Maximum Number of Styles to Master

[DanT]

Okay so what do you guys think is a reasonable number of styles someone could possibly master? I mean let's come up with a guy and name him Master Tim. Is it possible for Master Tim to be amazing at:

-Chen Tai Chi
-Southern Praying Mantis
-Northern Shaolin
-Bagua
-Long Fist
-Wing Chun

I mean how many styles could someone master, assuming they start learning Kung Fu at age 5 and live in a temple.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Before you can answer this you first have to define the term "Master". How do you know when you have "Mastered" a style? Some people would say that it takes a lifetime to Master a style, in which case you could only ever possibly Master a single style.

 

[marques]

What is the point (interest in split time over 6 styles)?
What if someone tell you it is possible? Or if it is in fact?

 

[Flying Crane]

Someone can train as many styles as they like, but there are only so many hours in the day, and so many days in the year. Ultimately there are limits on what the body can endure, and there is the mental burnout issue as well. It becomes tedious.

Even if you live in a temple (I assume what is implied is that Tim would have all day long to train, which likely is not actually an accurate reflection of temple life) you will have limits.

The more styles you train, the fewer you will be good at. At some point, you are just scrambling to practice enough to not actually forget the curriculum, but without the depth to get good at any of them. Collecting styles is ultimately a dead-end.

I would say probably more than three, assuming 8 hours of training per day, and there would be diminishing returns. Maybe even two.

But hey, what do I know? I suggest people get really good at one thing, and stay focused.

Let your training serve you. Do not become a slave to your training. At 8 hours a day, every day, you have become the slave

 

[greytowhite]

Well, Chen Taiji, Bagua, Northern Shaolin, and Long Fist are all the same language family. The Wing Chun and Southern Praying Mantis on the other hand are quite different even though sometimes parts of both might make sense to a bagua player. As to true mastery, doubtful.

 

[Charlemagne]

Ask Dan Inosanto

 

[DanT]

Mastery meaning knowing more than enough to teach and be damn good at that style.

 

[DanT]

Someone can train as many styles as they like, but there are only so many hours in the day, and so many days in the year. Ultimately there are limits on what the body can endure, and there is the mental burnout issue as well. It becomes tedious.

Even if you live in a temple (I assume what is implied is that Tim would have all day long to train, which likely is not actually an accurate reflection of temple life) you will have limits.

The more styles you train, the fewer you will be good at. At some point, you are just scrambling to practice enough to not actually forget the curriculum, but without the depth to get good at any of them. Collecting styles is ultimately a dead-end.

I would say probably more than three, assuming 8 hours of training per day, and there would be diminishing returns. Maybe even two.

But hey, what do I know? I suggest people get really good at one thing, and stay focused.

Let your training serve you. Do not become a slave to your training. At 8 hours a day, every day, you have become the slave

I agree because even at the temple they typically learn 2 styles and 18 weapons but also spend hours on prayer, meditation, etc.

 

[DanT]

What is the point (interest in split time over 6 styles)?
What if someone tell you it is possible? Or if it is in fact?

Let's just say someone really loved martial arts and wanted to learn as many styles as possible and master them. I know for instance of several highly skilled sifu's who have mastered 2-4 styles, but after 2-4 they start becoming a bit shady.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Mastery meaning knowing more than enough to teach and be damn good at that style.

Okay, by that measure, I'll give a generic reply. If someone studied several similar arts under instructors who were at least accurately familiar with the precepts of the other arts, they could reasonably have 3 or 4 arts to the level you suggest. The instructors' familiarity between arts is helpful, as it lets them explain things in terms he may already understand from other arts. It also means he doesn't have as much struggle to differentiate between the arts, as the instructors will help with that. If he has unlimited time, we might even raise that count to 5 arts. Assuming the same familiarity, they could probably swap one of those related arts for an unrelated art.

Now, without the instructors' co-familiarity between arts, I think it gets much harder to imagine someone managing that "more than enough to teach" point on more than 2 arts. Okay, I'll buy 3 at a stretch, for a gifted martial artist. Beyond that, and I start to assume there's less "mastery" in at least one of the arts. Of course, if the arts are VERY related (sharing most principles and techniques), then it becomes easier, even without the co-familiarity.

That's all from my point of view. Some who have studied more deeply in more than one art (I'm deep in one, informed in some others, and have dabbled in many more) may be able to provide more input.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

how many styles could someone master,...

After you have developed your foundation through your primary MA system, you may start to cross trained other MA systems. Those cross trained MA systems will be your "minor". During "cross training", you may not want to learn the complete system. You may just want to learn those principles that don't exist in your "major" MA system.

For example, The long fist can be your "major" MA system. It can give you all the striking skill that you are looking for. After that, you may cross train:

- Baji for "power generation".
- Preying mantis for "speed generation".
- Zimen for "pressure point attack".
- WC for "center line theory".
- Taiji for "6 harmony".
- Eagle claw for "joint locking skill".
- Shuai Chiao for "throwing skill".
- BJJ for "ground skill".
- ...

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree because even at the temple they typically learn 2 styles and 18 weapons but also spend hours on prayer, meditation, etc.

I don't know what is typically done at a temple. I've not spent time in any temples, or talked with anyone who has.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Okay so what do you guys think is a reasonable number of styles someone could possibly master? I mean let's come up with a guy and name him Master Tim. Is it possible for Master Tim to be amazing at:

-Chen Tai Chi
-Southern Praying Mantis
-Northern Shaolin
-Bagua
-Long Fist
-Wing Chun

I mean how many styles could someone master, assuming they start learning Kung Fu at age 5 and live in a temple.

You end up with a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" may be a good fighter/martial artist, but you would not be a master of any of the arts in the list. Even those that lived in Temples and started young, back in time, generally specialized in something

And I'm sorry, but I just cannot resist this

 

[Flying Crane]

You end up with a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" may be a good fighter/martial artist, but you would not be a master of any of the arts in the list. Even those that lived in Temples and started young, back in time, generally specialized in something

And I'm sorry, but I just cannot resist this

That hadn't escaped my notice either.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Kenpo was designed to fight off these other styles of combat; however, it is best to know the counters, and not be just winging it; so, the more you study the other arts, the more prepared you are to offer a counter.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Let's just say someone really loved martial arts and wanted to learn as many styles as possible and master them. I know for instance of several highly skilled sifu's who have mastered 2-4 styles, but after 2-4 they start becoming a bit shady.

Some would argue that there is a big difference between proficiency and mastery of a style, particularly when it comes to the Chinese Martial Arts. You could become proficient in any of those styles in 5-10 years and could probably teach the basics of them, but true mastery in my opinion takes a lifetime. After all, "mastery" implies that you have learned all there is to know about a style and can no longer improve at it. That is what mastery means to me which is why I believe nobody can truly master a Martial Art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Some would argue that there is a big difference between proficiency and mastery of a style, particularly when it comes to the Chinese Martial Arts. You could become proficient in any of those styles in 5-10 years and could probably teach the basics of them, but true mastery in my opinion takes a lifetime. After all, "mastery" implies that you have learned all there is to know about a style and can no longer improve at it. That is what mastery means to me which is why I believe nobody can truly master a Martial Art.

There are a lot of different definitions for "mastery". I've never considered "mastery" to mean you know all there is to know. To me, "mastery" is when a person really has a deep grasp of the principles of the art. It's that point when the techniques cease to be important, and the person truly has their own flavor of the art. By that mark, it certainly doesn't take an entire lifetime (though those who reach it will rarely feel like they have, because they'll also understand how much better they could be.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are a lot of different definitions for "mastery".

You don't have to know everything in your MA style. If you have one technique that you can do better than everybody else on this planet, anybody who wants to learn that technique will have to come to learn from you, you are a master of that technique.

Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn the basic. Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn his "door guarding technique".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You don't have to know everything in your MA style. If you have one technique that you can do better than everybody else on this planet, anybody who wants to learn that technique will have to come to learn from you, you are a master of that technique.

Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn the basic. Sometime you go to a MA teacher to learn his "door guarding technique".

Agreed. And IMO, mastery of an art doesn't imply knowing it all, nor being done with it.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Totally depends on what you mean when you use the word "master".

If you mean achieving perfect skill and understanding of a style, then the answer is zero. No one ever reaches perfection.

If you mean achieving sufficient skill and understanding of the official curriculum of an art (assuming it has one) to be considered a competent instructor, then it depends on:

• what level of expertise you consider the minimum for a "competent" instructor
• how much time and energy the individual has available to devote to their study
• how talented they are at learning a martial art
• how efficiently they use their available training time and how effective their teachers are at transmitting the knowledge and skills they need to learn

Let's imagine that you consider a practitioner of average skill should be able to reach the level of competent instructor after 5,000 hours of training in a given art. If that person started at age 12 and trained 20 hours per week until they reached age 72, then they would have 62,400 hours of training. That comes out to 12.5 arts trained to instructor level. However, you have to account for time spent maintaining skills and knowledge, otherwise the practitioner would have forgotten the first arts learned by the time he/she got to the later ones. Let's set aside 12,400 hours for just maintaining skills already learned. That drops the total number of arts "mastered" by age 72 down to 10.

There's been a lot of buzz about the idea (promulgated by Malcolm Gladwell) that 10,000 hours of focused practice is what you need to reach world-class expertise in a given field. If you accept that as your standard, then our hypothetical practitioner could have reached mastery in 5 arts by age 72.

One thing not always mentioned about that 10,000 hours theory is that it's based on the idea of focused, mindful practice with a clear aim for improvement in each practice session, not just mindless repetition. If the practitioner has a lower quality of practice than that, then the number of arts drops further still - potentially down to zero. A lifetime of practice badly done may not ever produce mastery.

On the other hand, consider a practitioner who is unusually efficient in organizing their practice sessions, has remarkable natural talent, and takes proper advantage of the lessons learned in one art when approaching the next. Proper advantage does not mean trying to force one art into the mold of another. It does mean understanding which principles overlap and making use of generalizable attributes like kinesthetic awareness, balance, sensitivity and mental fortitude. In this case, perhaps the lifetime number would jump back up to 10. If the arts studied are closely related, it may go even higher. Arts like Judo, Sambo, and BJJ are closely related. Someone with 10,000 hours of dedicated Judo study will not need nearly that much time to reach a comparable level when starting over in BJJ.

That last issue deserves some attention. Some people, myself among them, would argue that Judo, BJJ, Sambo, Catch Wrestling, and similar systems are just different aspects of the same art optimized for specific contexts or competition rule sets. From this perspective, someone who is really good at BJJ, Sambo, Catch, and Judo isn't necessarily a master of 4 different arts - they're a master of grappling who happens to know how to apply that skill in a variety of settings. I'm sure there are other groupings of arts out there which are similar - common principles but different names based on political splits or specialized optimization for a particular context. Someone who works to "master" arts within one of those groupings could achieve respectable proficiency much more quickly than someone who practiced a more diverse selection of arts.