Training 2 different styles

[MA_Student]

I will point out that different styles are not merely collections of different techniques. There is a lot more to it than that.

It might be worth it for you to train different systems simply so you can begin to understand that.

Um,..I do

 

[Steve]

Except there will always be some sort of application.

Even areas like dance where form outweighs function. I am pretty sure elite level dancers will cross train.

Ballet? Mabye, maybe not. It seems pretty strict.

Or not apparently. Looks like it reflects the judo/BJJ attitude.

Ballet And Modern Dance: Using Ballet As The Basis For Other Dance Techniques

Agreed. Application is how the training is used. If the training is used to perform in competition, that is what you're training for. If the training is used so that you get really, really, really good at training, the system itself becomes the application.

I think as people move beyond proficiency in an art and into the higher levels of expertise, it's pretty easy to see the dysfunction. Where you have styles that are seldom applied outside of the style, the evaluation and analysis of the art turn inward. You start to see folks 'finding" things in the style and looking for deeper meaning. You start to see the style discovering new applications and it's amazing that everything you need is there.

The dialogue around the training changes, too. You start to hear discussion about spirituality, and deeper meanings to all of the movements. This tends to lead people to be more insular and less open to cross training.

Now, none of the above is a problem, if one's goals and objectives are aligned to the training. If you're looking for spirituality and this resonates with you (whatever "this" might be), great. It only becomes an issue if you think you're learning something you are not actually learning.

And to bring this back around to this thread, if there is conflict between what you're learning and what you think you're learning, some amount of mental static is created. How much depends on you. If you're training in a style as described above, and start to cross-train in another style, the issue isn't that you're training two styles. It's that you're seeing alternatives perspectives on things you might previously have taken at face value. That cognitive dissonance might never be fully resolved, which would keep you from excelling in either style.

This cognitive dissonance is less likely to occur in styles where the goals are consistent with the application, and application is not just encouraged but facilitated. This application could be professional or not.

 

[Flying Crane]

Um,..I do

Your prior post did not convince me of that.

 

[hoshin1600]

Agreed. Application is how the training is used. If the training is used to perform in competition, that is what you're training for. If the training is used so that you get really, really, really good at training, the system itself becomes the application.

I think as people move beyond proficiency in an art and into the higher levels of expertise, it's pretty easy to see the dysfunction. Where you have styles that are seldom applied outside of the style, the evaluation and analysis of the art turn inward. You start to see folks 'finding" things in the style and looking for deeper meaning. You start to see the style discovering new applications and it's amazing that everything you need is there.

The dialogue around the training changes, too. You start to hear discussion about spirituality, and deeper meanings to all of the movements. This tends to lead people to be more insular and less open to cross training.

Now, none of the above is a problem, if one's goals and objectives are aligned to the training. If you're looking for spirituality and this resonates with you (whatever "this" might be), great. It only becomes an issue if you think you're learning something you are not actually learning.

And to bring this back around to this thread, if there is conflict between what you're learning and what you think you're learning, some amount of mental static is created. How much depends on you. If you're training in a style as described above, and start to cross-train in another style, the issue isn't that you're training two styles. It's that you're seeing alternatives perspectives on things you might previously have taken at face value. That cognitive dissonance might never be fully resolved, which would keep you from excelling in either style.

This cognitive dissonance is less likely to occur in styles where the goals are consistent with the application, and application is not just encouraged but facilitated. This application could be professional or not.

brilliant,

If the training is used so that you get really, really, really good at training, the system itself becomes the application.

.... the evaluation and analysis of the art turn inward. You start to see folks 'finding" things in the style and looking for deeper meaning. You start to see the style discovering new applications and it's amazing that everything you need is there.

i call this inbreeding


the problem is that "everything you need" is not in any system and it is a case of people putting a round peg in the square hole. (ever notice that the round one will fit in the square but not vise versa)

 

[Flying Crane]

brilliant,


i call this inbreeding


the problem is that "everything you need" is not in any system and it is a case of people putting a round peg in the square hole. (ever notice that the round one will fit in the square but not vise versa)

Well, “everything that you need” is a matter of debate, and often simply a matter of preference.

I honestly don’t care what technique or approach to combat that someone uses if he needs to defend himself. If he is successful, then he had “what he needed.” Doesn’t matter if he took the assailant down and twisted him into a pretzel before choking him out, or punched him in the nose. If it worked and he then escaped, he had exactly what he needed.

I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that. Being “well rounded” is a myth.

 

[Steve]

Well, “everything that you need” is a matter of debate, and often simply a matter of preference.

I honestly don’t care what technique or approach to combat that someone uses if he needs to defend himself. If he is successful, then he had “what he needed.” Doesn’t matter if he took the assailant down and twisted him into a pretzel before choking him out, or punched him in the nose. If it worked and he then escaped, he had exactly what he needed.

I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that. Being “well rounded” is a myth.

This is exactly the kind of "logic" that results from inbreeding. If everything is a matter of preference, then there are no objective standards. Because no one "needs' anything, everyone is free to mine their styles for any kind of esoteric meaning or significance they want without feedback or analysis.

If the esoteric studies are what you are looking for, great. If you're looking for practical skills, this perspective is symptomatic of a very difficult way to acquire them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that. Being “well rounded” is a myth.

MA is like to find the right key to open the right lock. Does one single MA system have all the keys? I don't think so.

If I'm a wrestler, I may not know how to block a punch. I can spend the rest of my life in wrestling, I still won't know how to block a punch.

Until one day someone knocks me down, I will never know that I should not stick out my head like this.

 

[Flying Crane]

MA is like to find the right key to open the right lock. Does one single MA system have all the keys? I don't think so.

If I'm a wrestler, I may not know how to block a punch. I can spend the rest of my life in wrestling, I still won't know how to block a punch.

Until one day someone knocks me down, I will never know that I should not stick out my head like this.

Every situation does not require a different solution.

You ought to be able to find a solution within your training methods. If an appropriate solution wasn’t already mapped out for you in the formal curriculum, then....wait for it...YOU DEVISE SOMEHING ON THE SPOT. if you can’t do that, then all you have learned is to mimick and to follow what others tell you to do.

 

[Flying Crane]

MA is like to find the right key to open the right lock. Does one single MA system have all the keys? I don't think so.

If I'm a wrestler, I may not know how to block a punch. I can spend the rest of my life in wrestling, I still won't know how to block a punch.

Until one day someone knocks me down, I will never know that I should not stick out my head like this.

A Wrestler will need to learn how to not get punched, but surely can find something within his wrestling skills to deal with an assailant who is trying to punch him. He should not need to undertake a formal study of karate or boxing before he has any hope whatsoever of handling an assailant who is trying to punch him.

 

[drop bear]

Every situation does not require a different solution.

You ought to be able to find a solution within your training methods. If an appropriate solution wasn’t already mapped out for you in the formal curriculum, then....wait for it...YOU DEVISE SOMEHING ON THE SPOT. if you can’t do that, then all you have learned is to mimick and to follow what others tell you to do.

It think there is pretty solid evidence that this isn't the case.

The first 10 UFC's spring to mind.

 

[hoshin1600]

Well, “everything that you need” is a matter of debate, and often simply a matter of preference.

I honestly don’t care what technique or approach to combat that someone uses if he needs to defend himself. If he is successful, then he had “what he needed.” Doesn’t matter if he took the assailant down and twisted him into a pretzel before choking him out, or punched him in the nose. If it worked and he then escaped, he had exactly what he needed.

I do not buy the argument that anyone “needs” this or that. Being “well rounded” is a myth.

in my own training i often heard the saying "all is in sanchin" that sanchin is all you need. its a foundational kata yes but honestly you do need to learn more than that.
it seems we are not looking at this from the same perspective. i do not disagree with you. but i have been around many people that "see hidden" techniques in kata that just are not there. the perfect story for this was when the top Okinawan master came and everyone was asking about the application for the techniques in the kata and his answer was that he didnt know the answer because those techniques are not in the kata.....but its ok if you want to practice that. people were seeing things that simply were not there. thats what i mean by a round peg in the square hole. it might work but than it might not because your basing the application on your own imagination. the end result is you end up changing the way you do kata to match some imaginary application that was never there and the actual application is now lost.

 

[Flying Crane]

in my own training i often heard the saying "all is in sanchin" that sanchin is all you need. its a foundational kata yes but honestly you do need to learn more than that.
it seems we are not looking at this from the same perspective. i do not disagree with you. but i have been around many people that "see hidden" techniques in kata that just are not there. the perfect story for this was when the top Okinawan master came and everyone was asking about the application for the techniques in the kata and his answer was that he didnt know the answer because those techniques are not in the kata.....but its ok if you want to practice that. people were seeing things that simply were not there. thats what i mean by a round peg in the square hole. it might work but than it might not because your basing the application on your own imagination. the end result is you end up changing the way you do kata to match some imaginary application that was never there and the actual application is now lost.

I understand your point and I agree.

I guess what I disagree with is that it seems to me that some people operate on an assumption that X system cannot handle Y system, so someone who does X must also do Y or else they will be surely defeated.

Well ok, one approach is to spread your energies over several systems with the goal of getting good enough with each of them to be functional within what they do. The pitfall is that your energy and time is spread too thin and you never get very good at any of the skills from the many systems.

Another approach is to spend a lot of your time working with one methodology in order to become very good with it, and searching for solutions to all problems within that training. Because they do exist.

That doesn’t mean one system has “everything” in it. But it does mean that if you have good training in a good system, it ought to equip you with tools appropriate for dealing with whatever might come at you.

Seems that me that people are quick to write off what they do and can’t see the value that it holds. I think it can be a symptom of too many options. People are always looking at the next school over and jump ship before they really understand and develop meaningful skill in what they were already doing. Rinse and repeat.

 

[MA_Student]

Your prior post did not convince me of that.

Meh dont care. I do end of story

 

[hoshin1600]

I understand your point and I agree.

I guess what I disagree with is that it seems to me that some people operate on an assumption that X system cannot handle Y system, so someone who does X must also do Y or else they will be surely defeated.

Well ok, one approach is to spread your energies over several systems with the goal of getting good enough with each of them to be functional within what they do. The pitfall is that your energy and time is spread too thin and you never get very good at any of the skills from the many systems.

Another approach is to spend a lot of your time working with one methodology in order to become very good with it, and searching for solutions to all problems within that training. Because they do exist.

That doesn’t mean one system has “everything” in it. But it does mean that if you have good training in a good system, it ought to equip you with tools appropriate for dealing with whatever might come at you.

Seems that me that people are quick to write off what they do and can’t see the value that it holds. I think it can be a symptom of too many options. People are always looking at the next school over and jump ship before they really understand and develop meaningful skill in what they were already doing. Rinse and repeat.

i get what your saying and i agree. my thought is, what ever you do, it is your job to be better at what you do than what the other guy does. so if i am a striker my strikes should be good enough to nullify what ever you do.

the OP talked about TKD and MT. if his TKD school does not do any contact sparring, it would not be a bad thing for him to find an MT school that does. most schools (not styles) have a focus and lack some aspect of training, so the opportunity for growth in that area is not there. cross training for this reason is not a bad thing

 

[Steve]

Every situation does not require a different solution.

You ought to be able to find a solution within your training methods. If an appropriate solution wasn’t already mapped out for you in the formal curriculum, then....wait for it...YOU DEVISE SOMEHING ON THE SPOT. if you can’t do that, then all you have learned is to mimick and to follow what others tell you to do.

I think this is a very dishonest application of the false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Headhunter]

If you want to do multiple styles then go for it