Considerations before selecting another art to train in

[skribs]

I've seen a lot of threads recently on "what art should I take next if I'm alreay good at X." I'm curious from a more general perspective, what is it about an art that would make it a good choice to complement another?

I have some thoughts. I also have some spare time on my hands today to write out these thoughts. I hope at least some of them are right. I also hope my writing makes sense. You may notice that some things I say conflict with each other. That's because I haven't drawn any conclusions yet.

Specialized vs. Generalist Arts

Most arts are divided into striking or grappling arts. Boxing, Karate, Taekwondo, and Muay Thai are all striking arts. Judo, Wrestling, Jiu-Jitsu, and Hapkido are all grappling arts. However, some arts specialize in various aspects of striking or grappling, and others take a more general approach.

Boxing focuses on punches, where Taekwondo focuses on kicks. On the other hand, Karate and Muay Thai take a more general approach and teach how to use many different striking surfaces. Similarly, where Jiu-Jitsu focuses on submissions and Hapkido focuses on standing grappling and wrist locks, Judo and Wrestling will focus on both stand-up and groundwork, making them more versatile.

MMA is obviously going to be the most versatile...but I'm not really going to count it.

This is the basic groundwork I'll be looking at for the different strategies I bring up later.

What is the goal?

Now that we know how I'm categorizing arts, the other question that must be asked is what the end goal is. Are you:

• Trying to build on your skillset to come up with new strategies for competition in your primary art (i.e. a boxer training Karate to learn new punching styles you can incorporate into boxing)
• Trying to build on your skillset for MMA competitions (likely a striker taking a grappling art or vice versa)
• Trying to round out your self defense strategy (for example, if you train boxing and you get taken down, what do you do?). If this is the case, you may want to make sure at least one of the two arts your choosing has a self-defense aspect. A boxer/wrestler might not get much training for what to do outside the ring.
• Trying to learn more things because learning is fun and/or you just want a change of pace

Picking an Art that Enhances your Skillset

The idea here is that if you have a striking art, you pick up another striking art, or if you have a grappling art, you pick up another grappling art. For example, if you train in boxing, you might take Karate to keep up on your punches, but also add kicks into the mix, or you might take Taekwondo because you have good punches already and want to focus on kicks for a while. Alternatively, a Karetaka might want to take boxing or Taekwondo to focus on a specific skillset.

On the other hand, if you take Jiu-Jitsu, you might focus on Judo or Wrestling to help with the transition from standing to groundwork, or you might want to take Hapkido for situations in which you don't want to go to the ground (i.e. concrete, multiple enemies). If you take Hapkido you might take Jiu-Jitsu for the occasion that you are brought to the ground.

If you're trying to enhance your primary skills, you don't want to jump over the striking/grappling border, but rather pick an art that either has a different focus within your art.

I also don't see the advantage in going from one generalist art to another within the same archetype. I don't see a benefit of going from Karate to Muay Thai (unless you specifically want to compete in Muay Thai) or going from Judo to Wrestling (unless you want to do matches in the new art).

Rounding Out your Skillset vs. Filling the Gaps

In another thread, it was brought up that you could break all arts into 5 categories, and then rate them 0-3 in each category. Those categories are Punches, Kicks, Clinch, Stand-Up Grappling, and Groundfighting. I'm going to do a terrible job trying make this into a table:

Please note that I have not taken most of these arts, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. This is more to get across the idea I'm trying to convey, rather than focus on each specific art. I'm also using general understandings of the arts.

The rating system is as follows:
0 - Completely Absent
1 - Lacking
2 - Present
3 - Highly present
4 - Specialized

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Category[/TD][TD]Boxing[/TD][TD]Karate[/TD][TD]Muay Thai[/TD][TD]Taekwondo[/TD][TD]Hapkido[/TD][TD]Judo[/TD][TD]Wrestling[/TD][TD]Jiu-Jitsu[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Punches[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kicks[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Clinch[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Stand-Up[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ground[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]4[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]

As I said above, this is a rough estimate based on my limited knowledge of many of these arts, based on stereotypes of the arts, and the goal is more for the sake of thought experiment than accuracy (although I'm trying to be as accurate as I can).

So let's say someone is training in Boxing. As mentioned above, if they want to enhance their striking skills, they might take Taekwondo and go 4-3-1-1-0, or you could take Muay Thai and go 4-2-3-0-0. Either way, you're getting a lot more rounded striking experience.

However, there are two more strategies you might take: to round out your skills, or to six a weakness. So, a boxer might choose to go wrestling to quickly get weapons for every level of grappling, or might choose Jiu-Jitsu to focus on their groundwork, which is completely lacking. They might end up 4-0-3-2-2 with wrestling or 4-0-2-1-4 with Jiu-Jitsu.

So while the boxer who's minoring in wrestling might try to keep the fight standing up, and then use his grappling moves to escape and get back to a slugfest, the boxer who's minoring in Jiu-Jitsu doesn't care if he's taken down, because now he has a skillset there.

Continue to Progress in your Primary Art

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but the man who has practiced 1 kick 10,000 times." -Bruce Lee.

Continuing to progress in your primary art can be just as effective, if not moreso, than picking up a second art. Not only will it make your techniques in that art that much stronger, but you might also reach the point where your master or grandmaster will start to show you techniques that will help in different situations. The advantage here is you're not learning Jiu-Jitsu and then figuring out how to apply it to Taekwondo. You're learning traditional Taekwondo grappling techniques, or at the very least techniques your master has already determined complement Taekwondo well.

The Most Important Consideration

More important than what art you choose is that you have a good master or instructor. If you train Boxing and are trying to decide between Judo or Jiu-Jitsu for your grappling, then making the decision based on internet discussions or mathematical formulae may result in you spending too much time thinking about it, when you don't even know the schools.

Maybe the analysis will help you figure out which school to try first. If you decide you want to learn Jiu-Jitsu, and the local Jiu-Jitsu school isn't very good, then try the Judo school. Or, try both schools out, and if you can't decide between them, then use analysis to figure it out. Or flip a coin.

But make sure you're not training at a school you don't like, just because you think the art is a better fit for you.

Thoughts?

That's enough of me rambling on the subject. I'd like to hear what you guys think:

• How long after someone starts training in one art should they consider a second art?
• What is your advice on picking a second art?
• Am I just completely off my rocker?

 

[Headhunter]

Way to over complicated. It's very easy.

You want to do another style then do it and do it whenever you want to do it

Do whatever style you enjoy most because that's what you'll stick at.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

• How long after someone starts training in one art should they consider a second art?

That's pretty individual. If I had to pick a general rule, either after one year or after feeling reasonably competent a few years in (black belt level in many schools). My second pick is "immediately" - start the two arts together.

• What is your advice on picking a second art?

I like much of what you posted here. My main suggestion to folks is pick a second art that really interests them, and don't worry if they can really cite a rational reason for it. Unless they are trying to reach a specific goal - then they should rationally choose something to meet that goal.

• Am I just completely off my rocker?

Clearly. But you also put together a good post.

Just to add to the list, for Nihon Goshin Aikido, I'd put the scoring at: punches 2, kicks 1, clinch 1, ground 1, standing 4
For my brand of NGA, I'd put the list at: punches 2, kicks 1, clinch 2, ground 2, standing 3 (some emphasis moved from stand-up grappling to other areas)

 

[Anarax]

I've seen a lot of threads recently on "what art should I take next if I'm alreay good at X." I'm curious from a more general perspective, what is it about an art that would make it a good choice to complement another?

I have some thoughts. I also have some spare time on my hands today to write out these thoughts. I hope at least some of them are right. I also hope my writing makes sense. You may notice that some things I say conflict with each other. That's because I haven't drawn any conclusions yet.

Specialized vs. Generalist Arts

Most arts are divided into striking or grappling arts. Boxing, Karate, Taekwondo, and Muay Thai are all striking arts. Judo, Wrestling, Jiu-Jitsu, and Hapkido are all grappling arts. However, some arts specialize in various aspects of striking or grappling, and others take a more general approach.

Boxing focuses on punches, where Taekwondo focuses on kicks. On the other hand, Karate and Muay Thai take a more general approach and teach how to use many different striking surfaces. Similarly, where Jiu-Jitsu focuses on submissions and Hapkido focuses on standing grappling and wrist locks, Judo and Wrestling will focus on both stand-up and groundwork, making them more versatile.

MMA is obviously going to be the most versatile...but I'm not really going to count it.

This is the basic groundwork I'll be looking at for the different strategies I bring up later.

What is the goal?

Now that we know how I'm categorizing arts, the other question that must be asked is what the end goal is. Are you:

• Trying to build on your skillset to come up with new strategies for competition in your primary art (i.e. a boxer training Karate to learn new punching styles you can incorporate into boxing)
• Trying to build on your skillset for MMA competitions (likely a striker taking a grappling art or vice versa)
• Trying to round out your self defense strategy (for example, if you train boxing and you get taken down, what do you do?). If this is the case, you may want to make sure at least one of the two arts your choosing has a self-defense aspect. A boxer/wrestler might not get much training for what to do outside the ring.
• Trying to learn more things because learning is fun and/or you just want a change of pace

Picking an Art that Enhances your Skillset

The idea here is that if you have a striking art, you pick up another striking art, or if you have a grappling art, you pick up another grappling art. For example, if you train in boxing, you might take Karate to keep up on your punches, but also add kicks into the mix, or you might take Taekwondo because you have good punches already and want to focus on kicks for a while. Alternatively, a Karetaka might want to take boxing or Taekwondo to focus on a specific skillset.

On the other hand, if you take Jiu-Jitsu, you might focus on Judo or Wrestling to help with the transition from standing to groundwork, or you might want to take Hapkido for situations in which you don't want to go to the ground (i.e. concrete, multiple enemies). If you take Hapkido you might take Jiu-Jitsu for the occasion that you are brought to the ground.

If you're trying to enhance your primary skills, you don't want to jump over the striking/grappling border, but rather pick an art that either has a different focus within your art.

I also don't see the advantage in going from one generalist art to another within the same archetype. I don't see a benefit of going from Karate to Muay Thai (unless you specifically want to compete in Muay Thai) or going from Judo to Wrestling (unless you want to do matches in the new art).

Rounding Out your Skillset vs. Filling the Gaps

In another thread, it was brought up that you could break all arts into 5 categories, and then rate them 0-3 in each category. Those categories are Punches, Kicks, Clinch, Stand-Up Grappling, and Groundfighting. I'm going to do a terrible job trying make this into a table:

Please note that I have not taken most of these arts, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. This is more to get across the idea I'm trying to convey, rather than focus on each specific art. I'm also using general understandings of the arts.

The rating system is as follows:
0 - Completely Absent
1 - Lacking
2 - Present
3 - Highly present
4 - Specialized

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Category[/TD][TD]Boxing[/TD][TD]Karate[/TD][TD]Muay Thai[/TD][TD]Taekwondo[/TD][TD]Hapkido[/TD][TD]Judo[/TD][TD]Wrestling[/TD][TD]Jiu-Jitsu[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Punches[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kicks[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Clinch[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Stand-Up[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ground[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]4[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
As I said above, this is a rough estimate based on my limited knowledge of many of these arts, based on stereotypes of the arts, and the goal is more for the sake of thought experiment than accuracy (although I'm trying to be as accurate as I can).

So let's say someone is training in Boxing. As mentioned above, if they want to enhance their striking skills, they might take Taekwondo and go 4-3-1-1-0, or you could take Muay Thai and go 4-2-3-0-0. Either way, you're getting a lot more rounded striking experience.

However, there are two more strategies you might take: to round out your skills, or to six a weakness. So, a boxer might choose to go wrestling to quickly get weapons for every level of grappling, or might choose Jiu-Jitsu to focus on their groundwork, which is completely lacking. They might end up 4-0-3-2-2 with wrestling or 4-0-2-1-4 with Jiu-Jitsu.

So while the boxer who's minoring in wrestling might try to keep the fight standing up, and then use his grappling moves to escape and get back to a slugfest, the boxer who's minoring in Jiu-Jitsu doesn't care if he's taken down, because now he has a skillset there.

Continue to Progress in your Primary Art

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but the man who has practiced 1 kick 10,000 times." -Bruce Lee.

Continuing to progress in your primary art can be just as effective, if not moreso, than picking up a second art. Not only will it make your techniques in that art that much stronger, but you might also reach the point where your master or grandmaster will start to show you techniques that will help in different situations. The advantage here is you're not learning Jiu-Jitsu and then figuring out how to apply it to Taekwondo. You're learning traditional Taekwondo grappling techniques, or at the very least techniques your master has already determined complement Taekwondo well.

The Most Important Consideration

More important than what art you choose is that you have a good master or instructor. If you train Boxing and are trying to decide between Judo or Jiu-Jitsu for your grappling, then making the decision based on internet discussions or mathematical formulae may result in you spending too much time thinking about it, when you don't even know the schools.

Maybe the analysis will help you figure out which school to try first. If you decide you want to learn Jiu-Jitsu, and the local Jiu-Jitsu school isn't very good, then try the Judo school. Or, try both schools out, and if you can't decide between them, then use analysis to figure it out. Or flip a coin.

But make sure you're not training at a school you don't like, just because you think the art is a better fit for you.

Thoughts?

That's enough of me rambling on the subject. I'd like to hear what you guys think:

• How long after someone starts training in one art should they consider a second art?
• What is your advice on picking a second art?
• Am I just completely off my rocker?

To narrow your search and simplify things, why don't you search for what's available within a reasonable driving distance? For example; I've always been fascinated by Judo and wanted to study it, but the closest school is 2.5 hours away. The quality of instruction also plays a significant factor. I rather study an art that might not be at the top of my list as long as they have a great training culture. The same goes for not wanting to train the exact style I'm looking for at a bad school.

Depending on how many schools are near you, trying most or all of them I think is the best approach. I tried just about everything until I narrowed it down to a few styles I stuck with. Get a feel of the training culture. get a feel for the techniques and get a good read on the instructor. That's what I examine in a school and I'm happy with the choices I've made.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Way to over complicated. It's very easy.

You want to do another style then do it and do it whenever you want to do it

Do whatever style you enjoy most because that's what you'll stick at.

The OP is very dependant on whether you are training for "fun" or for more serious uses (i.e. self defence or competition). If you are only training for fun or fitness then I agree with you that just doing whatever style you find fun and engaging is the way to go. However, if you are looking to go into an mma competition then you might want to consider more carefully about what styles you train in.

 

[marques]

I like your approach. Really.

But often things are chosen based on availability, schedule, price, age of the practitioner / injuries, bored of one and trying another... a friend is going somewhere (or is instructor), so the practitioner tries it and eventually stays... Also some people is not looking for the best combination, but rather looking for having some fun and fitness training; and a black belt, eventually.

Anyway, your approach is a good one if you have lots of options. Or if we want a rational approach. Must of us is essentially driven by passion, isn’t it?

 

[jobo]

I've seen a lot of threads recently on "what art should I take next if I'm alreay good at X." I'm curious from a more general perspective, what is it about an art that would make it a good choice to complement another?

I have some thoughts. I also have some spare time on my hands today to write out these thoughts. I hope at least some of them are right. I also hope my writing makes sense. You may notice that some things I say conflict with each other. That's because I haven't drawn any conclusions yet.

Specialized vs. Generalist Arts

Most arts are divided into striking or grappling arts. Boxing, Karate, Taekwondo, and Muay Thai are all striking arts. Judo, Wrestling, Jiu-Jitsu, and Hapkido are all grappling arts. However, some arts specialize in various aspects of striking or grappling, and others take a more general approach.

Boxing focuses on punches, where Taekwondo focuses on kicks. On the other hand, Karate and Muay Thai take a more general approach and teach how to use many different striking surfaces. Similarly, where Jiu-Jitsu focuses on submissions and Hapkido focuses on standing grappling and wrist locks, Judo and Wrestling will focus on both stand-up and groundwork, making them more versatile.

MMA is obviously going to be the most versatile...but I'm not really going to count it.

This is the basic groundwork I'll be looking at for the different strategies I bring up later.

What is the goal?

Now that we know how I'm categorizing arts, the other question that must be asked is what the end goal is. Are you:

• Trying to build on your skillset to come up with new strategies for competition in your primary art (i.e. a boxer training Karate to learn new punching styles you can incorporate into boxing)
• Trying to build on your skillset for MMA competitions (likely a striker taking a grappling art or vice versa)
• Trying to round out your self defense strategy (for example, if you train boxing and you get taken down, what do you do?). If this is the case, you may want to make sure at least one of the two arts your choosing has a self-defense aspect. A boxer/wrestler might not get much training for what to do outside the ring.
• Trying to learn more things because learning is fun and/or you just want a change of pace

Picking an Art that Enhances your Skillset

The idea here is that if you have a striking art, you pick up another striking art, or if you have a grappling art, you pick up another grappling art. For example, if you train in boxing, you might take Karate to keep up on your punches, but also add kicks into the mix, or you might take Taekwondo because you have good punches already and want to focus on kicks for a while. Alternatively, a Karetaka might want to take boxing or Taekwondo to focus on a specific skillset.

On the other hand, if you take Jiu-Jitsu, you might focus on Judo or Wrestling to help with the transition from standing to groundwork, or you might want to take Hapkido for situations in which you don't want to go to the ground (i.e. concrete, multiple enemies). If you take Hapkido you might take Jiu-Jitsu for the occasion that you are brought to the ground.

If you're trying to enhance your primary skills, you don't want to jump over the striking/grappling border, but rather pick an art that either has a different focus within your art.

I also don't see the advantage in going from one generalist art to another within the same archetype. I don't see a benefit of going from Karate to Muay Thai (unless you specifically want to compete in Muay Thai) or going from Judo to Wrestling (unless you want to do matches in the new art).

Rounding Out your Skillset vs. Filling the Gaps

In another thread, it was brought up that you could break all arts into 5 categories, and then rate them 0-3 in each category. Those categories are Punches, Kicks, Clinch, Stand-Up Grappling, and Groundfighting. I'm going to do a terrible job trying make this into a table:

Please note that I have not taken most of these arts, so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. This is more to get across the idea I'm trying to convey, rather than focus on each specific art. I'm also using general understandings of the arts.

The rating system is as follows:
0 - Completely Absent
1 - Lacking
2 - Present
3 - Highly present
4 - Specialized

[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Category[/TD][TD]Boxing[/TD][TD]Karate[/TD][TD]Muay Thai[/TD][TD]Taekwondo[/TD][TD]Hapkido[/TD][TD]Judo[/TD][TD]Wrestling[/TD][TD]Jiu-Jitsu[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Punches[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Kicks[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Clinch[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Stand-Up[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]4[/TD][TD]3[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Ground[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]4[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
As I said above, this is a rough estimate based on my limited knowledge of many of these arts, based on stereotypes of the arts, and the goal is more for the sake of thought experiment than accuracy (although I'm trying to be as accurate as I can).

So let's say someone is training in Boxing. As mentioned above, if they want to enhance their striking skills, they might take Taekwondo and go 4-3-1-1-0, or you could take Muay Thai and go 4-2-3-0-0. Either way, you're getting a lot more rounded striking experience.

However, there are two more strategies you might take: to round out your skills, or to six a weakness. So, a boxer might choose to go wrestling to quickly get weapons for every level of grappling, or might choose Jiu-Jitsu to focus on their groundwork, which is completely lacking. They might end up 4-0-3-2-2 with wrestling or 4-0-2-1-4 with Jiu-Jitsu.

So while the boxer who's minoring in wrestling might try to keep the fight standing up, and then use his grappling moves to escape and get back to a slugfest, the boxer who's minoring in Jiu-Jitsu doesn't care if he's taken down, because now he has a skillset there.

Continue to Progress in your Primary Art

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but the man who has practiced 1 kick 10,000 times." -Bruce Lee.

Continuing to progress in your primary art can be just as effective, if not moreso, than picking up a second art. Not only will it make your techniques in that art that much stronger, but you might also reach the point where your master or grandmaster will start to show you techniques that will help in different situations. The advantage here is you're not learning Jiu-Jitsu and then figuring out how to apply it to Taekwondo. You're learning traditional Taekwondo grappling techniques, or at the very least techniques your master has already determined complement Taekwondo well.

The Most Important Consideration

More important than what art you choose is that you have a good master or instructor. If you train Boxing and are trying to decide between Judo or Jiu-Jitsu for your grappling, then making the decision based on internet discussions or mathematical formulae may result in you spending too much time thinking about it, when you don't even know the schools.

Maybe the analysis will help you figure out which school to try first. If you decide you want to learn Jiu-Jitsu, and the local Jiu-Jitsu school isn't very good, then try the Judo school. Or, try both schools out, and if you can't decide between them, then use analysis to figure it out. Or flip a coin.

But make sure you're not training at a school you don't like, just because you think the art is a better fit for you.

Thoughts?

That's enough of me rambling on the subject. I'd like to hear what you guys think:

• How long after someone starts training in one art should they consider a second art?
• What is your advice on picking a second art?
• Am I just completely off my rocker?

um not understanding your matrix scores, for instance, why are boxing punches more specialised than karate punches and why are twd kicks more specialised than karate kicks ?

karate has quite a lot of stand up grappling, but you have only score it a one, it also has some ground work, but you have given it a 0

and why have you scored a boxing clinch as a 1, but a mt clinch as a three, when they both clinch in roughly equal amounts

 

[drop bear]

um not understanding your matrix scores, for instance, why are boxing punches more specialised than karate punches and why are twd kicks more specialised than karate kicks ?

karate has quite a lot of stand up grappling, but you have only score it a one, it also has some ground work, but you have given it a 0

and why have you scored a boxing clinch as a 1, but a mt clinch as a three, when they both clinch in roughly equal amounts

Muay Thai clinch more.

 

[skribs]

um not understanding your matrix scores, for instance, why are boxing punches more specialised than karate punches and why are twd kicks more specialised than karate kicks ?

karate has quite a lot of stand up grappling, but you have only score it a one, it also has some ground work, but you have given it a 0

and why have you scored a boxing clinch as a 1, but a mt clinch as a three, when they both clinch in roughly equal amounts

Muay Thai clinches more than in boxing, from what I've seen. You also can do more in the clinch in Muay Thai or Wrestling than you can do in boxing. In boxing, you can't do knee strikes in the clinch.

Regarding your Karate school

• I'd say my Taekwondo school would put standup at 2, maybe 3, and groundwork at 1. I'm going by what you can expect at any school, not what a specific school might teach
• There are lots of different schools of Karate, so this is just the laymans understanding of Karate
• As I said, the goal isn't to show specifically how good every art is or to be 100% accurate, but to provide a frame of reference for the thought experiment

Karate does not focus on kicks as much as TKD does. Maybe they could be a 3. But the Kukkiwon basically has fields of study specifically in kicks, and Taekwondo sparring is like 99% kicks. The main reason people choose Taekwondo over Karate? Because they want to focus on kicks. Is it possible a Karateka can have kicks on par with a Taekwondoist? Yes. But it's much more likely that the Taekwondo fighter will have better kicks, simply because there's more time invested in them.

 

[jobo]

Muay Thai clinch more.

do they? Some boxers clinch a great deal, punch, punch clingy, FM for instance

 

[skribs]

do they? Some boxers clinch a great deal, punch, punch clingy, FM for instance

As I said with kicks and Taekwondo vs. Karate. Do some boxers clinch a lot? Yes. Is it typical of boxers to clinch as much as Muay Thai fighters? I don't think so.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

um not understanding your matrix scores, for instance, why are boxing punches more specialised than karate punches and why are twd kicks more specialised than karate kicks ?

karate has quite a lot of stand up grappling, but you have only score it a one, it also has some ground work, but you have given it a 0

and why have you scored a boxing clinch as a 1, but a mt clinch as a three, when they both clinch in roughly equal amounts

I think the "specialty" rating was meant to be for something a style specializes in (like boxing does, or BJJ). Karate doesn't really specialize in either hand or foot strikes. And lots of Karate places (perhaps systems/styles) don't do much (some none) of either stand-up or ground grappling. That's becoming less the norm than it once was. I think the issue is that Karate is too broad a category to allow any accuracy in those rankings. Germany's official Shotokan has no grappling to speak of, for instance.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Muay Thai clinch more.

And beat the slobber out of you while doing it.

 

[geezer]

Why is wrestling only given a 2 for ground work. I mean, unless you are talking something like Greco Roman, or ...Sumo? ....wrestlers spend a ton of time working on the mat. Now if you are dividing the total out of 4 and figuring that it's half stand-up and half on the ground, ...well that's not a very accurate way to go.

The level of sophistication and effectiveness isn't equal to the percent of the total scope of the art. By that standard all striking arts would be equal, as would be all weapons arts, all grappling arts, etc. And frankly, that's not necessarily true in my experience.

 

[JR 137]

And beat the slobber out of you while doing it.

Boxing’s clinch strategy is more or less to stall - clinch to get out of trouble, catch your breath, etc. Punching isn’t allowed in boxing clinching. It’s basically a safety zone. I’m pretty sure boxers can be penalized for excessive clinching.

MT’s clinch is anything but a safety zone. Depending on the rule set used, MT may allow throws/sweeps, knees, elbows and even headbutts in the clinch. Clinches are only broken up in a stalemate, so to speak.

I’m not an MT nor boxing expert; I may have something confused in there.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

The level of sophistication and effectiveness isn't equal to the percent of the total scope of the art. By that standard all striking arts would be equal, as would be all weapons arts, all grappling arts, etc. And frankly, that's not necessarily true in my experience.

You bring up a good point here, but then we get into the murky waters of quantity over quality. Out of all the striking-focused arts, Boxing has the fewest number of techniques, but that doesn't necessarily make it less effective than something like Karate. I know some people would argue that having 2 or more techniques that did similar things is pointless and inefficient.

You also have to consider the amount of training required for a technique to be effective. For example, a spear hand can be as strong as a jab, but in order to get to that same level of effectiveness you need to train your spear hand a lot more than your jab. Is that extra time and effort worth the result? Probably not.

 

[jobo]

I think the "specialty" rating was meant to be for something a style specializes in (like boxing does, or BJJ). Karate doesn't really specialize in either hand or foot strikes. And lots of Karate places (perhaps systems/styles) don't do much (some none) of either stand-up or ground grappling. That's becoming less the norm than it once was. I think the issue is that Karate is too broad a category to allow any accuracy in those rankings. Germany's official Shotokan has no grappling to speak of, for instance.

well if karate doesn't have grappling, there is only hand and leg strikes left to specialise in, a bit like twd

 

[jobo]

Boxing’s clinch strategy is more or less to stall - clinch to get out of trouble, catch your breath, etc. Punching isn’t allowed in boxing clinching. It’s basically a safety zone. I’m pretty sure boxers can be penalized for excessive clinching.

MT’s clinch is anything but a safety zone. Depending on the rule set used, MT may allow throws/sweeps, knees, elbows and even headbutts in the clinch. Clinches are only broken up in a stalemate, so to speak.

I’m not an MT nor boxing expert; I may have something confused in there.

boxers can punch in the clinch, ,

 

[skribs]

Why is wrestling only given a 2 for ground work. I mean, unless you are talking something like Greco Roman, or ...Sumo? ....wrestlers spend a ton of time working on the mat. Now if you are dividing the total out of 4 and figuring that it's half stand-up and half on the ground, ...well that's not a very accurate way to go.

The level of sophistication and effectiveness isn't equal to the percent of the total scope of the art. By that standard all striking arts would be equal, as would be all weapons arts, all grappling arts, etc. And frankly, that's not necessarily true in my experience.

The problem with groundfighting in wrestling (which I actually know at least a bit about, I took wrestling for 3 years in middle school) is that it only really applies to wrestling. Groundfighting in wrestling is mostly about trying to keep your shoulders off the ground or trying to put the other person's shoulders on the ground.

In an MMA ring, a Judo or Jiu-Jitsu submission will win the fight. If you pin them...you just stall the fight and then the ref might break it up and have you stand up.
In a real situation, a submission will disable your opponent, either by breaking a bone or by choking them out. If you pin them, then you have to hold them there, because if you let go, then they can hit you again.

Maybe it could be a 3, because you do spend a lot of time down there (and when I first started making the chart I didn't have "4" in there, I thought it made sense to give boxing a higher grade in punching and Jiu-Jitsu a higher grade in submissions), so that's part of it, too.

You bring up a good point here, but then we get into the murky waters of quantity over quality. Out of all the striking-focused arts, Boxing has the fewest number of techniques, but that doesn't necessarily make it less effective than something like Karate. I know some people would argue that having 2 or more techniques that did similar things is pointless and inefficient.

You also have to consider the amount of training required for a technique to be effective. For example, a spear hand can be as strong as a jab, but in order to get to that same level of effectiveness you need to train your spear hand a lot more than your jab. Is that extra time and effort worth the result? Probably not.

This was the purpose of the matrix, to show that Karate will get you decent at a lot of striking things, but Boxing will get you really good at punching.

 

[skribs]

well if karate doesn't have grappling, there is only hand and leg strikes left to specialise in, a bit like twd

I'm not seeing what this is saying that hasn't already been said. Karate and Taekwondo are both heavily striking arts. Taekwondo focuses more on kicks, Karate more on punches.

boxers can punch in the clinch, ,

Yes, but to what extent does the average boxer use the clinch compared to the average Muay Thai fighter?

Not super-clinch-mcboxer vs. ew-don't-touch-me-Thai-fighter, but your typical boxing match, with typical corners and typical fighters, how much is the clinch used as a weapon, like it is in your typical Muay Thai fight?