A Complete System: Is There Such A Thing?

[MJS]

In the "Martial Frankenstein" thread, Brian made a good point here. Many times, we hear people talking about being complete. I've said it myself...that if one is serious about the martial arts, and even moreso, about self defense, that they do what they can, to be as complete as possible. So, are there any systems that can call themselves complete? I suppose that before we answer that question, we should ask exactly what our idea of complete, is. I'll use Kenpo as an example, since thats an art that I've done for quite a while. However, for the sake of the thread, any art can be discussed. Contained in the system, there're defenses against empty hand attacks, such as punches and grabs. There are defenses against multiple attackers. Defenses against weapons and defenses against attempted takedowns/tackles. So, given all that, it would seem that its pretty complete. I've tended to disagree with that 100%, due to the fact that I'm not seeing the groundwork/groundfighting, that some other Kenpoists say is there, but thats a difference of opinion I guess.

Another thing to consider is....while an art may contain various things, it could also just be scratching the surface of those things. How in-depth does one need to go to be considered complete? Is learning the basics of something enough? Do we need to study another art, more in-depth, to get better and expand in those areas? What do you all feel makes something complete?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is not systems that are complete or incomplete; it is martial artists. Speaking as one who is absolutely incomplete.

I do not say this in jest. I have said before that the system I study, Isshin-Ryu, does not possess a 'ground game' in the form of grappling. And yet, I now see that it is indeed 'complete', because exemplary practitioners have a ready and complete response to grapplers - they avoid their takedowns, counter their moves, and fight their way instead of the grapperl's way. Is it 'better'? That is not for me to say. But it's certainly 'complete' if you're that student or master who can perform all those moves proficiently.

I also recognize that people differ quite a bit in their capacity to learn and to perform what they have learned, quickly, powerfully, and adeptly. Again, speaking as one who is not proficient, just learning. So what is a 'complete system' for one person may not be for another, even in the same system. Some systems favor certain capabilities, some have many layers that allow students of different capabilities to master those parts best suited for them.

My system is complete. It is I who am not complete.

Besides, I have begun to wonder about the commonly-heard statement that such-and-such is not a complete system or is a complete system. For what purpose does one require a so-called 'complete' system? I have seen clearly that my own system requires a lifetime of dedicated study to master; how is it that such mastery is obtained in even more techniques, covering every conceivable situations, in less than a lifetime? For what purpose?

"Here's a technique designed to defend against three attackers descending from a helicopter via rappelling ropes if two of them are left-handed, it's dark, and you're wearing a wetsuit." Complete? Sure. WHY?

 

[Gentle Fist]

Yes, and it's called JUDO...

(quickly runs away from the thread to avoid being hit by thrown stones )

 

[Flying Crane]

I'll say a few things here that I also said over on the Frankenstein thread.

One's definition of "complete" makes a big difference, and there are many ways to define what is meant by "complete".

I tend to agree with Bill on this issue. It's not so much the art itself, or the formalized curriculum of an art, as it is the individuals ability to utilize what he has learned under different circumstances.

I believe that if you have a stong understanding of the principles that make your system function, beyond the techniques and the formal curriculum, and understand the engine underneath it all that ties that curriculum together and makes it all work, then you can understand how to make your techniques effective against any enemy, no matter what method he uses to attack you. It's not a matter of having a curriculum for all ranges, rather it's about understanding how to use what you do, against all ranges. Don't play the other guy's game, rather fight your fight against the other guy.

That's understanding the system on the principle level vs. the technique level.

If your definition of Complete means that you need to have all techniques for all ranges and styles of combat, then you will never be complete and you will spend your days chasing after every technique ever invented. And you are setting yourself up to forever fall short. There are always more techniques, and it becomes impossible to collect them all. In that Frankenstein thread, a weapons curriculum was also mentioned. By way of example, there will always be another weapon that you've not trained with, and you remain incomplete. Another gun, another type of knife or sword, or military hardware, things that are simply not available to most people. So once you try to use this as your definition of complete, it becomes something that you cannot accomplish.

So I would say a martial artist is complete if he/she is able to use the system to fight against anybody no matter how they attack you, even if you don't match them technique-for-technique. If you can use YOUR methods against them, then you are complete and fully functional.

 

[seasoned]

Yes, and it's called JUDO...

(quickly runs away from the thread to avoid being hit by thrown stones )

Old Judo had strikes, and Okinawan GoJu had and has throws. Judo touches on strikes so the throws come easier, GoJu touches on throws while using strikes.
I'll be over in the LPT, where things are....................................

 

[Gentle Fist]

Old Judo had strikes, and Okinawan GoJu had and has throws. Judo touches on strikes so the throws come easier, GoJu touches on throws while using strikes.
I'll be over in the LPT, where things are....................................

Agreed... Our club has an amped up teaching of strikes and grappling due to our coaches at the club... I would say that most judo clubs do not share our same enthusiasm with those concepts and just focus more on throwing...

 

[chinto]

yes there are complete systems in that they can deal with the full range of threat that is out there, and effectively defend against attacks from grapplers and strikers as well.
Okinawan Karate is my choice and it is complete in that way. but as mentioned its more about the martial artist then the system as to how good they are at defending and dealing with things.

 

[Jenna]

In the "Martial Frankenstein" thread, Brian made a good point here. Many times, we hear people talking about being complete. I've said it myself...that if one is serious about the martial arts, and even moreso, about self defense, that they do what they can, to be as complete as possible. So, are there any systems that can call themselves complete? I suppose that before we answer that question, we should ask exactly what our idea of complete, is. I'll use Kenpo as an example, since thats an art that I've done for quite a while. However, for the sake of the thread, any art can be discussed. Contained in the system, there're defenses against empty hand attacks, such as punches and grabs. There are defenses against multiple attackers. Defenses against weapons and defenses against attempted takedowns/tackles. So, given all that, it would seem that its pretty complete. I've tended to disagree with that 100%, due to the fact that I'm not seeing the groundwork/groundfighting, that some other Kenpoists say is there, but thats a difference of opinion I guess.

Another thing to consider is....while an art may contain various things, it could also just be scratching the surface of those things. How in-depth does one need to go to be considered complete? Is learning the basics of something enough? Do we need to study another art, more in-depth, to get better and expand in those areas? What do you all feel makes something complete?

I think in SD terms the closest any martial art or martial artist can ever get to complete is being "good enough"..

Even do I have sufficient technique, practice of that technique, cross-trained with other arts and sparred extensively with other styles and entered mocked up reality situations and taken a share of club gropers and whatever.. well I can really know what to do in EVERY potential SD situation??

No SD situation that requires my MA will ever end in a perfect outcome.. Perfect outcome is when I do not need deploy any technique at all and can walk away without getting it in the back of the neck.. So then what do I want as best outcome from any SD situation? It is not to be perfectly complete and competent having covered every scenario.. it is to be good enough to get extricate myself out of it.. I think it is good enough to be good enough, this is not right??

I think to ever get to the place where we have trained sufficiently to imagine our art is complete is to move dangerously towards complacency, no?? I do not know.. just my thoughts.. Jx

 

[Christian Soldier]

Yeah I agree with Bill. Though the art plays a part, it's more of the artist than the art. I think with martial arts training you should be able to think for yourself and be able to exapnd your system way beyond what the outside appearence is. Too many shools do 'Monkey see, Monkey do' when really you should be teaching all of your students not just what to think but how to think. They need the concepts and power princelbles of fighting and should be able to apply these to everything, conceptually then the artist can execute and create hundreds if not thousands of techniques (which is pretty well rounded) under any circumstances with what they have.

If you can find a school that can teach you how to think, you better stick around.

 

[shinbushi]

And yet, I now see that it is indeed 'complete', because exemplary practitioners have a ready and complete response to grapplers - they avoid their takedowns, counter their moves, and fight their way instead of the grapperl's way.

I have yet to see any striker with no grappling experience be able to stop a grappler from throwing them or taking them down. anti-grappling = grappling.

 

[Omar B]

This whole "complete system" thing seems more buzzword from people who don't have enough experience in their style (or indeed martial arts as a whole) and thinks that every style has glaring holes that can only be fixed by another style. I've in my life seriously studied Seido, Kyokushin and Choi Kwang Do. My Seido sensei used to do Judo back in his Kyokushin days before Nakamura and his group from Brooklyn left. I have worked out with many friends who do wrestling, BJJ, etc and I've had no problems. Nor have I had problems in defending myself ... though truth be told I seem to have a better time avoiding fights than your average Bruce Banner (who can't seem to go a week/issue without getting into a fight, I say he's a psycho). My last "fight" was punching the crap out of some wife beater at my old apartments and that was 3 years ago.

If you walk up to a kid and say which superhero's powers would you like the kid is gonna name one hero. Then a next, then a next, because there can always be more, but you really could have stopped after saying Superman first. It's just the same with MA, piling on more wishful thinking won't make you a better fighter at all. Just like asking the same kid about martial arts.

I think this "complete system" thing is just a bunch of nerds not confident in their own knowledge and physical gifts to always thinks the problem is with their system.

 

[Flying Crane]

I have yet to see any striker with no grappling experience be able to stop a grappler from throwing them or taking them down. anti-grappling = grappling.

well, given how prevalent the martial arts are and how easy it is to get instruction in many styles, it becomes harder and harder to find any martial artist with NO experience what so ever in grappling. I mean, when I was a kid long before I began any formal martial arts training my brothers and I and the neighbor kids used to wrestle in the back yard. Even that kind of thing is experience, probably we all have at least some of that unless we were brought up in seclusion with no siblings and no friends.

That being said, have you seen EVERY striker and what they can do? Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't out there. Depends a lot on the venue as well.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Ok - I think the only "complete" system is the one that evolves and melds to the individual. This is the reason I created my own system, www.shamarsystem.com . I have spent 30 years training multiple styles and in multiple schools. The instructor always made the difference in each of those not necessarily the style itself. Bruce said it best when he said loosely quoting here "when you make a rule you leave something out." There really is no way to draw a complete circle around an incomplete expanse.

Why would a style that prides itself on keeping traditional fighting methods from hundreds of years in the past be relative to reality in fighting now? I am not the same person I was when I was twelve, I have grown and changed and I believe "systems" should do the same to remain useful. the only other reason to me to train a style is because you have historical interest in the art, like Civil War re-enactments. How silly would it be for those Civil War buffs to go around thinking that what they "practice" is somehow making them prepared for battle today?

Enjoy your styles, I still enjoy styles - but make your own way and judge for yourself what is right by what works for you (my 2 cents).

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

There are simply "no complete" systems out there. There are however many systems that claim to be complete and well they simply are not. To utilize the idea of a complete martial art it would have to encompass everything and well that is just impossible. There are also "no complete" martial practitioner's. (not even close) For if they were complete they would not need to learn anything else. They would simply know it all. We all know that is not the case. The learning would be over and well I have not met any old dog that cannot learn a new trick or two. (actually a whole lot more) Some times the older the dog the more learning they should be doing. Where I will totally agree with FlyingCrane is that a system needs to be principle based with elements that make it up. If the system has good principles and elements then those should allow a practitioner to apply them in many different ways. However, just because a principle works a certain way in a certain area of combat does not mean that a practitioner will be able to take that same principle and utilize it in another area without training in that area. that I would say is just an out for a practitioner not to train in a certain area and limit their learning. (which goes against how I practice because I belive in "no limitations") The idea that a striking based system for instance will be able to utilize a principle from the system in grappling without training in it is pretty ridiculous and has been proven over and over again to be so. Likewise a grappler utilizing a principle or an element from their system to strike suffers in the same way. Or someone who has only trained in an empty hand system to utilize a tool like a knife with efficiency. (not effectiveness) It some times is not just the principle or the element or the inability to use them but the lack of experience by the practitioner that gets them into trouble. Or the lack of attributes which are very important for effectiveness. For myself and most of the serious practitioners that I know they do not want to be put in a box. They take the principles and elements of the Martial Sciences that they know and explore. They want to learn, improve and be better at what they do. So they continue to train which in the end is the one of the most important points for any martial practitioner. Do not limit yourself! Instead, learn and continue to learn and let no one , no system or anything get in your way of doing so as a martial practitioner! Jenna makes a really solid point about being "good enough". Good enough that in the moment we will be able to utilize what we know for whatever the purpose that is needed. In my case that will be personal protection for myself or my loved ones. In the end be "good enough" and do not be complacent!!!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have yet to see any striker with no grappling experience be able to stop a grappler from throwing them or taking them down. anti-grappling = grappling.

I have. Don't know what else to say.

 

[shinbushi]

I also think what we mean by systems. I know many MMA gums that also include weapons training. Though they teach multiple arts I would say their style or System is pretty complete. Weapons, stand-up, clinch and ground. Some of those use weapons in all ranges as well.

 

[Flying Crane]

I also think what we mean by systems. I know many MMA gums that also include weapons training. Though they teach multiple arts I would say their style or System is pretty complete. Weapons, stand-up, clinch and ground. Some of those use weapons in all ranges as well.

what weapons? ALL of them? The folding knife with a three inch blade? The folding knife with a four inch blade? The fixed blade knife? What blade lengths? The tomahawk? The tomahawk and knife? The deer-horn knives? The guan dao? The dao? spear? The double-ended spear? The katana? The wakizashi? Katana and wakizashi together? the chain-whip? The war club? the .45? .38? .44 magnum? .22? revolvers? automatics? 30-30 lever action? 30-06 bolt action? .223? every AK variant? Every 9mm variant? every M-16 variant? Claymore mines? Flamethrower? Mortar? Howitzer? Abrams tank? A-10 Warthog?

I'm sure my list is not complete yet.

If you want to include weapons in your definition of complete, then it ain't complete until you've done them ALL.

 

[jasonbrinn]

what weapons? ALL of them? The folding knife with a three inch blade? The folding knife with a four inch blade? The fixed blade knife? What blade lengths? The tomahawk? The tomahawk and knife? The deer-horn knives? The guan dao? The dao? spear? The double-ended spear? The katana? The wakizashi? Katana and wakizashi together? the chain-whip? The war club? the .45? .38? .44 magnum? .22? revolvers? automatics? 30-30 lever action? 30-06 bolt action? .223? every AK variant? Every 9mm variant? every M-16 variant? Claymore mines? Flamethrower? Mortar? Howitzer? Abrams tank? A-10 Warthog?

I'm sure my list is not complete yet.

If you want to include weapons in your definition of complete, then it ain't complete until you've done them ALL.

In Shamar system we view weapons as types categorized by how they function, so we teach; Bladed weapon concepts and tactics, Stick (and stick like) weapon concepts and tactics, Firearms concepts and tactics, Explosives concepts and tactics, etc. This way even if we haven't covered a specific weapon we more than likely covered something in the same family of function, concept and tactical usage.

 

[elder999]

Explosives concepts and tactics, etc. This way even if we haven't covered a specific weapon we more than likely covered something in the same family of function, concept and tactical usage.

Really?

"Same family of function, concept and tactical usage?"

Really??? :lol:

:lfao:.....just..:lfao:

 

[jasonbrinn]

Really?

"Same family of function, concept and tactical usage?"

Really??? :lol:

:lfao:.....just..:lfao:

Sorry Elder but I am unsure of what you find funny? Function, concept and tactical usage are terms used for weapons, they mean how, why, when and where. The random video was funny like most of the ones you post but I am at a lost as how to help you understand what I mean.