What arts are incompatible with each other?

[skribs]

I'm curious if there are any arts that just don't work together. Where training both arts will actually hinder your progress more than help it.

Now, I know if you train something like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai, that what you'll get is different techniques for different situations (BJJ when you're on the ground, MT when you're standing up). So even though they have different techniques, they can work well together.

Similarly, I know people might have an issue training similar arts with slight differences between them, for example if you were to take Shotokan karate and Kukkiwon Taekwondo, you'll notice a big difference in the stances. But, if you're capable of doing a back stance and front stance, and if you're capable of doing a front kick and a roundhouse kick, then you should be capable of doing a Shotokan-style stance and a Kukkiwon-style stance.

But are there any arts that are fundamentally so different from each other, that cover the same fight situations as each other, where training in both will make it harder to train in either of them?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The following MA systems are incompatible with each other.

1. long fist and WC - 180 degree shoulder punch vs. 90 degree shoulder punch.
2. Chinese wrestling and Bagua - move back leg first vs. move leading leg first,
3. Chinese wrestling and Taiji - create opportunity vs. wait for opportunity.

I have tried to integrate long fist and WC for the past many years. So far, I still don't have any luck.

Here is the long fist 180 degree shoulder punch. It can give you the maximum reach.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I always believed that TKD and WC, would be incompatible. Short range/long range thing. But, I have no real experience with either.

 

[hoshin1600]

i think this is the wrong question. skills are skills and there is always a way to reconcile one set of skills with the other. the issue as i see it is a conflict of philosophy and training principals. these are much harder to combine.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

weapon arts with non weapon arts. If you mix too early you could damage either practice.

 

[now disabled]

weapon arts with non weapon arts. If you mix too early you could damage either practice.

Why do you say that ?

 

[now disabled]

conflict of philosophy and training principals. these are much harder to combine.

That is oh so true

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

weapon arts with non weapon arts. If you mix too early you could damage either practice.

Have to disagree with you on this. If you (general YOU) can't associate each and every weapon technique with your open hand technique, there is something wrong with your training path.

In the 4 roads Miao Dao form, for each and every knife technique, you can find an equivalent open hand technique. People train open hand first before they train weapon. When they train open hand, the weapon principles have already been trained.

For example,

Open hand - your opponent punch at your face. You use comb the hair to deflect that punch, you then strike back with the same hand.

Weapon - You opponent sword chop at your head. You use a 45 degree upward block to deflect that sword. You than chop your sword back.

Open hand - block and strike with the same hand.

Weapon - your sword touch on your opponent's sword. You than slide in and stab.

 

[Martial D]

The following MA systems are incompatible with each other.

1. long fist and WC - 180 degree shoulder punch vs. 90 degree shoulder punch.
2. Chinese wrestling and Bagua - move back leg first vs. move leading leg first,
3. Chinese wrestling and Taiji - create opportunity vs. wait for opportunity.

I have tried to integrate long fist and WC for the past many years. So far, I still don't have any luck.

Here is the long fist 180 degree shoulder punch. It can give you the maximum reach.

But you CAN use WC principles with long range hand attacks. It's just a matter of combining the center of mass drive/low elbow power with hip rotation. Most WC doesn't seem to do it, but I do.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

When they train open hand, the weapon principles have already been trained.

To cover this and the sections bove it.

Depends. FMA starts with weapons then does unarmed last and uses the weapons training as a basis for unarmed. then you have specfic styles for training particular weapons or sets which have carying amounts of unarmed training in them. (usually grappling heavy)

It just seems harmful to do a system of fighting that starts with fists alongside one which starts with weapons as they have different priorities and needs from you and will teach you different things etc. Maybe after you have a base in either you can start in either.

I can concede for something like long sword, wont be as harmful as if you did something like FMA and co trained a unarmed first style. (given long sword is literally just about using that one weapon in combat rather than a full system like FMA) So SOME might work, i just view most not working too well.

Also in your cited example it had both unarmed and weapons. unarmed first with the intention of working up to weapons and looks like it included some unarmed moves which work the same or highly similar to weapons to aid in switching.


this is my view on the matter anyway. You never know what works and doesn't until you try them together.


@now disabled

this particularly answers your question as well.

 

[dvcochran]

Have to disagree with you on this. If you (general YOU) can't associate each and every weapon technique with your open hand technique, there is something wrong with your training path.

In the 4 roads Miao Dao form, for each and every knife technique, you can find an equivalent open hand technique. People train open hand first before they train weapon. When they train open hand, the weapon principles have already been trained.

For example,

Open hand - your opponent punch at your face. You use comb the hair to deflect that punch, you then strike back with the same hand.

Weapon - You opponent sword chop at your head. You use a 45 degree upward block to deflect that sword. You than chop your sword back.

Open hand - block and strike with the same hand.

Weapon - your sword touch on your opponent's sword. You than slide in and stab.

Your comments take me back to my Kali days. Very true.

 

[Danny T]

I'm curious if there are any arts that just don't work together. Where training both arts will actually hinder your progress more than help it.

Now, I know if you train something like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai, that what you'll get is different techniques for different situations (BJJ when you're on the ground, MT when you're standing up). So even though they have different techniques, they can work well together.

Similarly, I know people might have an issue training similar arts with slight differences between them, for example if you were to take Shotokan karate and Kukkiwon Taekwondo, you'll notice a big difference in the stances. But, if you're capable of doing a back stance and front stance, and if you're capable of doing a front kick and a roundhouse kick, then you should be capable of doing a Shotokan-style stance and a Kukkiwon-style stance.

But are there any arts that are fundamentally so different from each other, that cover the same fight situations as each other, where training in both will make it harder to train in either of them?

Incompatible??

Most humans are very capable of learning practicing and blending a multitude of martial arts.
Incompatible is being unable to be held or performed by a person. In learning some many well be more difficult to learn at the same time but I truly believe the average human can learn and train any combination of martial arts.
Just because it maybe more difficult doesn't mean it can't be done and therefore is incompatible.

 

[dvcochran]

Ho

Incompatible??

Most humans are very capable of learning practicing and blending a multitude of martial arts.
Incompatible is being unable to be held or performed by a person. In learning some many well be more difficult to learn at the same time but I truly believe the average human can learn and train any combination of martial arts.
Just because it maybe more difficult doesn't mean it can't be done and therefore is incompatible.

"Incompatible" - (of two things) so opposed in character as to be incapable of existing together. By the definition I agree with you. However, I imagine there are some styles (possibly Kung Fu) that after many years of training would be hard to convert to some of the shorter Okinawan or the ground and pound styles. Not impossible, but difficult for the average person.
I only have a green sash but I find it very compatible with TKD. Kali is so different in the practice setting but I know it is compliments SD very, very well with my other two styles of experience. I would say it leads in SD from my experience.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My view is that any two systems can be combined, so long as you don't try to be a purist of either. If one teaches always lead with hip, and the other teaches always lead with foot, you just have to figure out what the advantages of each are, and develop your own approach to blending them. Maybe you find all the techniques work with the hip-first movement, so you just use that. Maybe you find that hip-first works best on front-hand techniques and all kicks, and everything else mostly works best (or at least not worse) with foot-first. Boxing teaches depend on the fists. BJJ almost never uses fists that I've seen. The two fit together quite nicely, once you stop trying to be a boxer while doing BJJ, a Jitser while boxing, or either in purity while moving back and forth between them.

Bear in mind, neither I nor anyone else, has experienced all available systems, so there may be an exception somewhere I can't conceive of.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To cover this and the sections bove it.

Depends. FMA starts with weapons then does unarmed last and uses the weapons training as a basis for unarmed. then you have specfic styles for training particular weapons or sets which have carying amounts of unarmed training in them. (usually grappling heavy)

It just seems harmful to do a system of fighting that starts with fists alongside one which starts with weapons as they have different priorities and needs from you and will teach you different things etc. Maybe after you have a base in either you can start in either.

I can concede for something like long sword, wont be as harmful as if you did something like FMA and co trained a unarmed first style. (given long sword is literally just about using that one weapon in combat rather than a full system like FMA) So SOME might work, i just view most not working too well.

Also in your cited example it had both unarmed and weapons. unarmed first with the intention of working up to weapons and looks like it included some unarmed moves which work the same or highly similar to weapons to aid in switching.


this is my view on the matter anyway. You never know what works and doesn't until you try them together.


@now disabled

this particularly answers your question as well.

Different priorities aren't that hard to reconcile in your personal style. The issue only arises when you're trying to be a purist AND access both at once. Boxing has a priority on striking distance, defending strikes, and controlling with strikes - it's all about strikes, and only punches, really. Judo has a priority on grappling, defending grappling, etc. They are blended pretty easily in practice, so long as you don't try to use one to change the other (using boxing distance and timing to do Judo).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Taiji:

If you don't move, I won't move.

Xing Yi:

I'll keep moving. Even if I may not find any opportunity to attack, as long as I keep moving, soon or later I'll find an opportunity to attack.

 

[Flying Crane]

If the physical mechanics of how you practice otherwise similar techniques are inconsistent between two systems, then the training methodology is in conflict. This can cause trouble in your progression because you keep switching your methodology in how you practice an otherwise similar technique. The end result of each method of training may be an equally effective technique, but how you develop the technique needs to be done with consistency in the methodology. Otherwise you will not reach the goal of having an effective technique.

When I was practicing Tibetan White Crane and Tracy lineage Kenpo, I found the fundamentals to be in conflict with each other. The way we practiced basic punches, for example, in kenpo, undermined the development of my punches in crane, and vice-versa. The way we used our stances and the way we drilled the punches were inconsistent. I only practice crane now. However, there are some limited items from kenpo that i still keep, because they are useful and do not conflict with the crane methodology. I do not practice kenpo in any systematic way.

As I think about it, I was also practicing wing chun at the same time as well. The mechanics there were also different and conflicted with the others, as far as I understood the wing chun method of training the techniques. I no longer practice wing chun either.

 

[now disabled]

To cover this and the sections bove it.

Depends. FMA starts with weapons then does unarmed last and uses the weapons training as a basis for unarmed. then you have specfic styles for training particular weapons or sets which have carying amounts of unarmed training in them. (usually grappling heavy)

It just seems harmful to do a system of fighting that starts with fists alongside one which starts with weapons as they have different priorities and needs from you and will teach you different things etc. Maybe after you have a base in either you can start in either.

I can concede for something like long sword, wont be as harmful as if you did something like FMA and co trained a unarmed first style. (given long sword is literally just about using that one weapon in combat rather than a full system like FMA) So SOME might work, i just view most not working too well.

Also in your cited example it had both unarmed and weapons. unarmed first with the intention of working up to weapons and looks like it included some unarmed moves which work the same or highly similar to weapons to aid in switching.


this is my view on the matter anyway. You never know what works and doesn't until you try them together.


@now disabled

this particularly answers your question as well.

not really ...

I do not want to sound the kill joy, however I do think that maybe you conclusions are more based on theory than practice, Could it also be that in some of the things you are reading or seeing full all encompassing systems are no longer taught? It does not mean that they never were it merely means that now they are not,

You mention swords well swordsmen were taught empty hand skills too and also other weapons which do operate differently but they required such skill sets again don't be fooled that just because these days the whole gambit is not taught that it once was not.

You can blend most things and the human brain is capable of doing so, could it also be that I and others have said to you in other posts and threads to get one art before you start mixing and matching? That was not saying they cannot work that was us saying (me anyway ) train instead of jumping from one thing to another so rapidly and study before you start picking things apart.

Lad your keen for sure and obviously have a craving to enter the MA world and you do certainly make me think on what you say about this and that and this is just my opinion only, your confusing yourself only as you don't train

 

[zzj]

Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.

Yeah, I know it looks fake as heck....

 

[now disabled]

Well, the style of tai chi I'm currently training seems to be incompatible with all other mainstream martial arts, since it emphasizes the total abandonment of muscular force or training as shown in the video below.

Yeah, I know it looks fake as heck....

Nope it makes sense to me