Martial Art Complete System?

[CoryKS]

As others have pointed out, there is no complete system of self-defense. On the other hand, you're not likely to be attacked by someone with a complete system of assault, so is it necessary?

 

[Kenpojujitsu3]

As others have pointed out, there is no complete system of self-defense. On the other hand, you're not likely to be attacked by someone with a complete system of assault, so is it necessary?

Now that's deep...quote worthy

 

[tradrockrat]

Even if there was a "complete system " it would be incredibly impractical to actually train in. In order for a skill to become of use, you have to practice it consistently and thoroughly. If a system were to cover every possible aspect and skill that would occur in combat or relating to combat, you'd only be able to skim over each area lightly, there's no way you could train them thoroughly.
Simple equation.
The more areas you have to cover = the less detail you can put into those areas.

Very well said. My biggest complaint about the system I study is the emphasis on being "complete". Though we recognize that one human can never learn it all, they still put too much value on massive amounts of knowledge (One system to cover a five year study in basics of armed and unarmed combat, nine animal systems that include: wrestling, grappling, pressure points, and countless weapons, just to mention some of the aspects of Bando?). I've got many years in my system, and I like to think I've got enough from just the first five years to last a lifetime of study.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

As others have pointed out, there is no complete system of self-defense. On the other hand, you're not likely to be attacked by someone with a complete system of assault, so is it necessary?

You mean all that time I spent learning how to use nunchucks while standing on top of a speeding car against a blindfolded man with a nailgun was a waste of time? Dang. Ah well, I guess i'll just have to get back to learning one legged Indian Knife fighting against dwarfs.
Reality is a bitter drink.

 

[Shotgun Buddha]

Very well said. My biggest complaint about the system I study is the emphasis on being "complete". Though we recognize that one human can never learn it all, they still put too much value on massive amounts of knowledge (One system to cover a five year study in basics of armed and unarmed combat, nine animal systems that include: wrestling, grappling, pressure points, and countless weapons, just to mention some of the aspects of Bando?). I've got many years in my system, and I like to think I've got enough from just the first five years to last a lifetime of study.

I personally figure the best way to deal with it is to focus on developing the delivery system in each area with a few basic techniques and sparring/resistance training. This gives you the base, so that you understand the principles of that area of combat. From there depth and technique can be built as you choose more easily.
I tend to view the emphasis on "completeness" as resulting in a technique overload.
I'd personally be far more worried about fighting someone with limited technique but very strong understanding of how to use it, than I would someone with tons of techniques but little practice applying them.

 

[exile]

I'd personally be far more worried about fighting someone with limited technique but very strong understanding of how to use it, than I would someone with tons of techniques but little practice applying them.

It's the old story of the hedgehog and the fox: the fox has many tricks, the hedgehog has only one, but the fox gets caught because he doesn't know which one to use when, while the hedgehog always knows exactly what to do.

 

[CoryKS]

You mean all that time I spent learning how to use nunchucks while standing on top of a speeding car against a blindfolded man with a nailgun was a waste of time? Dang. Ah well, I guess i'll just have to get back to learning one legged Indian Knife fighting against dwarfs.
Reality is a bitter drink.

Wow... you may not have the most practical style, but you definitely have the coolest! If I ever end up facing a blind man with a nailgun... I'm SOL. :rofl:

 

[Slihn]

Everyone here has made good points.There really is not system that has all the answers and even if there where it would take 10 life times to perfect all the ranges of fighting.One method you should look into is Jeet Kune Do though.They are open to ALL styles and ideals on fighting.It is an ideal that no serious martial artist can ignore.

 

[L Canyon]

hello -

you mentioned Kung Fu San Soo so I figured I could chime in. I started San Soo amost 3 years ago, and while it has a great many techniques (strikes, kicks, elbows, knees, jointlocks, throws, takedowns etc.), I haven't seen any groundwork or grappling. The idea IS to drive the opponent onto the ground, my instructor has told me. There are some San Soo schools that do incorporate groundwork, which I think is fine and certainly "open minded", but there are those in San Soo who will say that it's no longer San Soo in that case.

A TKD black belt who is also a San Soo black belt told me that there's many more types of kicks in TKD, and while in Aikido, I was taught more locks, but those systems are more specialized perhaps.

But I'll agree with others here and suggest that you'll eventually branch out into different arts after becoming proficient at one.

 

[jks9199]

As others have pointed out, there is no complete system of self-defense. On the other hand, you're not likely to be attacked by someone with a complete system of assault, so is it necessary?

I'm going to take exception to everyone saying that there's no such thing as a complete system.

I'll grant that there's no one system that's perfect for everyone and everything that might happen -- but that doesn't mean that some systems aren't more flexible and adaptable than others, and that some systems don't have at least something addressing most ranges of combat. Can one single PERSON master all possible ranges and types of combat? HELL NO! But, as I said -- there are multiple systems out there that do address different ranges. Within the bounds of reasonable personal combat, there are several that have a coherent, systemic approach to long range (more than one or two steps apart), middle range (one or two steps apart), and close range (no steps/grappling), as well as a coherent approach to weapons training.

When I use the word SYSTEM -- I'm not talking about somebody shoving some Brazilian JuJitsu onto Karate, with a dash of Muay Thai and smidgen of something else. I'm talking about a coherent whole, with shared elements and principles at each range. The principles, if not the specific application, should be recognizably from a common base, whether the range is long, middle, or close. Many of the silat styles, for example, use the same principles for stick, knife and empty hand. Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu uses unified elements of body dynamics and motion, according to its practitioners, whether they're fighting empty hand or armed. In Bando, the same fundamental principles underlie the 9 animal systems, and the weapons. The difference is the application. At the other end of the scale, look at Judo or Aikido; they have some very limited striking, but Judo has no inherent weapons. Similar, I'm not aware of any inherent weapons in Tae Kwon Do; every TKD stylist I've seen doing weapons has got them from somewhere else. Sometimes they're at least labeled Korean... sometimes, they're blatantly lifted out of Okinawan Karate.

Similarly, some martial arts are more adapted to reality, while others are more sport oriented. Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Judo, Lethwei, XMA, MMA and the rest are great combative sports, and they do have some application to self defense (some more than others; I've seen some very skilled Judoka use it on the streets, for example, with great success), while Krav Maga, Tony Blauer's SPEAR system, Peyton Quinn's Adrenal Stress Training, Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, and many others are much more (or even exclusively) reality oriented, with little or no sporting application. And, sometimes, it depends on what the student/practitioner wants to do. You can do traditional karate for sporting events, or solely for self-defense, or as a mix.

However, a system is never "complete" in the sense of being finished. Just as we're constantly developing new weapons, new responses must be developed. And, as I said, I'll agree that no one single system can cover everything from arm locks to thermonuclear war. But I don't think that using that as a definition of "complete" is very reasonable, either. I don't think there's any one person who knows every word in every language... But there are systems of learning languages that enable a person to be functionally capable of using the language.

 

[Iron Leopard]

I always think of kempo as the complete system. Of course I'm biased since that's my main art! so this is only opinion. Now the reason I think this is what it contains. kata, sparring, set techniques, mutiple attacker training, breathing excercises, angles, flexability, kicks, punches, throws, take downs and ground fighting. none violent techniques, womens defense techniques, discipline etc and much more. you can of course blend styles but..I don't agree that that's the best way to go. say tkd for kicks and sparring, with krav maga for practicle self defense and ju-jitsu for ground fighting and boxing to develope your hands and condition your body. It's better if you find a Martial art that encompases all of it together. As always this is just my opinion and I've been wrong on many occasions! lol

 

[exile]

I always think of kempo as the complete system. Of course I'm biased since that's my main art! so this is only opinion. Now the reason I think this is what it contains. kata, sparring, set techniques, mutiple attacker training, breathing excercises, angles, flexability, kicks, punches, throws, take downs and ground fighting.

Garden-variety karate, under the most informed and comprehensive interpretation, contains kata, `set techniques' (realistic bunkai), multiple attacker training (if appropriately trained, to the extent that any martial art can provide resources for multiple attacker situations), use of correct angles of defense/attack (embusen and realistic fighting tactics, recoreded in the katas), kicks (low, targetting joints and oriented to limb destruction), punches, and throws/locks/sweeps/takedowns (just take a look at Iain Abernethy's bunkai for the Pinan katas see how it's done!) As for groundfighting, I can't think of a single standu-striking system that a BJJ expert would regard as having even minimally adequate ground technique (assuming that you were going to try to keep the fight on the ground, as vs. techs to get away from the ground asap). Breathing exercises and flexability aren't specifically part of the technical content of any given MA; they're something you need to train for a variety of physical activities, and the degree to which you train them, and how, varies from school to school and instructor to instructor. Sparring? What are we talkiing about here—what combat range? Karate in its sport manifestation involves street-unrealistic kumite practice aimed at competition, but old-style karate training, and its current rebirth in the so-called `kata-based' sparring approach, is as close to simulating a real street-fight as you want to get. Again, different schools in different arts will train for combat at different ranges and with varying degrees of realism, but you can hardly say that `sparring' in general is something that some MAs offer while others don't. And everything I've said here about karate hold for TKD and TSD among Korean arts, and probably others as well, and all kinds of Chinese systems...

none violent techniques, womens defense techniques, discipline etc and much more.

Not sure what you mean by nonviolent techniques (fight evasion isn't part of the technical content of any art; it involves a set of attitudes and skills that transcend any particular fighting style). And women's self-defense resources are available in any TMA I can think of. Discipline isn't a technical resource of a particular MA or subset of MAs, it's a prerequisite to effective training in any MA (or in skiing, or calligraphy, or drawing, or language learning, or... or....)

you can of course blend styles but..I don't agree that that's the best way to go.say tkd for kicks and sparring, with krav maga for practicle self defense and ju-jitsu for ground fighting and boxing to develope your hands and condition your body.

TKD has at least as many hand techs as kicks, probably more, and in the realistic SD scenarios recoverable from TKD/TSD patterns, hand techs are far more extensive than kicks, which are typically parts of sweeps and throws, or finishing strikes to take an assailant, in a typically lowered-upper-body configuration, to the ground and finish him off while he's on the ground. Re Krav Magda: did you see the `Police Shotokan' video that we had a link to a few months back? compare what those guys were doing with what Krav Magda does, and you'd see a huge commonality in techniques, executed with a brutality that was kind of uncomfortable to watch, in a sparring mode that probably sends a good number of trainees a year to the doctor's office if not the hospital. Boxing itself doesn't develop your hands and condition your body; it's how you train that does that—I doubt any boxer's hands in history were better trained and conditioned than Mas Oyama's. And so on.

We need to get away from this ongoing conflation of the technical content of the art with the way in which people train that content. So far as I can see, there are certain arts that focus on standup, with some grappling used to set up the standup techs, and others that focus on the ground, with strikes used opportunistically to get an advantage in ground position. That's really the major division between the MAs, so far as I can see...

It's better if you find a Martial art that encompases all of it together.

But look—you can't encompass the ground game and the standup striking game `together', because they represent two fundamentally different strategic approaches. The whole technical content of the art in its tactical aspect follows from its strategic approach; if you try to included two fundamentally different strategies under one `roof', you wind up in the same position as the chess master who tries to play an attacking and defensive/attrition game simultaneously. This whole idea of a `complete' MA is a red herring. Train your favored art in depth, realistically, against non-compliant opponents, over many years, with patience and dedication, and you're going to get as close to completeness as is possible. But don't expect a miracle...

 

[Iron Leopard]

exile ...good points I do agree with you. I do find that at least in the kempo studios I've trained/taught at that I do incorporate alot of ground fighting. of course it's not the main curriculam and nothing near as good as ju-jitsu and some of the other ground fighting systems and schools.

I guess it all comes down to your instructors. I feel that any good dojo should include ground fighting techniques and principles.

 

[Rook]

I always think of kempo as the complete system. Of course I'm biased since that's my main art!

Understandable.

Now the reason I think this is what it contains. kata, sparring, set techniques, mutiple attacker training, breathing excercises, angles, flexability, kicks, punches, throws, take downs and ground fighting. none violent techniques, womens defense techniques, discipline etc and much more.

Almost every traditional art will have all of those things save groundfighting.

 

[exile]

exile ...good points I do agree with you. I do find that at least in the kempo studios I've trained/taught at that I do incorporate alot of ground fighting. of course it's not the main curriculam and nothing near as good as ju-jitsu and some of the other ground fighting systems and schools.

IL—I think it's to Kempo's (and your instructor's) credit that your main curriculum sticks to what it's really known for—hard rapid flowing strikes. You do a lot of flow training, if I understand the ken/mpo general approach, and to try to do both that and a complete ground game would I think work against your main strategic idea. As I understand it, you guys don't want to go to the ground, so if you find yourself there, you need to know just enough about to know what your best shot at getting back up is, yes?

I guess it all comes down to your instructors. I feel that any good dojo should include ground fighting techniques and principles.

I agree... but there are really two different takes on the ground game: you go there because you want to vs. you go there because you've been unable to avoid it. If you find yourself there, and your overall MA strategy is standup, probably the best skill you can have is a kind of intuitive sense of how to apply your standup techs to the ground environment. That's where really good understanding of the basic principles your art relies on comes in. I can imagine, though, that a kempoka and a jujutsu fighter will want to take very different approach to what happens on the ground. It sounds like you're training at a good dojo, that doesn't neglect the possibility that even with your best effort, you might wind up fighting horizontally.

I've come to suspect that there are really two kinds of MAist: those who feel comfortable fighting on the ground and those who will do almost anything not to go there. The latter group are drawn to the karate-based arts (including TKD, TSD, Ken/mpo, and the various Okinawan/Japanese styles) and train with the hope and expectation that if they get good enough at their art, they can avoid the ground entirely. I'm `guilty' of this mindset as much as anyone in that group, I confess. But it's probably unrealistic, and enlightened standup striking art instructors are beginning to address this point (at an earlier stage, in the karate of a century ago, say, it was taken for granted that you might wind up on the ground and needed to know what to do there). You're fortunate to be studying in a school that recognizes the need to train seriously for that possibility, even if it's not your first preference...

 

[Iron Leopard]

exile good points. As with most kempo guys I tend to want to stay on my feet. A good point in that is. what if you are fighting more than one guy in a real self defense situation?

 

[exile]

exile good points. As with most kempo guys I tend to want to stay on my feet. A good point in that is. what if you are fighting more than one guy in a real self defense situation?

Truly! If there's more than one oppo, the ground is not where you want to be, even if you like ground fighting one on one...

 

[Iron Leopard]

I guess the questions I have from reading this thread are...

A. What do you think kempo is missing to keep it from being the complete martial art? or What cross training could be added to complete it?

B. What in your opinion is the most complete art?

Or

C. What would a complete martial art contain?

We will all have different opinions but what I like about these threads is that I learn something new all the time. Maybe it's that an art I thought of as only stick training has grappling techniques or that some TKD schools teach multiple takedowns etc. The martial arts is endlessly fascinating to me!

 

[Rook]

I'm going to take exception to everyone saying that there's no such thing as a complete system.

I'll grant that there's no one system that's perfect for everyone and everything that might happen -- but that doesn't mean that some systems aren't more flexible and adaptable than others, and that some systems don't have at least something addressing most ranges of combat. Can one single PERSON master all possible ranges and types of combat? HELL NO! But, as I said -- there are multiple systems out there that do address different ranges. Within the bounds of reasonable personal combat, there are several that have a coherent, systemic approach to long range (more than one or two steps apart), middle range (one or two steps apart), and close range (no steps/grappling), as well as a coherent approach to weapons training.

So far we are agreed.

When I use the word SYSTEM -- I'm not talking about somebody shoving some Brazilian JuJitsu onto Karate, with a dash of Muay Thai and smidgen of something else. I'm talking about a coherent whole, with shared elements and principles at each range. The principles, if not the specific application, should be recognizably from a common base, whether the range is long, middle, or close. Many of the silat styles, for example, use the same principles for stick, knife and empty hand. Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu uses unified elements of body dynamics and motion, according to its practitioners, whether they're fighting empty hand or armed. In Bando, the same fundamental principles underlie the 9 animal systems, and the weapons. The difference is the application.

From the other perspective, sometimes different ranges can and perhaps should be dealt with from very different perspectives. Different techiques, different principles, different ideas, different practices - each one optimized around a specific set of circumstances.

Similarly, some martial arts are more adapted to reality, while others are more sport oriented.

I hate this description of the split. Sports training implies training against actual resistance and training in some approximation of reality... which is more than the "reality" arts can say.

Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Judo, Lethwei, XMA, MMA and the rest are great combative sports,

How did XMA end up as a combative sport? I would call it more a performance systems... no sports fighting training certainly.

However, a system is never "complete" in the sense of being finished. Just as we're constantly developing new weapons, new responses must be developed. And, as I said, I'll agree that no one single system can cover everything from arm locks to thermonuclear war.

Agreed.

But I don't think that using that as a definition of "complete" is very reasonable, either. I don't think there's any one person who knows every word in every language... But there are systems of learning languages that enable a person to be functionally capable of using the language.

Perhaps.

 

[Rook]

I guess the questions I have from reading this thread are...

A. What do you think kempo is missing to keep it from being the complete martial art? or What cross training could be added to complete it?

Alot.

B. What in your opinion is the most complete art?

Honestly, any art out there is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the things there are to train.

Or

C. What would a complete martial art contain?

Everything. All possible ways of moving the human body for a martial effect, proficient and individually-specific use of all known weapons, etc. No martial art out there comes close.

Just looking at weapons, at the turn of the last century, CMAists spoke of 108 categories of weapons... within each category are multiple variations. No person could master one weapon from each category, although many tried to gain a bit of proficiency with each - none got all that far. Now, there are many types of weapons that aren't even on that list of categories in China alone; by the time you add all the nations of the world and all time periods that still have surviving weapons arts, you would have a list that is probably in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of different weapons.