Training 2 different styles

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

One Shuai-Chiao teacher said, "If you have learned throw A and throw B from me, you can leave, and find yourself another teacher. I may know a lot of MA material, but I'm only good at throw A and throw B. Any other MA teacher can also teach you the other MA material as good as I can teach you". I like that teacher's "honest attitude".

When my teacher was young, he wanted to learn an old master's "door guarding skill". That old master didn't want to teach him. My teacher kicked on that old master's front door, cursed all his family members. The old master came out, used his "door guarding skill" to beat my teacher up. My teacher ran away and said, "Thanks for the lesson." Did my teacher want to learn the entire MA system from that old master? My teacher just wanted to learn the old master's famous "door guarding skill".

I actually agree with this a lot. I agree that everyone has something they specialize in. My disagreement with this comes with the idea that you cannot teach something you don't specialize in.
Most martial artists I know have some sort of specialty, or something that they excel in. Personally, I'm good at closing the distance, and retreating again. By that logic, this is what I should teach. And when I was teaching, it was because of this. I taught judokas how to close distance, to get into grappling range, so they could be more effective overall. My only issue is that teachers are not always the same as people who mastered the material. Sometimes you can teach a technique even if you have not had the repetition and practice to have mastered it yourself.

Personal example: I know how to throw a front kick and side kick to maintain distance until I choose to do my focus (engage, elbow/knee, disengage). However, I don't practice those as much anymore, so they are far from perfect. I could still teach exactly how to do them, and if I focused on teaching that (ex: If I was teaching self-defense, I would likely teach how to throw a front or side kick and sprint away from that) my students would likely surpass me in my kicking abilities.

The point of this is: you can practice what you like, and may be excellent at what you like. That doesn't impact your teaching abilities. If I practice a throwing art, like your example, I may excel at foot throwing techniques (Osoto Gari, Kosoto Gake, etc), but I should still be capable of teaching hip throwing techniques (O Goshi, Uki Goshi, etc.). Even if I have not practiced it enough to feel satisfied myself,that does not mean I can't teach it to someone else, to the point where they surpass me.

As stated, my focus is: Starting from outer distance, breaking distance with punches and elbows, utilizing foot sweeps, and breaking distance when failed. That is how I handle most sparring matches if my goal is winning. That does not mean that I cannot teach kicks, or punching while not trying to close distance. I know the technique behind those, and can teach it, it is just not what I personally focus on.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

One Shuai-Chiao teacher said, "If you have learned throw A and throw B from me, you can leave, and find yourself another teacher. I may know a lot of MA material, but I'm only good at throw A and throw B. Any other MA teacher can also teach you the other MA material as good as I can teach you". I like that teacher's "honest attitude".

When my teacher was young, he wanted to learn an old master's "door guarding skill". That old master didn't want to teach him. My teacher kicked on that old master's front door, cursed all his family members. The old master came out, used his "door guarding skill" to beat my teacher up. My teacher ran away and said, "Thanks for the lesson." Did my teacher want to learn the entire MA system from that old master? My teacher just wanted to learn the old master's famous "door guarding skill".

Another point that came to mind in this: if you do not know how to do something, you should not try to teach it. In my above post I talked about how i would teach kicks even though they're not my specialty; however, I know how to do the kicks, and have successfully used them in sparring matches. I just haven't practiced them with enough repetition to my satisfaction. If you have not practiced throws/kicks/pins/etc. to a point that you're confident you can do them on a resisting opponent, you should not be teaching them. Wanted to add that in so people didn't assume I was suggesting people teach things they are not trained in.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Simple. Everybody sucks. There are no masters. Keep training. Eventually you die. That's all there is. Nobody has enough time in one life to master even one martial art. Multiple arts mean less mastery of each.

Perhaps. I am certain I am better at my primary art because of the time I’ve trained outside it. And even if that time had made me less technically masterful within NGA, it would still (in my case) make me better at defensive fighting. Since my goals don’t actually include mastery of NGA (that would be a by-product of the training), I don’t measure my ability in an art by mastery, but by application.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Every time you state this I wonder...do you think founders have mastered their art?

I think most of them would say they certainly hadn’t when they founded it. Depending upon how we (they) define mastery, some might feel they did later. I recall that some have been quoted as saying they never did.

The issue to me is that definition. If mastery means complete comprehension and total skill, then nobody gets there. If it means deep comprehension and a high skill level, I’ve met a few masters.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Every time you state this I wonder...do you think founders have mastered their art?

No one has. That they were light years beyond me is not in dispute.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think most of them would say they certainly hadn’t when they founded it. Depending upon how we (they) define mastery, some might feel they did later. I recall that some have been quoted as saying they never did.

The issue to me is that definition. If mastery means complete comprehension and total skill, then nobody gets there. If it means deep comprehension and a high skill level, I’ve met a few masters.

But "deep" is then subjective and everyone will hold a different opinion on who is and who is not a master.

Is it related to time spent training? Ability to fight? Ability to teach? Number of techniques? Fame or public acclaim? Books or videos published? High rank in an organization?

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

 

[MA_Student]

Simple. Everybody sucks. There are no masters. Keep training. Eventually you die. That's all there is. Nobody has enough time in one life to master even one martial art. Multiple arts mean less mastery of each.

Exactly so why not go out and do other things if that's what you're into, if you're never going to master it why not get good at some other styles to

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Exactly so why not go out and do other things if that's what you're into, if you're never going to master it why not get good at some other styles to

The destination will not be reached. The path is what matters. Stay on the path and keep moving forward.

Let's put it another way. I will never be fluent in Japanese. But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese. The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages. I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.

 

[MA_Student]

The destination will not be reached. The path is what matters. Stay on the path and keep moving forward.

Let's put it another way. I will never be fluent in Japanese. But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese. The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages. I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.

As I've said before that's a frankly very old fashioned attitude. It's been proven that people can learn multiple martial arts and use them effectively there's countless people who know more than one martial art and are great at each of them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if you do not know how to do something, you should not try to teach it.

Many MA teachers develop some new techniques during their old age. Since those teachers no longer spar/wrestle, those techniques have not been tested. If that teacher teaches it to his students, and also his student teaches to his students, bad techniques may be created in the MA world.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The destination will not be reached. The path is what matters. Stay on the path and keep moving forward.

Let's put it another way. I will never be fluent in Japanese. But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese. The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages. I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.

That’s a decent example, except that languages are either very similar (Romance languages, for instance) or very dissimilar (English and Russian). With dissimilar tongues, knowledge of one doesn’t help learn the other, and can easily cause interference (conflicting grammar). Every art I’ve either trained or dabbled in was made easier by the other arts I’ve trained and dabbled in.

 

[MA_Student]

The destination will not be reached. The path is what matters. Stay on the path and keep moving forward.

Let's put it another way. I will never be fluent in Japanese. But I can learn to say "Where is the bathroom" and "bring me beer" in several languages, or I can learn more in Japanese. The limiting factor is how much time I have left in my life and how much I can devote to learning one or many foreign languages. I can become more proficient in one language, or suck in a bunch of them.

Also yeah but Japanese is useless when you go to France

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Also yeah but Japanese is useless when you go to France

If you intend to go to France, don't learn German, Japanese, and Italian, perhaps.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As I've said before that's a frankly very old fashioned attitude. It's been proven that people can learn multiple martial arts and use them effectively there's countless people who know more than one martial art and are great at each of them.

You say "learn" and "use them effectively," and "great at each of them." I say sucks at more than one style, and they would have been much better at one style if they had stayed with it.

Attitudes can be old-fashioned. It doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Many MA teachers develop some new techniques during their old age. Since those teachers no longer spar/wrestle, those techniques have not been tested. If that teacher teaches it to his students, and also his student teaches to his students, bad techniques may be created in the MA world.

If my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle.

 

[MA_Student]

You say "learn" and "use them effectively," and "great at each of them." I say sucks at more than one style, and they would have been much better at one style if they had stayed with it.

Attitudes can be old-fashioned. It doesn't make them wrong.

True but when there's countless examples of video evidence stating the opposite of that attitude it's kind of proves that it is wrong.

Like I said there's nothing wrong with just sticking with one style nothing at all but there's also nothing wrong with doing more than 1 and when doing more than 1 you can end up being very good at both.

 

[hoshin1600]

With dissimilar tongues, knowledge of one doesn’t help learn the other,

actually it does. while the language is dissimilar and there wont be similar root words like english and spanish share, you will have the experience to know what strategies and techniques worked for you and what ones didnt. i also believe that as you exercise and strengthen those sections of the brain it gets easier.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

True but when there's countless examples of video evidence stating the opposite of that attitude it's kind of proves that it is wrong.

Like I said there's nothing wrong with just sticking with one style nothing at all but there's also nothing wrong with doing more than 1 and when doing more than 1 you can end up being very good at both.

What do videos 'prove'? I mean exactly?

Let me explain it another way. You have X number of years left to you. You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training. The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same. So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left. That's how many hours you have to train.

You can spend 100% of those hours training in one style.
You can spend 50% of those hours in training in each of two styles.
And so on.

With each additional style, you decrease the amount of time you have to continue training in one style.

That's math. You can like that or not like that, you can't change it.

The assumption appears to be that one can train 'enough' in a given style that additional training would not make a significant difference.

That is where we apparently disagree. I feel that there is no end to the path, no perfection to be had, no end-of-the-road for training. You will not get to the point where you have learned all there is to learn. So any time you take away from training is time you do not have to get further down that road.

"Very good at both" means nothing to me. What is "very good at both?" It's purely subjective, as I said before. You think you can point to this guy or that guy and say their videos 'prove' they are "very good." I say that they'd be better at one style if they only training in that style than if they divided their time.

In any case, this discussion seems to come up a lot. Let me be very blunt about it. New people show up on MT all the time and ask for advice in training in X, Y, and Z, styles. Which ones should they choose? Which blend is the 'best'? And blah blah blah.

You know what? Everybody chips in with their favorite arts like it was a damned coffee shop, and who cares. What I think is that the new people who ask these questions are not going to train at all, let alone in multiple styles. They aren't serious, they're tire-kickers. They're looky-loos. They won't spend more than a week inside a real martial arts studio in their lives. The same goes for the endless supply of people asking about learning from books or videos. Not only does it not work, they won't do it anyway, so what is the point exactly? They are lazy bums who won't ever get off their fat arses and train in any case. Wannabes and never-wases.

Bottom line is this, though. OP asked for opinions. This is my opinion; train in one style or suck at two of them. You don't like that opinion, that's fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I am offering my opinion.

 

[hoshin1600]

one style ,,,multiple styles.... i think it is an argument of values. what is the perceived outcome of each path and how do you value those outcomes.
if someones goal is to be a "master" or to master an art, that is great but others place no personal value on that outcome. some people value effective fighting ability. and contrary to many peoples belief those two things are not mutually exclusive nor are they interdependent.
depending on ones values they will see one path or the other as valuable and the opposite path as "a waste of time"

 

[MA_Student]

What do videos 'prove'? I mean exactly?

Let me explain it another way. You have X number of years left to you. You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training. The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same. So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left. That's how many hours you have to train.

You can spend 100% of those hours training in one style.
You can spend 50% of those hours in training in each of two styles.
And so on.

With each additional style, you decrease the amount of time you have to continue training in one style.

That's math. You can like that or not like that, you can't change it.

The assumption appears to be that one can train 'enough' in a given style that additional training would not make a significant difference.

That is where we apparently disagree. I feel that there is no end to the path, no perfection to be had, no end-of-the-road for training. You will not get to the point where you have learned all there is to learn. So any time you take away from training is time you do not have to get further down that road.

"Very good at both" means nothing to me. What is "very good at both?" It's purely subjective, as I said before. You think you can point to this guy or that guy and say their videos 'prove' they are "very good." I say that they'd be better at one style if they only training in that style than if they divided their time.

In any case, this discussion seems to come up a lot. Let me be very blunt about it. New people show up on MT all the time and ask for advice in training in X, Y, and Z, styles. Which ones should they choose? Which blend is the 'best'? And blah blah blah.

You know what? Everybody chips in with their favorite arts like it was a damned coffee shop, and who cares. What I think is that the new people who ask these questions are not going to train at all, let alone in multiple styles. They aren't serious, they're tire-kickers. They're looky-loos. They won't spend more than a week inside a real martial arts studio in their lives. The same goes for the endless supply of people asking about learning from books or videos. Not only does it not work, they won't do it anyway, so what is the point exactly? They are lazy bums who won't ever get off their fat arses and train in any case. Wannabes and never-wases.

Bottom line is this, though. OP asked for opinions. This is my opinion; train in one style or suck at two of them. You don't like that opinion, that's fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I am offering my opinion.

I'm not talking about silly demos I'm talking about guys fighting and using their skills. fighters who only train one style would be beaten very easily so its pretty much vital in that world to know more than one. look at the old ufcs the guys who only knew one style got tapped in seconds. yes mma isnt everything but your making a broad assumption that covers everyone are you saying these professional fighters suck are you saying people like bruce lee sucked.

Me I train Muay Thai twice a week and Jiu Jitsu 3 times a week. I couldn't train more Muay Thai if I wanted to as apart from open gym that's all the classes abaliable at the moment and for gi Jiu Jitsu If I was just doing it I couldn't do much more apart from a comp session on Sundays. So in both styles I'm training just as much if not more as people who only do 1 style so how can I suck at both when I do train both styles pretty much the maximum amount of times