contradict theother style, but I work it as if it a different technique. I don't believe that you need to choose one over the other. If that were the case, I would still be at style #1 and would not have had the chance to open my mind and diversify my techniques.

Knowledge is good. Experiencing diverse approaches is good... but it's another thing to decide which techniques, stances and structures to make your own. The best martial artists are not the one's with the fattest "toolbox", but the ones who have finely honed the tools they use best.

It all comes back to the difference between a "style" and a "system". Style implies a fashion, flavor or "look". You can adapt all kinds of techniques to fit your style. A "system" on the other hand is engineered like a machine. Each technique, stance, movement and so on, is like a cog, lever or spring in a piece of clockwork. It's there for a reason. Sticking extra gears and odd-shaped parts into the mechanism will not make it function better.

If you choose to customize your system, it involves more than a superficial change in your "style". You better have enough knowledge, like a clockmaker or engineer, to really know what you are doing. Otherwise you'll just mess things up.

Let me give an example. In many Karate ryu, a front kick (snap or thrust) is chambered, delivered, and then withdrawn back to a chamber. This suits a system where the practitioner doesn't want to commit his body forward. He or she can deliver the kick, then advance or retreat as the situation dictates. The technique fits the system.

In Wing Tsun, by contrast, a front kick explodes forward, reaches full extension and then drops straight to the floor. There is no withdrawal. Instead the kick becomes a forward step, since in the Wing Tsun system you are always pressing forward. The Karate method of withdrawing the kick to a chamber would short circuit our objective, and would not enhance the "system".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while it's good to know and understand the tools that may be used against you, you cant stick them all in your toolbox. They just won't fit! So, unless you want to haul around the world's heaviest damn toolbox, you've got to pick and choose. And that's my problem!

 

[jarrod]

i've tended to gravitate towards styles where personal adaptation is allowed & even expected. for instance very few people in judo execute throws in competition exactly the same way as they are taught in kata. very few boxers stick just to the classic fundamentals. in other words, i like styles where fighting like you fight is more important than fighting like some master of old. this makes it much easier to integrate the styles together.

jf

 

[geezer]

i've tended to gravitate towards styles where personal adaptation is allowed & even expected. jf

I think personal adaptation is really necessary if you want to train deeply in more than one art. At the beginning, you can just keep them separate and "do as you are told". But if you continue to the point where you are internalizing the moves at a reflexive level, you will have to make adaptations. And, if your style/school/instructor cannot accept that, you will have a problem.

 

[MJS]

This thread is addressed to anybody who trains in more than one style. What do you do when one of the fundamentals of one style directly contradicts one of the basic precepts of the other. If you practice doing things both ways, chances are that you will do neither correctly. If you simply choose what you think works best, you will severely limit your progress in the other system. Or, you may decide to quit one system and devote yourself exclusively to the other. But any choice you make will be difficult and limiting.

My question is, how many of you who study two or more Martial Arts have come up against such conflicts of core technique? Can you give a specific example? And, how did you end up resolving the problem?

The arts that I study, Kenpo, Arnis, BJJ, blend very well with each other, so for me, I have no issues. There have been times, when doing a Kenpo tech., that I finish off with something from Arnis. Personally, when I'm just doing random, spontaneous SD drills, I'm not thinking, "Ok, Im going to start off with some Kenpo, do something from Arnis, and then back to Kenpo again." I just go...whatever happens, happens.

IMO, alot of the footwork in Kenpo is very similar to what I see in Arnis, so that may be why things transition so smooth for me.

 

[Tensei85]

This reminds me Chi Sim has a distinctive view of System vs Style perception.

They utilize the "6 Shaolin Wisdoms" namely

Sik- Techniques/Tools
Ying- Shape/Structure (although Jong is a better translation for structure)
Yi- Concepts, not the same yi as in righteousness or the yi in Mandarin as mind or will.
Lei- Principles
Faat- Methods
Seut- Skill, personalized skill from training

This has helped aid my conceptualization of Martial systems.

As for the initial topic,

I would say that each system has there own outlook on what there principles represent or on what they express.

For instance I cross trained heavily in the past, but even in the present I train Wing Chun & Northern Mantis.

Which are exceptionally far apart in realms of stylized fighting, in this case the concepts vary as well as the principles greatly.

In Wing Chun we have Simplicity, Efficiency & Directness.

Concepts of:
Jung Sin
Jik Sin
Luk Mun/Sei Mun
Tai Wuhn Sau
Yi Sau Wai Yaht
Ying/Yang platform of energies
Cheung Kiu/Dyun Kiu
Deui Ying/Jeui Ying

and the list goes on...

In Northern Mantis they have the Yao & Gong princples, 12 keywords etc...

Another thing of interest however was that the Tong Long system does have a concept from what I've seen of Centerline & what's known as life & death gates.

So there are some similarities, but a lot of differences. Personally I've just had to train harder to preserve both systems expressions for when I teach or demonstrate.

So is it easy to cross train something that differs, definitely not.
Is it helpful, yea most likely depending on your reason as to "why cross train".

But myself I like to be well rounded, so my opinion is somewhat biased in those regards.

Just my .02

 

[Phoenix44]

If you practice doing things both ways, chances are that you will do neither correctly.

Well, I've heard that argument, but I don't really subscribe to it. When I started learning Cantonese last year, I didn't start screwing the Spanish I learned in grade school. Maybe it would be different if I was a beginner in Cantonese AND a beginner in Spanish.

I find a significant difference between karate and Chinese styles. To me, choi lay fut is a lot closer to tai chi than it is to karate. That's because of the prominent circularity and yin-yang/action-reaction aspect to the Chinese arts, as I experience them.

From a stylistic standpoint, well, if sifu prefers I swing my arm down when I throw a kick, and sensei prefers I keep both hands out front, I can do that. From a practical standpoint, I prefer my hands out front. And there are times when I prefer sifu's way.

 

[BLACK LION]

Reality or Actuality training brings many different styles to the table. I run into conflict often when different systems and thier techniques are addressed. I have to monitor training closely and catch any contradictions so as tonot interfere with the "flow" of things. I try not to have any conflict or contradiction in language or expression... keep everything basic in nature and work the principles... If the principles dont mesh then I discard the least effective.