How many do you need?

[Zero]

I still think the best approach is to find the system that is the best fit for you and train it exclusively and derive everything you can from it.

I agree with you the most part until the above quote, which I still mainly agree with. However, my take is, specialise in your base style and then do learn the key compoents or at least the key defenses or "negations" to other common styles. Ie, a great karateka or kickboxer with years of experience now putting int time to be a very capable sprawler or shoot defender, being able to sense when arm bars or kimuras are being set up and how to apply some of these when the opportunity may be on where a knock out by strike may not be. You look at many of the top and great mma and ufc fighters and a lot have a core art on top of which they have expanded, ie George St Piere.

Otherwise, I agree. I have vistsed and trained in several mma schools and apart from the trainers or top fighters, which usally have a lot of experience (and themselves have built on a base art), a lot of the guys training there are pretty average, or poor, at best on an individual basis when it comes to boxing, kicking and submissions. They are jack of all, master of none. Which does mean when you go head to head with a highly experience striker with some good takedown knowledge you can be in for a world of pain when you a simply trying to get to "ground and pound".

 

[Zero]

When it comes to zanshin, that's a part of it... it means "lingering mind", as I'm sure you know, and has been given in cases as you present it. But another way of looking at it is as a method of dealing with the after-effects (what is "lingering" in your "mind"), especially of adrenaline. It's a way of handling the endorphin release after an adrenaline dump, really. In terms of awareness, though, it's really just another part of same combative awareness as found in the rest of the martial methods.

Hmmm, my take on zanshin is that it is not so much the "after" of the altercation (or rather that this is only a part of it - and it is about being able to avoid the situation and thus the "after" phase). It is more the exact state of mind you always should be in so to be fully aware of your surroundings and potential threats, be it from the environment itself or from other humans. I am pretty sure on my discussions on zanshin that this is the more correct translation/explanation -and application - of the concept. And this in itself is a crucial component of SD.

Importantly, this state of mind is also retained when in an actual altercation or fight (now, that is the real litmus test...), one is operating at a level where one can fight/defend but one is still open to the surroundings and the risks or inputs (such as other potential assailents incoming, getting too near to the edge of the building etc, getting backed into a fence, cop sirens, etc)

Other than the zanshin comments I must confess I may be inclined to agree with you on the most part, not that that bothers you either way : )

Nah... believe me, I'm more than aware of what the original forms were... and it's not what you're thinking it was.

Well, if you know what it is I am thinking then who can argue with that? : )

 

[yak sao]

I agree with you the most part until the above quote, which I still mainly agree with. However, my take is, specialise in your base style and then do learn the key compoents or at least the key defenses or "negations" to other common styles. Ie, a great karateka or kickboxer with years of experience now putting int time to be a very capable sprawler or shoot defender, being able to sense when arm bars or kimuras are being set up and how to apply some of these when the opportunity may be on where a knock out by strike may not be. You look at many of the top and great mma and ufc fighters and a lot have a core art on top of which they have expanded, ie George St Piere.

Otherwise, I agree. I have vistsed and trained in several mma schools and apart from the trainers or top fighters, which usally have a lot of experience (and themselves have built on a base art), a lot of the guys training there are pretty average, or poor, at best on an individual basis when it comes to boxing, kicking and submissions. They are jack of all, master of none. Which does mean when you go head to head with a highly experience striker with some good takedown knowledge you can be in for a world of pain when you a simply trying to get to "ground and pound".

I don't think we really disagree at all. Over the years I have brought boxers, kick boxers, ex high school wrestlers,
catch wrestlers, BJJ guys, kenpo, MMA, kajukenbo, FMA. etc. into our little group to give clinics on their various ways of fighting and we spend the day training to gain an understanding of how they move and apply various techniques. We then work on seeing how our art is used to counter their methods.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Oops - posted my comment in the wrong thread.

 

[Zero]

I don't think we really disagree at all. Over the years I have brought boxers, kick boxers, ex high school wrestlers,
catch wrestlers, BJJ guys, kenpo, MMA, kajukenbo, FMA. etc. into our little group to give clinics on their various ways of fighting and we spend the day training to gain an understanding of how they move and apply various techniques. We then work on seeing how our art is used to counter their methods.

Great approach, it's good to have an open minded club, that's exactly the same approach as mine, to roll with other styles.

 

[K-man]

If someone cross trains simply because they love to train and learn new things, then I am totally supportive of it. I begin to disagree with cross training when the person thinks that their multi-system approach is going to put them on equal footing against fighters who train exclusively in one system.

In other words, they try to out box the boxer, or out wrestle the BJJ fighter, or out kick the TKD stylist. If you take things from different sources and try to link them together, they won't flow naturally together. Your approach to fighting will be compartmentalized, and you allow your attacker to dictate the terms of the fight.

I still think the best approach is to find the system that is the best fit for you and train it exclusively and derive everything you can from it.

Up to a certain level, I agree that its best to stick to one system. I have seen a couple of guys try to train two styles of Aikido at the same time and they then wonder why nothing seems to be working. In this instance one style uses a lot of force and the other one very little.

But when you get to a teaching level, or even more, running a school you want to know just how effective your teaching is. Are you teaching a high standard of defence against weapons, how does your understanding of defence against multiple attackers stand up to scrutiny? is what you are teaching for self defence in line with how other systems teach SD etc? That was how I got involved in Krav and Systema. I now know that my guys are well placed in the practical aspects of their Goju. I got involved in aikido to better understand the 'soft' side of Goju and for anyone wanting to lean that aspect of their training I think this cross training works well.

But really in essence, the better your instructor, the less need there is to cross train.
:asian:

 

[Zero]

Up to a certain level, I agree that its best to stick to one system. I have seen a couple of guys try to train two styles of Aikido at the same time and they then wonder why nothing seems to be working. In this instance one style uses a lot of force and the other one very little.

:asian:

Now, I see that as slightly different again, given you are talking about training two different styles/schools of the same art, as opposed to training in a core style and then trying a different art for certain complimentary techniques your base style may not be so focused on. I would even say that the above approach you have witnessed, with learning different branches of same art, particularly at a junior level would be even more problematic and confusing and only detrimental. When you are proficient and understand the principles of your style then it can be good to dabble and expand and compare. (and importantly, critique).

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Wondering the thoughts of some of the veteran of these threads. How many martial arts do some one need for self protection? Will one or do you need many? Should some one train in a hybrid fighting art or do one full art each at a time until they are well rounded?

My thoughts are if you can find such art that has many in one(kajenkenbo, mcmap, jeet kune do, etc) then you are on to a great start. Having a stand up art that cover many ranges is a must. Knife and gun defense is a must. Ground defense is a must. (Not to be confused with ground fighting)

So tell me your thoughts guys. One or many?

Though I've studied more than one martial art, honestly, in circumstances where I've needed to physically defend myself, I've used striking only. At the time, I was studying taekwondo, but the particular tools that I used are fairly common across martial arts that have any hand/arm and foot/leg techniques, regardless of national or regional origin. I can certainly see a practical benefit to training in more than one art, particularly if they have very different skill sets, but I cannot honestly say that you actually need more than one for self defence.

However, if you're competing in particular types of contest fighting, a mix of arts might be a necessity. So I suppose the answer depends upon what you're training goals are.

 

[Flying Crane]

To Flyin crane, a good capoeirista is often a excellent dancer. Remember, the martial art is African. So the drums, singing and dancing is more important than anything else. The reason I shun away potential people into capoeira is simple. Is the person naturally gifted in athletics? There is very little room for growth in capoeira either if you are old (beyond 35 years old) or talented with how to use your body. This is reality, so it's better to tell truth ahead of time.

well, I suppose if that is what your particular experience with capoeira has been, then that's how you will see it. But don't confuse your experiences with what others are doing.

 

[Flying Crane]

But really in essence, the better your instructor, the less need there is to cross train.
:asian:

I think this is a very insightful comment. And the problem is, from what I see, there's a whole lot of instructors who are really not very good. Maybe that's one reason that some people train in multiple systems, because they have not received the quality of training needed to really understand what they are doing and what is possible with one solid method. So they perceive "holes" in their training and think they need to do other things to fill those holes.

 

[TKDTony2179]

Though I've studied more than one martial art, honestly, in circumstances where I've needed to physically defend myself, I've used striking only. At the time, I was studying taekwondo, but the particular tools that I used are fairly common across martial arts that have any hand/arm and foot/leg techniques, regardless of national or regional origin. I can certainly see a practical benefit to training in more than one art, particularly if they have very different skill sets, but I cannot honestly say that you actually need more than one for self defence.

However, if you're competing in particular types of contest fighting, a mix of arts might be a necessity. So I suppose the answer depends upon what you're training goals are.

Do you feel like the mixing of arts complement each other?

 

[TKDTony2179]

By far guys I didn't mean for this thread to be pointed at me as a personal question. But I was thinking of the many altercations people come across and when it get bad you want to be prepared. Some may need more protection than others given the fact they are in a bad demographic area than others.

Looking at history, you can see when people tend fight miitary that they hand weapon training and hand to hand combat. Just look at the samurai when they wasn't needed by the emperor. They started teaching martial arts to regular people. Kendo was born andjujitsu was taught to the masses and then branch to numerous styles. It is only right that if you want to protect yourself then you train for ever aspect of that. Striking, grappling, and weapon.

Too clarify when I was talking about the web sites of people with many arts, I was meaning that some people will take many striking systems when you need one. I am sure I am not the only one that don't read other martial arts bios.

 

[Zero]

I think this is a very insightful comment. And the problem is, from what I see, there's a whole lot of instructors who are really not very good. Maybe that's one reason that some people train in multiple systems, because they have not received the quality of training needed to really understand what they are doing and what is possible with one solid method. So they perceive "holes" in their training and think they need to do other things to fill those holes.

That's a great point K-man and Flying Crane, this is pretty much on the money and what a lot of it comes down to. A top level, experienced teacher/fighter (this normally includes having had experience with or having studied (not necessarily trained in) to some degree other styles) will normally, from their own style and skills, have the ability to deal with different styles with differing techniques or approach. This takes a top notch fighter or teacher and as Flying Crane says, in truth these are few and far between. I used to train with a boxer who was an ex national champ. It was mainly to improve my hand skills but we used to muck around and go freestyle now and then. Unlike some boxers I have fought in mma (who are cuaght by sweeps, leg attacks and highkicks), he had very good timing and distance to evade kicks and was used to springing back when I would try leg attacks (which surpirsed me at first). Likewise, once I had caught him on the head with a high kick, following that he was very good at covering up, and his boxing guard and reflexes made him very good at evading or blocking high kicks. He was not the best at negating take downs or sacrifice throws but was quick to get to his feet and his athletism and clinching work did not make it exactly easy to take him down; you also had to take him down quick or you would get an upper cut to the mosh.

This I think is just an example of what K-man and Flying Crane are on about. I do however think many teachers in styles are themsleves quite "one-dimensional" though - this could be perfectly fine for them but if you are studying with such, you need to appreciate this with regards to yourself and what your own goals are.

 

[Zero]

Though I've studied more than one martial art, honestly, in circumstances where I've needed to physically defend myself, I've used striking only. At the time, I was studying taekwondo, but the particular tools that I used are fairly common across martial arts that have any hand/arm and foot/leg techniques, regardless of national or regional origin.

Now that also is interesting and on making a similair comment about an altercation/SD situation I had faced, Chris Parker responded something along the lines of that: "perhaps this is because that was (deep down) the form of combat/technique you had most confidence in". I had done judo all through primary school (and had used it to good effect to end fights in high school) and did TKD all through high school; however when I was actually attacked in the street I used simple hard and fast punches. For some reason I never responded with any kicks (I was capable in) or to try any judo throws (that said there was more than one attacker). Maybe the same applied to you, although you have training in various styles, when it came time to actually put your money on the line you just felt more secure in striking? perhaps on a level that was what was your best strength?

Although that does not mean that if an artist is very proficient in several different styles they would not be more than comfortable with applying multiple and varying responses/techniques (knee jam/upper cut/leg sweep/etc). Having been in a SD psotion first hand, it is very clear to me that things happen fast, very fast, and particularly if there is more than one assailent (although the same applies to just one) you need to use something that is simple, devastating and that can be used in a "chain" approach, ie quick succession with no flash or superfluous moves in between. As an example, punching fits the bill in that respect.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Do you feel like the mixing of arts complement each other?

I think that they can. People gravitate to the martial arts in general for a variety of reasons, but generaly stick with a particular style because it suits their personal methodology/philosophy. So I think that the right art or arts can be very complementary together.

Also, I think that a person needs to be at a certain point in their training in order to get the most out of mixing arts.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Now that also is interesting and on making a similair comment about an altercation/SD situation I had faced, Chris Parker responded something along the lines of that: "perhaps this is because that was (deep down) the form of combat/technique you had most confidence in". I had done judo all through primary school (and had used it to good effect to end fights in high school) and did TKD all through high school; however when I was actually attacked in the street I used simple hard and fast punches. For some reason I never responded with any kicks (I was capable in) or to try any judo throws (that said there was more than one attacker). Maybe the same applied to you, although you have training in various styles, when it came time to actually put your money on the line you just felt more secure in striking? perhaps on a level that was what was your best strength?

Although that does not mean that if an artist is very proficient in several different styles they would not be more than comfortable with applying multiple and varying responses/techniques (knee jam/upper cut/leg sweep/etc). Having been in a SD psotion first hand, it is very clear to me that things happen fast, very fast, and particularly if there is more than one assailent (although the same applies to just one) you need to use something that is simple, devastating and that can be used in a "chain" approach, ie quick succession with no flash or superfluous moves in between. As an example, punching fits the bill in that respect.

Oh, absolutely. Just to clarify, my point was not to say that striking is all you need, but that in my own experience, I haven't had to use large amounts of what I have learned to defend myself. I've trained for many years and learned a lot of different techniques, but when push came to shove, I used the most basic techniques of the arts that I had been trained in at that time. No flying side kicks, spear hands, shuto, back hook kicks, or any of the other more flamboyant or elaborate techniques in the arts I knew at the time.

I have not had to use physical force to defend myself in many, many years and I have learned a lot since then. However, when I've had friendly training bouts with people of other styles or differing fighting methodologies, I find that I tend to use largely basic techniques supplemented with just enough of the broader material to address things found outside of pure striking styles. Were I lifelong judoka, catch wrestler, or jujutsuka, I would probably gravitate to what I knew best.

The 'which art is best?' question comes up frequently, as do the 'you need to fill the holes in your art' discussions, but while some arts are better suited than others to certain applications and while rounding out your training is worthwhile, when it comes down to it, you probably don't "need" to know more than one art in order to defend yourself, though I will stop short of saying that all arts are equally applicable in SD.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmmm, my take on zanshin is that it is not so much the "after" of the altercation (or rather that this is only a part of it - and it is about being able to avoid the situation and thus the "after" phase). It is more the exact state of mind you always should be in so to be fully aware of your surroundings and potential threats, be it from the environment itself or from other humans. I am pretty sure on my discussions on zanshin that this is the more correct translation/explanation -and application - of the concept. And this in itself is a crucial component of SD.

Importantly, this state of mind is also retained when in an actual altercation or fight (now, that is the real litmus test...), one is operating at a level where one can fight/defend but one is still open to the surroundings and the risks or inputs (such as other potential assailents incoming, getting too near to the edge of the building etc, getting backed into a fence, cop sirens, etc)

Other than the zanshin comments I must confess I may be inclined to agree with you on the most part, not that that bothers you either way : )

To look at the kanji for "zanshin", they are: 残心, with the first character meaning "left over/remaining", so it really does refer to "after". That said, different systems use slightly different terminology for similar or related concepts... what you're describing is closer to Musashi's concept of "heijoshin" (平常&#24515, which is a reference to a constant, consistent mindset (awareness, preparedness etc) as an "everyday" mental attitude.

Well, if you know what it is I am thinking then who can argue with that? : )

Ha, no, I was more saying that I was more than aware of what I was meaning, and was not doing any disservice, as I know exactly what the realities are of both sides of the situation. You said you thought I was doing a disservice by not taking into accounts such things, and I was saying that, yes, I certainly did take such things into my comments.

By far guys I didn't mean for this thread to be pointed at me as a personal question. But I was thinking of the many altercations people come across and when it get bad you want to be prepared. Some may need more protection than others given the fact they are in a bad demographic area than others.

In that instance, it isn't so much what technical skills you have, it's more to do with the understanding of the forms of violence you're likely to encounter (social violence, asocial violence, resource predators, monkey dances, etc). When it all comes down to it, if you're skilled at grappling, you can use grappling skills against any of the above... if your skill is in striking, you can use that. It doesn't matter. But if you don't have some real understanding of where, when, and why you're potentially going to encounter a violent confrontation, you can be easily caught out and "cleaned up", no matter the skills you've trained in. Which just gets back to my first comments in this thread.

Looking at history, you can see when people tend fight miitary that they hand weapon training and hand to hand combat. Just look at the samurai when they wasn't needed by the emperor. They started teaching martial arts to regular people. Kendo was born andjujitsu was taught to the masses and then branch to numerous styles. It is only right that if you want to protect yourself then you train for ever aspect of that. Striking, grappling, and weapon.

Hmm, your histories a little out... none of that is really correct at all.

Too clarify when I was talking about the web sites of people with many arts, I was meaning that some people will take many striking systems when you need one. I am sure I am not the only one that don't read other martial arts bios.

"Need"? The question there is always "need for what?" The simple fact is that not everything is trained just to suit a perceived "need" in handling violence... it might be to get a broader understanding, to pad a resume, to understand the interplay of related arts, or simply be that the person has moved from one area to another, and had to change styles at the time.

Now that also is interesting and on making a similair comment about an altercation/SD situation I had faced, Chris Parker responded something along the lines of that: "perhaps this is because that was (deep down) the form of combat/technique you had most confidence in". I had done judo all through primary school (and had used it to good effect to end fights in high school) and did TKD all through high school; however when I was actually attacked in the street I used simple hard and fast punches. For some reason I never responded with any kicks (I was capable in) or to try any judo throws (that said there was more than one attacker). Maybe the same applied to you, although you have training in various styles, when it came time to actually put your money on the line you just felt more secure in striking? perhaps on a level that was what was your best strength?

Although that does not mean that if an artist is very proficient in several different styles they would not be more than comfortable with applying multiple and varying responses/techniques (knee jam/upper cut/leg sweep/etc). Having been in a SD psotion first hand, it is very clear to me that things happen fast, very fast, and particularly if there is more than one assailent (although the same applies to just one) you need to use something that is simple, devastating and that can be used in a "chain" approach, ie quick succession with no flash or superfluous moves in between. As an example, punching fits the bill in that respect.

Actually, it's to do with what you unconsciously perceive as being the most powerful... similar, but not the same thing at all, really.

 

[MJS]

Sure... but "keeping up with the times" is only really needed if that's what you're looking for. My Kenjutsu training, my Iai training, my Kyudo training... not really much need to keep up with the times there (other than knowing the laws pertaining to owning and carrying certain weapons to and from class). By the same token, when I look at my traditional Taijutsu methods, a lot of what we do there just isn't that suited to todays world... dropping their back across the knee, dropping people on their heads, breaking arms as you throw them and so on... none of that gets transferred into the modern material I teach, of course, but that doesn't mean I should change it in the traditional side of things... I just need to be absolutely clear as to which is which.

Sure, and as I've said before, I suppose it all depends on what you want to train for. If you're just interested in history, tradition, etc, then it probably won't matter how old, outdated, etc, something is. But, if you're training for the purpose of being able to defend yourself, then IMHO, yes, you will have to keep up with the times, or run the high risk of all that time you spent training, going down the tubes.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

By far guys I didn't mean for this thread to be pointed at me as a personal question. But I was thinking of the many altercations people come across and when it get bad you want to be prepared. Some may need more protection than others given the fact they are in a bad demographic area than others.

Definitely. Self defence needs are not uniform. When I worked retail and had to make bank deposits at night, I had different concerns than I had had prior to having that task. And that was within one area with the only change being that my job description had changed.

Too clarify when I was talking about the web sites of people with many arts, I was meaning that some people will take many striking systems when you need one. I am sure I am not the only one that don't read other martial arts bios.

I generally only read other's bios when I'm looking at training at their school or when I want to follow a conversation when links are shared in threads.

I have studied more than one striking system, partly due to availability and partly just to see how other systems do things.

 

[drop bear]

At the gym I train. people will compete in whatever. So while it is primarily mma people have dabbled in boxing wrestling kick boxing bjj and even Kudo. We have karate guys drop in and spar. Bjj guys will drop in and roll. We even have a sneaky wrestling session for no other reason than fe stumbled across a really good wrestler. (And it is an excuse to wear lime green unitards)

I am happy to give their rule set a go. I am doing a heap of kick boxing at the moment because one of our guys got offered a fight in the northern territory and he had never been.

I like the idea that I can drop into a club and just have a go. Experience how other people are doing things.

The concept of the open mat is a really cool way to collaborate with other martial artists. A physical forum.