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

[Deleted member 39746]

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.

There is a video and i think either i or somone else has posted it here either as a seperate forum topic or reply of a MT fighter vs a TKD one in a WTF TKD rules match. It might be ITF, dont recall punches for the face or not. (and yes i used WTF there just to annoy the WTF/olympic TKD people , it will always be WTF to me)


If you go on youtube and look it up you might be able to find it.

edit: might be a few actually i just did a look up on it. im struggling to find the one i meant though.

 

[Rusty B]

There is a video and i think either i or somone else has posted it here either as a seperate forum topic or reply of a MT fighter vs a TKD one in a WTF TKD rules match. It might be ITF, dont recall punches for the face or not. (and yes i used WTF there just to annoy the WTF/olympic TKD people , it will always be WTF to me)


If you go on youtube and look it up you might be able to find it.

I watched a video like this a few weeks ago - TKD vs MT. It was too close to call - but then I found out why: both of the guys in the video were actually trained in both TKD and MT.

 

[pdg]

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

There are variabilities in closeness depending upon which branch you look at.

But obviously, everyone lumps everything to do with "tkd" into one basket and that's that.

It's almost, but not quite, as bad as using "kung fu" as an umbrella term.

 

[dvcochran]

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.

From jump, you remove 'specialist' from the equation. A truly 'specialized' boxer will try to avoid the MMA attacks so that they are able to land their 'perfect' punch. What boxer would go into a match with an MMA person 'assuming' they will only be attacked with punches? It is hard to say but if the boxer gets his punch, match over.
In this context, MMA is the generalist. It does Not mean they are less in their skills.
It is your frame that I cannot understand.

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).

Again (and again) THIS IS NOT TKD. This is WT/TKD which is martial sport martial ONLY and is only one vein of the style, which on the whole is the narrow vein. Quit planting this as representative of TKD because it certainly is Not.
Outside of WT, it is non-sensical to think a TKD guy will struggle with someone punching, or even grabbing the leg. I would say MT is slightly more combat oriented. On the whole a match between a MT guy and a non WT/TKD guy would come down to each fighters experience and skill. It would not be a generalist vs. specialist argument. They are both kickers (however different), they are both strikers.
So taking your argument into consideration, it may come down to who is better at leg grabs and sweeps. I am not sure how you would make this a specialist/generalist comparison.

 

[skribs]

From jump, you remove 'specialist' from the equation. A truly 'specialized' boxer will try to avoid the MMA attacks so that they are able to land their 'perfect' punch. What boxer would go into a match with an MMA person 'assuming' they will only be attacked with punches? It is hard to say but if the boxer gets his punch, match over.
In this context, MMA is the generalist. It does Not mean they are less in their skills.
It is your frame that I cannot understand.

A couple of different ways you can think about it.

1. If you've taken boxing lessons for several years and get jumped on the street, it's not like you were preparing for that fight. But you will rely on your training. Are you going to punch better in this situation than someone who has taken MMA for the same amount of years?
2. If you've taken boxing lessons for several years, and decide to do MMA, you will probably take some MMA classes. Would someone with 5 years of boxing + 1 year of MMA be better at punching in MMA than someone who just has 6 years of MMA classes?

Again (and again) THIS IS NOT TKD. This is WT/TKD which is martial sport martial ONLY and is only one vein of the style, which on the whole is the narrow vein. Quit planting this as representative of TKD because it certainly is Not.
Outside of WT, it is non-sensical to think a TKD guy will struggle with someone punching, or even grabbing the leg. I would say MT is slightly more combat oriented. On the whole a match between a MT guy and a non WT/TKD guy would come down to each fighters experience and skill. It would not be a generalist vs. specialist argument. They are both kickers (however different), they are both strikers.
So taking your argument into consideration, it may come down to who is better at leg grabs and sweeps. I am not sure how you would make this a specialist/generalist comparison.

Considering WT and ITF are the two biggest sparring organizations, and neither allows leg sweeps, I think it's a fairly safe generalization to make. Considering WT is the Olympic sport, I also think it's a fairly safe generalization.

 

[dvcochran]

I felt this is a great video to use for discussion regarding the OP. However, there are a ton of inequalities that make it hard to discuss specialist/generalist.
The MT guy may be 80lbs lighter and a foot shorter. You can argue this should be an advantage for both sides within their given specialty.
MT guy was clearly more conditioned and efficient in his fighting, able to go the distance with gas still in the tank. TKD guy learned the tactic he had been using (low kicks) would not work against the MT guy and did not have a good enough sub-set of skills to augment. In the idea of TKD purely kicking, he simply did not and got beat. I do think the MT guy got in his head and he became hesitant to use his other kicking skills against a fighter who was clearly smaller and faster. It is worth mentioning that TKD guy has continued competing in his Dobok against non-TKD fighters.

 

[Rusty B]

What boxer would go into a match with an MMA person 'assuming' they will only be attacked with punches?

I think what Skribs was getting at was "trained awareness." Sure, the boxer might know fully well that the MMA fighter is going to kick and/or grapple, but he's not trained how to see it coming.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

If you've taken boxing lessons for several years and get jumped on the street, it's not like you were preparing for that fight. But you will rely on your training. Are you going to punch better in this situation than someone who has taken MMA for the same amount of years?

I was going to put this point in my orignal reply but here:

Boxers tend to rinse everyone. plenty of videos of apprant boxers wreaking havoc on people they fight.


The boxer would probbly surpass the MMA person in punching ability unless they have a equal amount of time specfically boxing. (which some do a lot of boxing as a component style)

Getting jumped usually doesnt last long enough to really devolpe any stratagy, its usually quite fast and brutal. I dont think even people in kicking styles would kick in said situation as it would probbly comprise your structure and be counter natural. Or anything i would call a proper kick.


@dvcochran Competitions should be as fair as somone can make it for the criteria you can control. Granted for sport, its more for entertainment value. and if there is any unfairness its again usually ramped up to the extreme for that reason. They do exist to provide entertainment for the masses and to make money for the promoters not as scentific analysis's on the systems/styles in qustion. I do kind of wish more actual scentific analysis could be put on systems etc, but thats usually a time consuming and expensive process.

I think what Skribs was getting at was "trained awareness." Sure, the boxer might know fully well that the MMA fighter is going to kick and/or grapple, but he's not trained how to see it coming.

They probbly should do that if they were going to do MMA though, at least grapple. Of the times i have seen some mentions of old boxing vs kickboxing, they appear to have had training in how to defend agaisnt kicks, either special for that fight or it was part of their training at the time.

 

[Rusty B]

I was going to put this point in my orignal reply but here:
Getting jumped usually doesnt last long enough to really devolpe any stratagy, its usually quite fast and brutal. I dont think even people in kicking styles would kick in said situation as it would probbly comprise your structure and be counter natural. Or anything i would call a proper kick.

I would. If you're getting jumped, you WILL be down on the ground whether you kick before that happens or not.

@dvcochran Competitions should be as fair as somone can make it for the criteria you can control. Granted for sport, its more for entertainment value. and if there is any unfairness its again usually ramped up to the extreme for that reason. They do exist to provide entertainment for the masses and to make money for the promoters not as scentific analysis's on the systems/styles in qustion. I do kind of wish more actual scentific analysis could be put on systems etc, but thats usually a time consuming and expensive process.

And it could be futile as, according to my understanding, this has been done in sports before.

One example I've heard of is that, back in the 80's and 90's, some NBA teams hired analysts to watch Chicago Bulls games and look at every detail of what Michael Jordan did on the court. What he did, what he was most likely to do when he's at a particular area of the court, what he was most likely to do based on what the score was at the time, where he was likely to go when the ball was passed to him based on his location when he got the ball, you name it.

When the teams got these reports, they were ready to get to work when it was time to play the Bulls. But... despite all that, when it was time to get on the court... they couldn't stop Jordan.

I'm fairly certain that you can analyze a fighter the same way just as easily - if not MORE easily - and you'll find that, despite figuring out what the fighter does... if he's that good, knowing what he's going to do will mean absolutely nothing when it's time to face him.

 

[skribs]

I would. If you're getting jumped, you WILL be down on the ground whether you kick before that happens or not.



And it could be futile as, according to my understanding, this has been done in sports before.

One example I've heard of is that, back in the 80's and 90's, some NBA teams hired analysts to watch Chicago Bulls games and look at every detail of what Michael Jordan did on the court. What he did, what he was most likely to do when he's at a particular area of the court, what he was most likely to do based on what the score was at the time, where he was likely to go when the ball was passed to him based on his location when he got the ball, you name it.

When the teams got these reports, they were ready to get to work when it was time to play the Bulls. But... despite all that, when it was time to get on the court... they couldn't stop Jordan.

I'm fairly certain that you can analyze a fighter the same way just as easily - if not MORE easily - and you'll find that, despite figuring out what the fighter does... if he's that good, knowing what he's going to do will mean absolutely nothing when it's time to face him.

I'm horrible with names, but wasn't there a story of one fighter who went in saying he was only going to use 3 techniques: lead leg roundhouse, lead leg side-kick, and lead-leg hook kick, and he still won?

 

[Danny T]

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.

It is a great example of a generalist attempting to work against the specialist in the specialist's environment.

 

[skribs]

It is a great example of a generalist attempting to work against the specialist in the specialist's environment.

Except that I'm looking at the opposite situation - how well a specialist will do against a generalist in the generalist's environment.

 

[Buka]

I'm horrible with names, but wasn't there a story of one fighter who went in saying he was only going to use 3 techniques: lead leg roundhouse, lead leg side-kick, and lead-leg hook kick, and he still won?

And won and won and won. Bill Wallace.

 

[skribs]

And won and won and won. Bill Wallace.

I was thinking that's who it was, but wasn't sure. I'd rather say "I don't know" than be wrong.

 

[Danny T]

Except that I'm looking at the opposite situation - how well a specialist will do against a generalist in the generalist's environment.

Okay, then check out Muhammad Ali vs. Antonio Inoki
Inoki was a catch wrestler (which allowed striking)...Ali we know was a boxer and heavy weight champion at the time. Most of the fight was spent with Inoki on the ground kicking and tying up Ali and taking him down. Ali got very few strikes in. If I remember correctly with wasn't until several rounds in that Ali landed a punch. It was considered a tie due to it being an exhibition with Judo Gene Labell as the referee.

 

[oftheherd1]

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

I don't really follow such things, but I thought I saw something a couple of weeks ago that McGregor recently won a title match against someone. Not that would necessarily prove anything about the point of this thread.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I would. If you're getting jumped, you WILL be down on the ground whether you kick before that happens or not.

Nah, sometimes you stay standing. But i will leave it at, sometimes when you get ambushed you stay standing, sometimes you fall down, sometimes you see it coming and attack first, to avoid situation pedantcism. Or better worded, coming up with a thousand varibles, and a further thousand counters to said varibles. That also allows some hyperbole.

For clarity sake, my orignal point was in refrence to boxing and ended at the getting jumped point. Just down to what was quoted, has no relation to any argument given.

I'm fairly certain that you can analyze a fighter the same way just as easily - if not MORE easily - and you'll find that, despite figuring out what the fighter does... if he's that good, knowing what he's going to do will mean absolutely nothing when it's time to face him.

Fair enough, but knowing what he does would generally lead to some sort of plan, and some sort of plan is better than no plan. There is always the posibility for the scouting of said fighter they purposely make it look like they are better at one thing to provide some form of counter inteligence.

And before somone replies "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" there is a equal quote/saying of "planning is important". The fundemental point is, you go in with a plan and contiengencies then you alter segements of it on the fly.

I also funnily enough was going to say human individulism is the folly of anyone who tries to bring science to sport, as a joke but opted to leave it out.

The only way i can see you accurately testing combat sport/fighting systems is: getting a large pool of what you would call average people, or the persons you plan to deliver the trainign programe to, take some stats on them, like how much they can lift, run etc. Put them through a course of trainign for how ever long, then take those tests perodicially throughout it, while noting eating habits and any relivent medical conditions.

Or post, like how the military does it review combat reports and the like by soldiers and investigate them to rule out survivour bias etc and make alterations in trainign based on your findings. (this process is usually only a endavour a governemnt can do, at least the most scentific anyway)


Anyway, this is off topic for the thread, i might start another one for ranting about how to mesure martial training systems.

 

[Gweilo]

Anyway, this is off topic for the thread, i might start another one for ranting about how to mesure martial training systems.

Good idea.

 

[dvcochran]

Good idea.

That would be a fantastic thread. It could go a Lot of directions however.

 

[CB Jones]

For the most part, specialist vs generalist is a moot point because in the end it is always goes back to the individual.

You can point out unlimited number of examples of specialists winning and generalists winning but what you are really seeing is just those individuals' ability.