Why do we need to know more martial arts styles?

[aspirator]

Please help me with a few reasons and explanations! I have to show someone, to prove that only the Taekwon-do ITF is not enough to get multiple world champion! Let's say it is possible, but what do you do if you meet an opponent who works\knows 3-4 styles, in conditions where you are roughly equal in value? Something else needs to be done, additional training. I know that, but I have to prove it. You have more chances in the fight if you know kickboxing, and a bit of pointfighting, and a little boxing, and a little muay thai. Your opponent is limited to taekwondo, you know more, you are more skillful, quicker, smarter, you have had to fight with more styles, you have been in difficulty many times, you have more experience. Who will win? Who is a limited player or a complete player? Search and check Tomaz Barada, a legend in the world of Taekwon-Do gained several titels during his career. He became 6x ITF European Champion, 3x ITF World Champion and 3x King of Taekwon-Do Tokyo. He also became 6x WAKO European and 5x WAKO World Champion. Currently retired holding the Wako record of 84 fights without a loss ... Pretty impressive, right? How do you comment, what do you think, why it's good to be a complete fighter, what examples do you know? Thank you very much!

 

[jobo]

Please help me with a few reasons and explanations! I have to show someone, to prove that only the Taekwon-do ITF is not enough to get multiple world champion! Let's say it is possible, but what do you do if you meet an opponent who works\knows 3-4 styles, in conditions where you are roughly equal in value? Something else needs to be done, additional training. I know that, but I have to prove it. You have more chances in the fight if you know kickboxing, and a bit of pointfighting, and a little boxing, and a little muay thai. Your opponent is limited to taekwondo, you know more, you are more skillful, quicker, smarter, you have had to fight with more styles, you have been in difficulty many times, you have more experience. Who will win? Who is a limited player or a complete player? Search and check Tomaz Barada, a legend in the world of Taekwon-Do gained several titels during his career. He became 6x ITF European Champion, 3x ITF World Champion and 3x King of Taekwon-Do Tokyo. He also became 6x WAKO European and 5x WAKO World Champion. Currently retired holding the Wako record of 84 fights without a loss ... Pretty impressive, right? How do you comment, what do you think, why it's good to be a complete fighter, what examples do you know? Thank you very much!

im of the opinion that being really good at one,style , is far better than being just good at multiple styles. I'm not at all convinced that being really good at say three arts is better than being really good at just one

 

[Headhunter]

I swear I'm going to have this copied and pasted ready...it not about the style but the person. You could every style on earth and some random drunk could knock you out. If you want to learn more styles go for it but you don't need to at all. And second what do you want to be a multiple world champion in? If you want to be a world champion taekwondo fighter then learning boxing won't do much for you and frankly I don't think many here will agree with your statement

 

[kuniggety]

It depends on what your definition of a fighter is. If all you're doing is competing in a point scoring touch and go environment, and that is your definition of a fighter, then that's all you need. Is your definition of a fighter how well someone does in a cage? The early UFCs showed that knowing only one style set people up for failure. Namely, the fights were pretty much over when the strikers were pulled down to the ground and the grapplers didn't have much chance if they couldn't get the strikers to the ground. Everyone had to learn to do a little of both to be competitive. Is your definition of a fighter how well they'd do on the street? I'd say your best skills is deescalation, next would be a firearm, and third would be actual fighting prowess in which you're probably best off having a few go to moves for the different situations you can find yourself in.

 

[Headhunter]

Also why do you need to prove anything to anyone just get on with what you do and let them get on with what they do

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Why would you need to know how to kickbox, or "a little" muay thai, if you already know taekwondoe. Why not just get better at TKD, then spending your time trying to learn how 4 different fighting style works, especially if they are all (primarily) striking styles?

Regarding "Your opponent is limited to taekwondo, you know more, you are more skillful, quicker, smarter, you have had to fight with more styles, you have been in difficulty many times, you have more experience. ", I would put money on the person who is more skillful, quicker, smarter, with more experience, regardless of if that person only practices TKD, or practices a ton of different styles.

 

[CB Jones]

IMHO, there is striking and grappling. You should try and master one and have a good solid understanding of the other.

You also don't need to learn 4 different striking styles.....and 4 different grappling styles.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

If we are talking about the fighting ring, it depends purely on the rule-set involved. If the only competitions you plan on doing are boxing fights, then you don't need to train grappling or kicking. If you do that's great, but they aren't going to help you in a match. If however you are going into the UFC and only know Boxing, you are going to get destroyed by the first grappler that comes along and takes you to the ground. The best sports fighters train for years around a very specific set of rules in order to give them the best advantage in the ring, and ignore everything else.

Just as an example, let's look at the upcoming fight between Connor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather. You could argue that McGregor, being a UFC participant, is the more "complete" fighter, with more options than Mayweather who only does boxing. However, their fight is going to be done using boxing rules, meaning 90% of the stuff McGregor usually does in a fight will be useless.

At the end of the day, it's all about the rules of the competition.

 

[Martial D]

IMHO, there is striking and grappling. You should try and master one and have a good solid understanding of the other.

You also don't need to learn 4 different striking styles.....and 4 different grappling styles.

Agreed.

There are only 4 ranges to combat. If you know how to handle yourself at all 4(or are at least skilled in not being at/getting away from one or more ranges) then your bases are covered.

For me that's mostly to avoid kicking range if possible (I can throw a selection of kicks decently but my old knees would prefer I didn't), boxing, WC, and BJJ. (Kicking/punching/trapping/grappling)

 

[JowGaWolf]

Here the thing about competitive fighting. You are going to be limited by the rules of the competition. You can be the best BJJ practitioner in the world and none of those skill sets are going to help you be successful in the boxing ring.

So if this is the argument "I have to show someone, to prove that only the Taekwon-do ITF is not enough to get multiple world champion!" one would be better off only focusing within the rules of the competition for TKD.

 

[drop bear]

Each style forces you to focus on a particular aspect of fighting.

So while you may be able to gloss over good punching in TKD for example. You can't if you box. So it develops skills to a finer point.

The example I generally use here is footballers doing ballet.

From a TKD standpoint look up moontasari.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Please help me with a few reasons and explanations! I have to show someone, to prove that only the Taekwon-do ITF is not enough to get multiple world champion! Let's say it is possible, but what do you do if you meet an opponent who works\knows 3-4 styles, in conditions where you are roughly equal in value? Something else needs to be done, additional training. I know that, but I have to prove it. You have more chances in the fight if you know kickboxing, and a bit of pointfighting, and a little boxing, and a little muay thai. Your opponent is limited to taekwondo, you know more, you are more skillful, quicker, smarter, you have had to fight with more styles, you have been in difficulty many times, you have more experience. Who will win? Who is a limited player or a complete player? Search and check Tomaz Barada, a legend in the world of Taekwon-Do gained several titels during his career. He became 6x ITF European Champion, 3x ITF World Champion and 3x King of Taekwon-Do Tokyo. He also became 6x WAKO European and 5x WAKO World Champion. Currently retired holding the Wako record of 84 fights without a loss ... Pretty impressive, right? How do you comment, what do you think, why it's good to be a complete fighter, what examples do you know? Thank you very much!

With all due respect, this is armchair quarterbacking. There are no rules that say a person who has 'more' training in this or that style will always beat a person who has fewer different styles at their command. Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe one day yes, and the next day, same people, no.

 

[JR 137]

I would put money on the person who is more skillful, quicker, smarter, with more experience, regardless of if that person only practices TKD, or practices a ton of different styles.

I'd add being able to take a hit and keep going.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I'd add being able to take a hit and keep going.

Since the OP stated those specific things, I was assuming everything else was equal or unknown. I would add cardio/endurance, and strength (and possibly a better mindset) to the list if I was making it.

 

[drop bear]

With all due respect, this is armchair quarterbacking. There are no rules that say a person who has 'more' training in this or that style will always beat a person who has fewer different styles at their command. Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe one day yes, and the next day, same people, no.

If you are engaged with more people at a higher level you should get better at whatever it is you do.

It is the concept of iron sharpens iron.

Which is a fairly popular concept at least.

It is not about who you can beat on any given day as it is about how to gain consistent improvement.

 

[JR 137]

Since the OP stated those specific things, I was assuming everything else was equal or unknown. I would add cardio/endurance, and strength (and possibly a better mindset) to the list if I was making it.

My bad

 

[Reedone816]

You don't really need to learn other art, but it is wise to know the characteristics of other art and how to handle it in general.
Usually in our local movie, as the sign of finishing his study, the teacher show him the characteristics of other systems and how to counter them.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk

 

[aspirator]

Also why do you need to prove anything to anyone just get on with what you do and let them get on with what they do

If we are talking about the fighting ring, it depends purely on the rule-set involved. If the only competitions you plan on doing are boxing fights, then you don't need to train grappling or kicking. If you do that's great, but they aren't going to help you in a match. If however you are going into the UFC and only know Boxing, you are going to get destroyed by the first grappler that comes along and takes you to the ground. The best sports fighters train for years around a very specific set of rules in order to give them the best advantage in the ring, and ignore everything else.

Just as an example, let's look at the upcoming fight between Connor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather. You could argue that McGregor, being a UFC participant, is the more "complete" fighter, with more options than Mayweather who only does boxing. However, their fight is going to be done using boxing rules, meaning 90% of the stuff McGregor usually does in a fight will be useless.

At the end of the day, it's all about the rules of the competition.

Thanks for all your comments, are perfectly logical and common sense. Because I do not know English well and there are many nuances, I'm limited. But let me explain the situation a little bit more. It's a real and very interesting case, repeat, a real case. Mathematics says a lot in this case, my opinion. In fact, it's only about taekwon-do and kickboxing. I know 2 schools for children under 14. Respect both taekwondo and kickboxing, 2 very attractive sports, taekwondo seems more complete. Children are trained by the best coaches, very very good. It's also about the rules for each sport, when you get to the competition, about how to score. However, attention: if there are 10 battles on kickboxing rules, then the score is 10-0 for kickboxing. If the rules are for taekwon-do, then the score is 9 -1 for ... kickboxing. It is a real, concrete experience. Or to explain otherwise, if I took 10 kids from kickboxing and would go with them to the National Taekwondo Championships, I would probably win 8 gold and 2 silver medals, without these kids making an hour of taekwondo. Kickboxing children are more direct, attacking the head, dominating the fight clearly, and children doing taekwondo are too small, like age, do not have the necessary wisdom to know and use the advantage of foot techniques and ring-to-speed movement. You excuse me again with English. I'm interested in taekwondo in the future at international level, the world's top title, many years in a row. When I see these things, how not to think about kickboxing lessons??? Many taekwondo supercampions also kickboxed and boxed and went to pointfighting contests to gain experience and dominate the fight clearly. Two more real facts. One kid do both tkd and kickboxing. At first, the tkd child was defeated by four kickboxing children, even younger in age and weight. After 9 months, the score is 4 - 0 for him. At tkd competitions he usually was defetead in the first round. At the last tournament he won the gold medal, a international one, 5 wins out of 5, a total of 32 tkd children. Is it that kickboxing 9 months did not matter at all??? Indeed, there is another thing, it could be, after 14 years, when the tkd children will grow up and think of the fight, they will know how to use the higher speed, the combinations of legs as it should, their chances will increase, then they could equal or lead the score. But until then I believe, life has proven to me, that at a great level you need to be polyvalent, to know more than the other. We love Taekwondo ITF very much and we want exceptional results in the future, but we also need good advice. However, life clearly shows the direction in which we must go, the results speak. We have to be one step ahead of the others.Thank you very much!

 

[drop bear]

The other thing you need to consider is opportunities. So if you do kick boxing and TKD. You have more opportunities to compete than if you just did kick boxing. More ring experience, more opponents.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Thanks for all your comments, are perfectly logical and common sense. Because I do not know English well and there are many nuances, I'm limited. But let me explain the situation a little bit more. It's a real and very interesting case, repeat, a real case. Mathematics says a lot in this case, my opinion. In fact, it's only about taekwon-do and kickboxing. I know 2 schools for children under 14. Respect both taekwondo and kickboxing, 2 very attractive sports, taekwondo seems more complete. Children are trained by the best coaches, very very good. It's also about the rules for each sport, when you get to the competition, about how to score. However, attention: if there are 10 battles on kickboxing rules, then the score is 10-0 for kickboxing. If the rules are for taekwon-do, then the score is 9 -1 for ... kickboxing. It is a real, concrete experience. Or to explain otherwise, if I took 10 kids from kickboxing and would go with them to the National Taekwondo Championships, I would probably win 8 gold and 2 silver medals, without these kids making an hour of taekwondo. Kickboxing children are more direct, attacking the head, dominating the fight clearly, and children doing taekwondo are too small, like age, do not have the necessary wisdom to know and use the advantage of foot techniques and ring-to-speed movement. You excuse me again with English. I'm interested in taekwondo in the future at international level, the world's top title, many years in a row. When I see these things, how not to think about kickboxing lessons??? Many taekwondo supercampions also kickboxed and boxed and went to pointfighting contests to gain experience and dominate the fight clearly. Two more real facts. One kid do both tkd and kickboxing. At first, the tkd child was defeated by four kickboxing children, even younger in age and weight. After 9 months, the score is 4 - 0 for him. At tkd competitions he usually was defetead in the first round. At the last tournament he won the gold medal, a international one, 5 wins out of 5, a total of 32 tkd children. Is it that kickboxing 9 months did not matter at all??? Indeed, there is another thing, it could be, after 14 years, when the tkd children will grow up and think of the fight, they will know how to use the higher speed, the combinations of legs as it should, their chances will increase, then they could equal or lead the score. But until then I believe, life has proven to me, that at a great level you need to be polyvalent, to know more than the other. We love Taekwondo ITF very much and we want exceptional results in the future, but we also need good advice. However, life clearly shows the direction in which we must go, the results speak. We have to be one step ahead of the others.Thank you very much!

Err.....what? You are spouting a whole load of hypothetical situations at us and claiming them to be facts....