Maximum Number of Styles to Master

[Bill Mattocks]

Okay so what do you guys think is a reasonable number of styles someone could possibly master?

Zero.

 

[DanT]

Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?

That's roughly the same definition you supplied originally, so I stick with my initial answer.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?

My previous port covers that pretty well, I think. The only thing I would add is that even an intermediate practitioner can sometimes be an effective teacher if they have good pedagogical skills and continue learning so as to stay ahead of their students. My first ever BJJ class was with Jorge Gurgel, who was only a blue belt at the time. (Back then there were no black belts in the state and probably only a handful of blue belts.) Jorge built up a solid group of students, kept up his own training, worked his way up to black belt, achieved a good degree of success as a professional fighter and BJJ competitor, and coached multiple UFC competitors including one UFC champion. I'd have to say he has proven that he could teach proficiently. Nevertheless when he started his teaching career he was far from being a true expert in the art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My previous port covers that pretty well, I think. The only thing I would add is that even an intermediate practitioner can sometimes be an effective teacher if they have good pedagogical skills and continue learning so as to stay ahead of their students. My first ever BJJ class was with Jorge Gurgel, who was only a blue belt at the time. (Back then there were no black belts in the state and probably only a handful of blue belts.) Jorge built up a solid group of students, kept up his own training, worked his way up to black belt, achieved a good degree of success as a professional fighter and BJJ competitor, and coached multiple UFC competitors including one UFC champion. I'd have to say he has proven that he could teach proficiently. Nevertheless when he started his teaching career he was far from being a true expert in the art.

I was thinking of this at the beginning of this conversation. I know someone who started teaching BJJ as a blue belt (I think), as well. He was an experienced instructor in NGA, and there weren't any other instructors in the area that I know of. I wouldn't have put him in the classification the OP is looking for, but he does fit the description. The same could be said of someone who completes the core curriculum in NGA, given the right other skills.

 

[Flying Crane]

My previous port covers that pretty well, I think. The only thing I would add is that even an intermediate practitioner can sometimes be an effective teacher if they have good pedagogical skills and continue learning so as to stay ahead of their students. My first ever BJJ class was with Jorge Gurgel, who was only a blue belt at the time. (Back then there were no black belts in the state and probably only a handful of blue belts.) Jorge built up a solid group of students, kept up his own training, worked his way up to black belt, achieved a good degree of success as a professional fighter and BJJ competitor, and coached multiple UFC competitors including one UFC champion. I'd have to say he has proven that he could teach proficiently. Nevertheless when he started his teaching career he was far from being a true expert in the art.

Just had a thought I wanted to add here.

Martial arts are actually a cultural folk tradition. Historically, a lot of this stuff was taught from one village member to another, from elders to juniors within a society, from parents and grandparents to children and grand children, etc.

The realities of that era and place meant that these fighting skills were valuable and important as a way to survive threats that may come your way from time to time.

So people taught what they knew, even if it wasn't much or they werent the best at it. Because if your son or daughter needs the skills and there is no one else to teach it, you did the best you could.

So there is nothing to say that, as a cultural folk tradition, which it could still be, someone who isn't even all that good could be doing some teaching. no matter what your skill may be, high or low, nobody can tell you that you cannot teach your own children, or your nephews and nieces, or grandkids, or the neighbor's kids...

 

[oaktree]

Why does Tim in such a hurry to learn or master many styles to teach?
Let's say you study all the arts for a year, to the average 4th grader he will think you look amazing and mastered everything and if you teach him what you know there's your answer, however if someone from say Chen village sees your one year of Chen taijiquan he will say you haven't mastered anything.
I personally wouldn't get so hung up on how long it takes to master and teach something

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?

It depends.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Okay given the number of people who can't get over the use of the word master: how many martial arts could one be learned in enough to teach proficiently?

The term "proficiently" can also be abstract. In the preying mantis system, the 1st technique that you may want to teach can be:

- Right back palm strike at your opponent's face (bait for him to block it).
- Right hand grab on his wrist.
- Left hand grab on his elbow joint.
- Pull his arm into you.
- Release your right hand grip.
- Right hand punch on his face.

If you can teach your student to knock down his opponent by this combo within 1 second, he doesn't need to learn anything else from you. You will be a proficient teacher for him as far as he is concern.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why does Tim in such a hurry to learn or master many styles to teach?
Let's say you study all the arts for a year, to the average 4th grader he will think you look amazing and mastered everything and if you teach him what you know there's your answer, however if someone from say Chen village sees your one year of Chen taijiquan he will say you haven't mastered anything.
I personally wouldn't get so hung up on how long it takes to master and teach something

I don't think anyone is "hung up on" the concept. It seems to me the OP is simply looking for input from others on something he has considered before.

 

[DanT]

I don't think anyone is "hung up on" the concept. It seems to me the OP is simply looking for input from others on something he has considered before.

This.

 

[Juany118]

Ask Dan Inosanto

^^^^^ Quoted for Truth.

That said I think @Tony Dismukes hit the nail on the head.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

^^^^^ Quoted for Truth.

That said I think @Tony Dismukes hit the nail on the head.

He often does.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't think anyone is "hung up on" the concept. It seems to me the OP is simply looking for input from others on something he has considered before.

In my opinion, when one asks how long it will take to master a given art, they don't understand the art, or the notion of mastery.
When they ask how many arts they can conceivably master, more so.

The point of knitting is to knit. Not to become so proficient that one no longer needs to knit.
The point of cooking is to cook.
The point of automobile repair is to repair automobiles.

The point of martial arts training is to train. There is no mastery, there is only training. People become better as they train. That's natural. Someday, a person may become advanced to the point where others refer to them as a master. There is still only training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In my opinion, when one asks how long it will take to master a given art, they don't understand the art, or the notion of mastery.
When they ask how many arts they can conceivably master, more so.

The point of knitting is to knit. Not to become so proficient that one no longer needs to knit.
The point of cooking is to cook.
The point of automobile repair is to repair automobiles.

The point of martial arts training is to train. There is no mastery, there is only training. People become better as they train. That's natural. Someday, a person may become advanced to the point where others refer to them as a master. There is still only training.

I don't think the OP was asking for the point of figuring out how many he could master. I think it was more wondering about the likely validity of those who claim rank in several arts/styles. At least that's how I read it. And when I see a long list, I fairly quickly decide they probably haven't developed any real mastery across all of them. When the list is shorter, it's harder to decide the likelihood. This seemed to me to be the point of the OP.

 

[DanT]

Okay how about this then. How many styles could one claim to teach before it starts sounding suspicious? 3-4 max to me sounds realistic. For example I know of a particular instructor who teaches the following: Whirling Palm, Buddha Palm, Hua Fist, Northern Shaolin, Southern Fist, Luohan Palm, Chin Na, Drunken Immortal, Black Tiger, Golden Leopard, 7 Star Mantis, Eagle Claw, Monkey, White Crane, 5 Animal Style. Now this is obviously way to much to learn and be proficient in a single life time. If it takes 5 years of dedication to reach a decent level in a particular style, it would take 75 years at a minimum, just to gain basic proficiency.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay how about this then. How many styles could one claim to teach before it starts sounding suspicious? 3-4 max to me sounds realistic. For example I know of a particular instructor who teaches the following: Whirling Palm, Buddha Palm, Hua Fist, Northern Shaolin, Southern Fist, Luohan Palm, Chin Na, Drunken Immortal, Black Tiger, Golden Leopard, 7 Star Mantis, Eagle Claw, Monkey, White Crane, 5 Animal Style. Now this is obviously way to much to learn and be proficient in a single life time. If it takes 5 years of dedication to reach a decent level in a particular style, it would take 75 years at a minimum, just to gain basic proficiency.

I think this goes back to what some folks said earlier about what the cut-off is for teaching. A BJJ blue belt would have a few things to teach me, and that can be realistically earned in under 3 years (@Tony Dismukes and others can probably nail that down better). There are brown belts in NGA teaching (doing their assistant teaching, but sometimes with their own set of students); they have the core curriculum with reasonable competence, and that can be reached in 3-5 years. I'm sure there are other arts and styles that have useful, teachable competence that can be reached in a short period of time. Those instructors won't (except in exceptional cases) be excellent teachers, but they can be competent. So I could see someone who has done some deep cross-training (meaning they've stayed with some cross-training for years at a time) legitimately adding a couple of styles to their list. So, maybe a max of 4 or 5, unless the styles are so similar as to be easily cross-learned. An example of the latter would be if an instructor from mainline NGA decided to pick up the Shojin-ryu curriculum. If they are active and truly understand the principles, they could probably cover the full curriculum in a year or two. They could maybe do that on one class a week, if they practiced the long forms (not in mainline) between. So, if they differentiated the names (listing "Shojin-ryu" instead of "Shojin-ryu Nihon Goshin Aikido"), they would have two listed, without a lot of extra work. I assume there are other arts where this might apply. I hear folks in CMA talking about how similar some forms are, so perhaps there are some CMA that can be legitimately cross-trained easily.

 

[mograph]

I hear folks in CMA talking about how similar some forms are, so perhaps there are some CMA that can be legitimately cross-trained easily.

In a number of cases, once you get the principles, I think you can cross-train successfully: it then becomes a matter of learning choreography. (But not in all cases, of course.)

 

[marques]

Okay how about this then. How many styles could one claim to teach before it starts sounding suspicious? 3-4 max to me sounds realistic.

At the very maximum. MMA fighters are in that range (3-4), but sometimes/often they master only one of them (if any). These are young ('short' training time), but they fight for real (within known conditions), so we know their level.

Other situation is when people 'master' a few similar/complementary styles. I do not find it suspicious. But if they claim to be master level at very different/opposite styles, I would need to see... (or consult the right person(s)).