The Generalist and The Specialist

[Chris Parker]

Ah, yeah, that sounds familiar... thanks, Tony! From memory the commentary team were lambasting them for lack of conditioning, while saying Royce had been a warrior....

 

[elder999]

Chris, you're probably thinking of UFC 6, held in Casper, Wyoming. Oleg Taktarov and Tank Abbott fought in the finals and they were both completely gassed due to the altitude. Oleg got the win and then just lay on the floor gasping for air.

Royce forfeited his second match in UFC 3 after getting dehydrated in his first match with Kimo.

Casper's barely a mile up.......

.......flatlanders. :lfao:

(UFC 1 was in Denver, which is a whopping 130 ft higher than Capser at a proper "mile high." Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Los Alamos are all significantly higher in terms of altitude induced hypoxia-just sayin'....)

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,



Ha, yeah, you might be missing it... or I might be less than clear! Let's see if we can fix that...

I suppose my point is that yeah, of course, if you take a specialist and a non-specialist, and put them in a situation which is restricted to the specialists area of comfort (and strength), sure the specialist will win. I'm just not sure what the point of such an example is. It's like saying that if you take a maths whizz and a spelling genius, and put them in a spelling bee, the spelling genius will win... well, yeah. Maths doesn't help that much there.

Thing is, though, that doesn't really give much of an indication as to whether the specialist or the generalist is better. All it says is that the situation was better suited to the specialist. The real question as to who is better would be who is more able to keep the situation in their favour... A BJJ guy keeping a BJJ competition/match in a BJJ environment isn't really showing that he's better at dictating the situation.

When we get to the UFC, no, I'm not going to mention the rule set, because it's less of an issue there. What favours one approach or another there is the physical environment. In the first few (the first four, at least), the surface was reputedly a lot softer than it presently is, as it was "firmed up" in order to get the fights happening at a faster pace (the crowd, at the time not knowing much about ground work, would boo when the fighters were on the ground, particularly if it looked like nothing really was going on). The firmer ground encouraged greater speed, which brought striking back into it in a much larger way. To address Tony's point of a harder floor potentially making the throws much more devastating, yeah, that's true... but not really that relevant. After all, the grapplers didn't dominate because they had throws that didn't do as much (although I do remember seeing Tito Ortiz knock someone out with a throw... that was impressive), they dominated because the strikers not only didn't know how to handle them, but also because the strikers couldn't really utilise what they brought to the table as well as on a different surface. Hell, a WWE ring is a firmer surface than the UFC one was (why? Because speed is exciting to watch...).

So when a striker can't move as fast as they're used to, which changes the timing they're used to using, and can't get as much power into their strikes as they normally would (as there isn't enough counter-push from the softer mat), but the grapplers have a surface they're used to, can use the timing they're used to, the range they're used to, the attacks they are powerful with, and more, are you still going to say that the early UFC was really an unbiased format? The modern form is more even, but it's still slightly more skewed towards the grapplers, due to common training methods, as well as the ruleset encouraging grappling. Striking is bigger than it was in the early days, but that's because the environment (the floor surface itself, as well as the rules, the addition of timed rounds, and more) changed.

I only mentioned the specialist, because of the comment TOD made earlier. Again, my point is simple....using the conditions is simply an excuse. What do people do when they're in the real world, not a competition, when they run into issues? I'd like to think they'd adapt to the change and adjust accordingly.

Not just the first time, though. When the UFC was first done, it was supposed to be a one-off (mainly, honestly, to act as an "ad" for the Gracies, who had opened a school in LA, Hollywood, from memory), and was named the "Ultimate Fighting Championship" so that Royce could be named the "Ultimate Fighting Champion", and Gracie JJ referred to as the "Ultimate Martial Art". After that, when we got to the second, it was again the first time most there had a chance to experience the floor. The best they could do was ask those who were in the first one.

Oh, and I might mention that in the third one, even Royce wasn't happy about the "conditions"... it was held well above sea level, and the thinner air apparently was the excuse for his forfeiting, as he gassed out...

To the rest of the thread, something's struck me about it.

There is a common thought process here whereby people are "personalising" the idea of whether or not they (as individuals) are "specialists" or "generalists". As a result there are a range of comments along the lines of "there isn't a problem being both!" Myself, I feel this is really not the point.

The idea (when talking martial arts) is not that the individual person is a "specialist" or "generalist", it is the art itself which is trained which is defined as such, and as a result, really can't "be both" (and honestly, I don't think you can truly be both either). Additionally, the idea of one being more desirable than the other, I feel is not really right either.

Arts are specialist or generalist. They cannot be both. They are one or the other, based on the history and preferences of the founder(s), and the development (and developers) of the system itself. Based on those circumstances, the art develops either specialising in one area or another, or having a broader skill set, depending on it's needs. And, more commonly than anything, most arts are specialist in one way or another. Generalist arts are actually quite rare (true generalist arts, anyway). They exist, but they're the minority. Even something like MMA I'd class as a specialist art, when it really comes down to it, as it's designed specifically for a specific environment. It utilises a variety of ranges, but that's not the same as being a generalist system.

Then you get people who "specialise" in one area or another of their chosen system, such as Judoka who have their tokui waza (favoured techniques), or MMA athletes who have a preference for one range over another. That's down to personal approach, really. But here's the thing. It's not a matter of choice. And most certainly not a matter of conscious decision making.

I agree that the UFC was geared in favor of the Gracies. Early on, he was kicking *** but look what happened as time went on? People started changing their game. As for the altitude....again, if you're going to be fighting in a specific area, do what you have to do, to prep. for that. As for him being gassed.....I'm going to call BS on part of that. IIRC, the 3rd UFC was when he fought Kimo, who, IMO, was the hardest opp. that he had fought. I'd also go so far as to say his ego got in the way. Really Chris, what sounds better....use the altitude or admit you got your *** kicked? LOL!

As for the arts being specialist/generalist....sure, I'll give you that. But, the individual can IMO be both.

 

[MJS]

"Mirroring" is a very common behaviour, whether it makes sense or not, really. You see it all the time, when one fighter starts "bouncing", so does the other one... when one starts kicking, so does the other one. I will say that this is less of an issue with sporting martial artists in their matches, but can come out to a smaller degree. One thing I will say is that Supra (being one of my guys) is taught to see things in more of a "street psychology" approach, so his lessons have emphasised that, not sporting behaviours.

IMO, I still feel its a bad and potentially dangerous habit to get into. Granted when the poop is hitting the fan, you may not be thinking 100% clear, but if you're not thinking at all, well.....

In terms of the Gracies (with the early UFC matches), particularly with the very first ones, all the matches were on one night; if you won the first match, you went on to the next round... so scouting who you'd be up against wasn't really a large option, as you often didn't really get much warning as to who it'd be.

I'll give you that.

 

[Zenjael]

I just re-read the OP and am not sure if this has been covered already but, ASK YOUR TEACHER! If you're emulating him and he has built a reputation on it then surely he can tell you what it's called even if he doesn't think you're ready to know the "secret" behind it.

To Supra Vijai; I have contacted him, electronically so I could ask in more detail. His son just graduated Monday, and they are tied up in that. He said nothing about 'no, i won't teach it' he said at some other point when he's not busy. Considering he's retired from teaching martial arts, give it some credit that he opted to respond at all, to a question of that nature. I have no idea why a teacher would use a technique on you that you are not ready yourself to learn. That would seem kinda vain, and he is anything but that. When I practice with white belts, I limit myself to their level, using their techniques. I'm not trying to WoW them, or beat them, im trying to train them, and hopefully, be better than me someday. When I spar with blue belts, I limit myself to the curriculum they know.

Some styles don't have established curriculum, but even then, if this REALLY is a 'martial art secret' perhaps I should look at it as a compliment that he used it on me. That I was worth it.
And... considering he was very well aware of my ability to learn, and utilize techniques usually on first sight, there's a bit more to it than saying he's hiding something from me.

When he closed, I was a 1st dan in his system, even if higher ranked in others. I did not, and have not, learned all there is to from Chung Do Kwan, and Master Khan.

Cyrianus; the terminology you are using is what I would say is overwhelming the opponent, though honestly neither word is truly appropriate, since it can mislead and obfuscate between different tactics.

I know what you speak of in relation to the second kind of jamming. It happens a lot in Jiujitsu. the problem I have with that, and the only problem, is that the jams wouldn't realistically occur because you NEVER run out of options. Your opponent, presuming it's a single one, does not have enough limbs to restrain every part of your body. I can give example after example, but let's put it like this- in practice, things will not escalate past a point, normally. On the street, those kinds of jams dont really happen. Mainly because you should at that point be ripping their arteries from whichever spot is closest, and trying to maim them with and part of your body you can.

If they hold you like that, they have made themself vulnerable preoccupying themself with you. Make them pay for it. Er, outside of practice, on the street that is. Please take care of your partners, or they won't be one for long.

I've heard of this referred to as a "spike" within the Krav Maga school I trained at briefly. Literally your elbows form a point like that of a spike which you use to drive into your opponent to drive them back.

With regards to the swatting the jab out of the way and moving in, would that still be "jamming" or moving more into the "countering" territory? I see it as the latter but that could just be my understanding of the terminology

You can also use the spike to control their arm, given how close you're willing to get. It's the nicer way of defending with it. Obviously the normative is to ram the hand with the spike, especially at the fingers. Let the energy of their swing help self-destruct that pretty ball of joints they have.

Not exactly. After all, repeating poor form, bad distancing, bad angling, poor technique etc is just going to imprint such bad technique (and so on). And I'm not sure what you're meaning by "contemplating"...

To Chris Parker; I think we all know that when somebody says repetition they keep this in mind, 'Practice doesn't make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect.'

Sarcasm aside that you really think another human being has never experienced adrenaline... in a contact sport... you should open your mind to more than regionalistic politics. Korea was not always KOREA. Heck, it's not even Korea now. Japan, too, may very well have been colonized by the Chinese.

Which certainly implies importation of ideas could happen. Buddhism certainly did, and I wonder what they are oft popularized as practicing as well?


To GaryR; Too many posts to quote at once, but I assure you I read them all twice to make sure I could retain what you wrote.

The handstrikes I use are usually redirection from blocks. Think of it as an extension of the arm, blocking, and the finished extension usurps their force from their attack because you make contact and slide, transferring that kinetic energy. All you have to do then is reach out, and I've found even a tap with little force of my own can do more damage than I'd like. Normally I just block now, tapping, and extend. But when I am doing the technique in the OP, there is no defense, it is all offense, and I am not trying to block and attack together, as is the norm for how I trade hands. The point of it is to get in, and hit.

I wish a term came to mind what to call it when your hand is loose, but it is still strong, firm, though not locked. I'd say tense, but that's the opposite, since it impedes channeling of force.

This method of punching is not common, its not surprising you can't fathom it. The body weight can be/is behind it. The power is generated from the feet up - turning the waist, exploding-expanding, contracting, coiling/spiraling - its all body mechanics and physics. Also behind the strike is "fajing" or explosive energy - its a concept from internal martial arts, again, not common to find people who can apply fajing and full body power mechanics to seamless elliptical punches.

It's far from a series of taps, each strike can be stronger, faster, and smoother than a reverse punch, as well as better than wing chuns "chain punching" which is good, but still lacking power/mechanics by comparison.

I cannot word it any better; this is what I do. Thank you. To those who don't think this is correct... a prime example is Tony Jaa. Jam in the protector. You can visibly see where he can only do certain techniques because he has built up the momentum from pressing with those strikes. Sure, it's not real fighting, but the point is the same- the momentum it builds is powerful, and further, there are some techniques which are only executable once you have the momentum, or a very powerful explosive start.

I concur with your view about styles. To be honest, I actually think we have a lot in common in terms of martial arts philosophy (from the limited gleaning one can get online). I think it also the right view, though one I have found will get a lot of vehemance directed toward us. And while it might roll off our shoulders, others have much pride, which I'm sure you can see. I just try not to feed it. For example, Chung Do Kwan is superior to Shotokan, not because Shotokan has anything wrong, or is a bad style (it's in my opinion the most well-rounded martial art out there) but because the people who founded Chung Do Kwan learned Shotokan, and added to where it was missing. And it's still happening today. Where I live the Chung Do Kwan practiced has become heavily influenced -directly- by Okinawan Karate, most especially in ground work. This means there is a school of Chung Do Kwan, with many students, who as a part of their style, have groundwork comparable to any I can think of. In addition, certain members of this school also learned Krav Maga, implementing elbow work.

We are doing Chung Do Kwan, but we are doing a style more 'complete' in terms of addressing all levels of fighting. This doesn't mean the arts we've created it from (by no means was this a deliberate process for the handful of us who example this style) are defective, it's just that sometimes arts only focus on one aspect, REALLY WELL, and another style can benefit tremendously from the combination. Wing chun and TKD with Shotokan created modern Chung Do Kwan, at least out here in the D.C. area.

There is a video of mine, now in the horror section of me and a fellow practitioner doing elements of this. Yes, it is flashy, since the point of the video was to entertain friends. Both he, and I, have broken 3 one inch cinderblocks together, so we know how to hit. We choose not to out of respect for each other. A lot of people say we pull our punches, but I'd argue it's control. I would love any insight you might have to offer should you review it.

To whoever asked me what I meant by contemplating; to really learn TKD, all 7 styles, between each style there is a seperate methodology to how they execute their techniques. They can differ a lot, or so little it would be acceptable if a student from another style oriented it that way. I'm talking about the kind of difference of an inch when you place your fist horrizontally on your waist, or at naval level. Knife-hand below or at naval in MDK, and knife-hand protecting the solar plexus in CDK. Whether the fingers should be open in Oh Do Kwan, or bent in Jidokwan.

It goes on and on, and the only way to learn how to really differentiate, to be able to know that you threw a knife-hand in the jidokwan, when you meant to, and not when you meant to do the Chung Do Kwan, is to practice repetition, and really ponder hard about what you have been tought. The kind of hard thinking where you sit quietly, and just reflect over the differences, for hours.

That's contemplating, and when you actually understand the art you've been taught, it becomes one of the greatest ways to grow as a martial artist. I've found at least.

Here's my opinion on CMA kicking, since I feel there is no answer I can give which won't get a response which is a reflex slap down. They kick well.

Please try to tell me I'm wrong on that... just saying. Why would I engage in a conversation, on an irrelevant aside topic, when the only response will be rude disagreement. Are we martial artists, or are we above that kind of trite?

 

[Zenjael]

Gah, I totally posted this in the wrong thread. My b.

 

[Supra Vijai]

To Supra Vijai; I have contacted him, electronically so I could ask in more detail. His son just graduated Monday, and they are tied up in that. He said nothing about 'no, i won't teach it' he said at some other point when he's not busy. Considering he's retired from teaching martial arts, give it some credit that he opted to respond at all, to a question of that nature. I have no idea why a teacher would use a technique on you that you are not ready yourself to learn. That would seem kinda vain, and he is anything but that. When I practice with white belts, I limit myself to their level, using their techniques. I'm not trying to WoW them, or beat them, im trying to train them, and hopefully, be better than me someday. When I spar with blue belts, I limit myself to the curriculum they know.

Some styles don't have established curriculum, but even then, if this REALLY is a 'martial art secret' perhaps I should look at it as a compliment that he used it on me. That I was worth it.
And... considering he was very well aware of my ability to learn, and utilize techniques usually on first sight, there's a bit more to it than saying he's hiding something from me.

When he closed, I was a 1st dan in his system, even if higher ranked in others. I did not, and have not, learned all there is to from Chung Do Kwan, and Master Khan.

Sigh... I'm at a loss at how to respond to the vast majority of this so I'll stick to just the bit you addressed to me directly. Firstly, great, congrats to his son for graduating. Hope he does well with himself. Moving on though, as to why a teacher would use a technique on you that you don't know: why on earth would they bring themselves down to your level? They are the teacher, of course they know more! It doesn't need to be malicious or vain in the slightest, there will just be unconscious expressions of things or techniques themselves that can and will be used from time to time as things go on, especially if you do free form training. I remember my very first class back in 2006 perfectly. I was partnered with my current instructor for a bit and he took the time to go through what we needed to cover but also show me a sneak peek of some other techniques or variations and I fell in love with it instantly. I didn't stand there thinking "how dare he use something I haven't been shown" even though I landed on my butt more than once; all I could think was "I can't wait till I can do that!". If I'd tried any of that in my first class I would have failed miserably. Hell even today, I'd struggle to do everything with as much fluidity as he had back then and that just drives me to keep going to classes and learning more. It's not about wowing (WoW is World of Warcraft btw) people or beating them, it's about inspiring them and giving them a taste of the potential they can achieve with the art. If you can't see that side of the coin, I'm afraid it paints a fairly bleak picture of your overall outlook and attitude to training.

If you could learn and utilize techniques perfectly on "first sight", I'm sorry but you would never need to walk into a Dojo. Why not just buy a bunch of DVD's and learn from them? Sure it may cost you a bit but it's once off and you'll perfect everything by watching it once anyway, so you can just resell the DVD's on Ebay or Amazon or something and still be an "awesome martial artist"

I'm choosing to ignore that first sentence because it has no relevance and is a much of a muchness so to speak. I'm glad you at least say you have not learnt everything about the system because that would just be a tad too unbelievable now, wouldn't it?