Who is better at a specialization - the specialist or the generalist?

[skribs]

A thought-provoking discussion I've had in the past (in which there was never a clear answer) is the idea that focusing on a certain type of technique actually makes you worse at that technique, because you can't use that technique in a more generalized setting.

I'm going to use 2 quick examples to talk about what I mean. Keep in mind that I currently hold the opposite opinion (that specialists will be better at it), but I certainly understand the argument.

• An MMA fighter will be better at punches than a boxer, because the boxer will execute their punches assuming the only counter is another punch, where the MMA fighter has to be able to punch in such a way that they are not susceptible to kicks or take-downs.
• A Muay Thai fighter will be better at kicks than a TKD fighter, because the MT guy will execute their kicks in a world where you can counter with punches, or where you can grab the leg and sweep, all of which are banned in WT sparring (punches aren't completely banned, but are basically useless in WT sparring).

While this is an interesting theory, and would certainly lead to MMA becoming a more and more prominent style, it doesn't match with how MMA is taught, or how MMA fighters tend to train. MMA is taught at schools where different experts teach the types of techniques they have expertise in. MMA fighters will go outside of the MMA gym and go to a school specifically to learn what it is they have to teach.

For example, an MMA gym may have coaches based on the root art being taught in the class (i.e. a Muay Thai coach, boxing coach, wrestling coach, and BJJ coach) or may have coaches based on the types of techniques (i.e. Striking Coach, Grappling Coach). The fighters themselves may go out and train Taekwondo so they can practice kicks, train Judo to work on throws, etc.

When I've talked with MMA fighters about this, the general consensus is that there is so much you can know about MMA, it's virtually impossible for one coach to know it all. You'd have to effectively have the knowledge of 4 or 5 arts together, which would take 4 or 5 times as long to teach, and it doesn't account for individual style. To me, this doesn't really answer the problem, because if the specialist is worse off by not having as applicable a technique, it means that a generalist art would be better.

What are your thoughts? Do you think a specialist is better at the techniques they specialize in, or is a generalist going to be better with them? How does this (or would it) affect your training?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The idea is to specialize in one area, and specializing in that area means knowing how to use it against people who don't specialize in that as well. That can be taught to you, or something you do on your own.

Its also why you might learn MT from a pure MT guy, then BJJ from a BJJ guy. Cause then you go train against the other mma guys, knowing both, and learning how to incorporate it. And hopefully you have someone there who can help you/your costudents learn how to do that.

 

[Danny T]

Take a look at Conor McGregor

 

[CB Jones]

An MMA fighter will be better at punches than a boxer, because the boxer will execute their punches assuming the only counter is another punch, where the MMA fighter has to be able to punch in such a way that they are not susceptible to kicks or take-downs.

Disagree.

The specialist is better at that specific specialty. When you add elements outside of that specialty the generalist closes the gap and can pass the specialist.

In strictly a boxing match do you think the mma fighter would still have better punches because they can defend against techniques that are not allowed? Or the boxer because he is performing within his specialty without worry of techniques outside of that specialty?

So it depends on the circumstance and specifics involved.

 

[pdg]

As above, it's all context.

It also depends on your definition of 'better'.

 

[skribs]

Take a look at Conor McGregor

Care to elaborate? I haven't seen much of him outside of hype videos.

Disagree.

The specialist is better at that specific specialty. When you add elements outside of that specialty the generalist closes the gap and can pass the specialist.

In strictly a boxing match do you think the mma fighter would still have better punches because they can defend against techniques that are not allowed? Or the boxer because he is performing within his specialty without worry of techniques outside of that specialty?

So it depends on the circumstance and specifics involved.

I should have probably specified. I meant that in an MMA setting or a self defense scenario, the theory is the generalist would be better than a boxer, because the generalist has trained for punching against someone who can counter with anything, instead of only punches.

As above, it's all context.

It also depends on your definition of 'better'.

Better able to apply those specific techniques when less rules are involved.

 

[drop bear]

I think it is that being a specialist doesn't neccecary mean you are any good.

I mentioned this with eye gouges. That a specialist may not be as good as a competent striker that never trains eye gouges. Because the focus of the training us on the wrong thing.

And we could test this pretty easily. Jut get a boxer and an eye gouger. Put on some goggles and see who can score more hits to the eyes.

 

[drop bear]

Disagree.

The specialist is better at that specific specialty. When you add elements outside of that specialty the generalist closes the gap and can pass the specialist.

In strictly a boxing match do you think the mma fighter would still have better punches because they can defend against techniques that are not allowed? Or the boxer because he is performing within his specialty without worry of techniques outside of that specialty?

So it depends on the circumstance and specifics involved.

Ok. What if the boxer beats the MMA fighter with boxing in a MMA match?

 

[Danny T]

Care to elaborate? I haven't seen much of him outside of hype videos.

Uh...MMA (generalist) vs a Boxer (specialist). McGregor was toyed with by Mayweather.

 

[Gweilo]

I think it is that being a specialist doesn't neccecary mean you are any good.

Then they are not a specialist.

Uh...MMA (generalist) vs a Boxer (specialist). McGregor was toyed with by Mayweather.

Not the best example, as one of the fighters had restrictions on what they could do, or what they where able to do, in that perticular fight.

I agree with the in context quote, the generalist will have more opportunities with a lower % of success, and the specialist will have less opportunities with a higher success %. Swings and roundabouts (half a dozen of one, and 6 of the other). Take Hapkido (I mention this because the op has knowledge of this art), is a Hapkidoist a specialist in just joint locks? Most other MA say yes, but the art has a lot of kicks, so is a Hapkidoist a specialist kicker? Not according to TKD, but the art has a very similar amount of kicks, Hapkido has a lot of hand strikes, more than some other arts, so is Hapkido a generalist art? Not according to most who teach or study it, but apart from the groundwork it has a far bit of everything, including pressure points, chokes, arm bars etc, so my point is, would a Hapkidoist be a specialist or a generalist?

 

[drop bear]

Then they are not a specialist.



Not the best example, as one of the fighters had restrictions on what they could do, or what they where able to do, in that perticular fight.

I agree with the in context quote, the generalist will have more opportunities with a lower % of success, and the specialist will have less opportunities with a higher success %. Swings and roundabouts (half a dozen of one, and 6 of the other). Take Hapkido (I mention this because the op has knowledge of this art), is a Hapkidoist a specialist in just joint locks? Most other MA say yes, but the art has a lot of kicks, so is a Hapkidoist a specialist kicker? Not according to TKD, but the art has a very similar amount of kicks, Hapkido has a lot of hand strikes, more than some other arts, so is Hapkido a generalist art? Not according to most who teach or study it, but apart from the groundwork it has a far bit of everything, including pressure points, chokes, arm bars etc, so my point is, would a Hapkidoist be a specialist or a generalist?

There are general concepts that can beat specialist ones though.

Strength and conditioning would be a good example

 

[pdg]

Strength and conditioning would be a good example

But surely those aren't viable options if you're over 40 and not overweight...

 

[pdg]

Ooh, ooh, blast from the past:

Strength and conditioning

Will get you killed or injured in self defence.

 

[drop bear]

Not sure what point you are making.

 

[pdg]

If I have to explain it, it's no longer funny.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Issue with the boxer example:


The old english vs france fights. or Savate vs english boxing. The boxer would train to defend agaisnt kicks and fight against kicks before the fights. (these were kickboxing matches)

Plus the origins of boxing,comes from pretty much no rules combat that has been codified and sportinised over the years.



So the specilist in say punching, would still beat a generalist in punching as the specilist just needs to learn how to defend against what his specility isnt and would practice against kickers, grapplers etc. And they would perfect angles etc in how to punch somone, and close distance and absorb attacks. Or even if they decide to learn some kicks or grappling, they would be used to enable their specility. (as is the case for MMA fighters as well, they each still have their specility they just learn enough to at least fight at every range, its why some try and play guard and others box and kickbox) But then if you learn how to defend agaisnt all of this and throw some kicks etc, you are no longer a boxer, you are a generalist who prefers boxing.

I do subscribe to these terms just exist to loosely catergorise styles and competions and are largely a result of sport. As there is striking in grappling, and grappling in striking. You also need to learn how to fight at every distance if you want to actually fight.* You alone dont choose where a fight goes afterall.*


Oh, we could go really memey and word salad here as well and call them specilists in generalism. (which might be a fair and apt description of people who dont really specilise in anything, or the word "prefer" would be better to use)


Also, for MMA i belive they have specilist coaches and generalst coaches. So, they would have a striking coach, a grappling coach and a MMA/generalist coach, the latter would apply the former into the sport of MMA. At least that would be the optium way to run a MMA gym. (cost and avalibility would heavily dictate that one) Im going to assume we all know what i mean, those places that own the building and run muiltiple classes out of their gym, like specilised boxing gyms and dojos etc just for MMA. In comparision to somone who just does a class out of a school or something as a example.

*Context there if it was unclear, was not for sport fighting, i was refering to outside the ring fights. Either predatory or social.

 

[_Simon_]

Ooh, ooh, blast from the past:




Will get you killed or injured in self defence.

I got ya, I got ya ;D



*loads nerf gun*

 

[Rusty B]

I was pondering this awhile ago. Who would be the most effective fighter:

A) someone with a Muay Thai background, or
B) someone with a Taekwondo AND a western boxing background?

On the surface, it SHOULD seem like B should come out on top. Logic should dictate that two martial arts are better than one, plus the fact that A is merely a "jack" of two trades where as B is the "master" of those two trades.

But... A is actually trained to use punching and kicking in tandem with eachother, and B is trained to use them separately.

This should be a good discussion.

 

[pdg]

B is trained to use them separately.

If B follows an incomplete tkd curriculum, sure.

 

[Rusty B]

If B follows an incomplete tkd curriculum, sure.

Even in a complete curriculum, it's nowhere close to the extent that MT uses them in tandem.