Defining "Complete"

[HKphooey]

We understand HKF's statement the same way. And we disagree on the statement's validity. I do not believe that you learn the ability to deal with all arts by studying one.

Agreed, but you learn to have an open mind to go find the missing answers. Ones martial arts training is not just about the self-defense skills. It also develops our our minds and teaches us to be humbled by other with more knowledge than us.

 

[Andrew Green]

Agreed, but you learn to have an open mind to go find the missing answers.

Hopefully, but it seems some learn to have a closed mind and dismiss anything outside their style as inferior...

 

[HKphooey]

Hopefully, but it seems some learn to have a closed mind and dismiss anything outside their style as inferior...

That's for sure.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Hopefully, but it seems some learn to have a closed mind and dismiss anything outside their style as inferior...

And those people are just wrong.

I heard one of my Tai Chi teachers refer to External arts as inferior to his Tai Chi and although he comes from a good line and has been studying and training Tai Chi and only tai Chi for greater than 4o years, and is very good at it, he was just plain wrong too.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Agreed, but you learn to have an open mind to go find the missing answers. Ones martial arts training is not just about the self-defense skills. It also develops our our minds and teaches us to be humbled by other with more knowledge than us.

I agree with what you are saying.

If you study one art long enough and deeply enough you gain much understanding of other arts and you understand yourself and your limitations as well.

What was it that Sun Tzu said - Know yourself and know your enemy...

 

[Flying Crane]

We understand HKF's statement the same way. And we disagree on the statement's validity. I do not believe that you learn the ability to deal with all arts by studying one.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion, but let me give an example of how I am looking at this.

Let's take two arts, say Wing Chun and Jujitsu. While very different in their approach to fighting, both are arts that can be very effective when done by a skilled practitioner.

In my opinion, both arts have techniques that could be effective against the other. But in order to develop those skills, one would need to train them in the context of battling the other. A Wing CHun guy would need to study the concepts and techniques of his art and figure out how to apply them against a jujitsu guy. This includes training with jujitsu guys, to experiment and figure out what would and would not work. It would probably include getting beat up a lot until the WC guy starts to get it right, but I don't think the WC guy necessarily needs to become a JJ guy in order to fight against a JJ guy. This would be the same in reverse. A JJ guy training against a WC guy could figure out what techniques and strategies his art has, that can overcome a WC guy. It takes the willingness to train together, learn about each other's art, and be willing to experiment and figure it out. This is what I meant when I said "trained well and thoroughly".

This is the kind of approach to training that I believe can ultimately lead to the ability of one art to fight effectively against other arts. I don't believe you necessarily need to be an accomplished practitioner of an art, to fight against that art. But you do need to be willing to get dirty and train your own art realistically, against those who train other arts, to understand how those other arts approach fighting. Otherwise, you have no idea what to expect from them, and yes, you will lose if he is otherwise more skilled at what he does.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well I have decided to show people how to defend themselves against anyone who attacks them when armed with a piece of fresh fruit

I got to get this sketch out of my brain.

Actually to diversify, "fill in the gaps", I am currently studying Tai Chi and have for many years, and I started back into Xingyi and I am going to a Bagua class tonight, I studied Bagua before as well. And I started back because I felt something lacking in my Tai Chi. The last time I felt good about my training I was doing all three. But what I failed to remember until recently was I was also doing a lot of sparing with other people of other styles then too. And after your post the word gaps hit me like a ton of bricks as the perfect description.

And since returning from China I have felt that something was very wrong with my training. I have had the putting the cart before the horse feeling, if you will. As well as the feeling that everything is basically the same. And huge holes have appeared in my training over the last few years since I decided to focus on the internal arts only. The reason is that Although different Bagua, Xingyi and Tai Chi, they are truly not all that different. I need to diversify back to an external or an internal/external

I will shoot you a quick PM on the rest.

Not that I am into quoting myself, but I get a bad rep point because of this

And the bad rep was (A) anonymous and (B) telling me I need to broaden my views beyond Chinese arts when I think that is what I was eluding to

I have said it before and I will say it again if you are going to give bad reps at least have the guts to admit you did it. Sign the bad rep, if I give one I always sign it.

I admit it was off post, but if whoever gave me the bad rep bothered to read my first post they would see that it would apply to all arts.

And just for the record I previously studied Jujitsu and TDK.

NOT just Chinese arts.

 

[terryl965]

Back to the original question: what makes an Art complete, in my mind it is complete with the spiritual journey is done. When is that never, Art no-matter what style you choice will always be changing and evolving for the current times, so how can it ever be complete, it just can't be.

just my humble opinion.
Terry

 

[MJS]

There has been much hashing and rehashing about what makes arts complete.

What in your opinion makes an art "complete," why, and is your art complete in your opinion?

What makes someone complete? I'd have to say a complete art would be one that addresses all areas. Striking, kicking, clinch, grappling, weapons, etc. This IMO is what makes a complete package. Now, as Andrew said, no art is complete, as there is no time to do everything. If we look at an art, and I'll use Kenpo as an example, we'll see that it addresses punching, kicking, weapons, mult opponents, grabs, etc. We could say that its complete, but how in depth does one want to go, before they feel that its really complete? Sure it addresses weapons, but if I was to look at a weapon based art such as Arnis, Kali, Escrima, etc. I would most likely get a much better understanding of weapons. Does Kenpo have grappling type attacks? Sure, but if I look at BJJ, Judo or Sambo, I'd most likely get a better picture of the ground.

Terry also brought up a good point. Things are always changing with the times, so that being said, chances are, there would always be something new to add in, so would it ever be complete?

Mike

 

[Robert Lee]

If you take the time to look at most arts that have been around for somtime .you will find that most have way to much incorporated into them to make most the training useful. A art that builds less on the different levels of unarmed combat is most often going to be more effective for more people. Use the concept of stand up, clinch and ground. which fits todays understanding of fighting. Why build a mountion of stand up tools that you would most likely never get off in most fights. Same in the other 2 areas, Round off the most common needed tools and you have a much more complete art. Complete means being able to deal with the diffferent aspects of the fighting ranges Bruce used the concept of kicking ,punching trapping and grappleing ranges. Now its better said as standup. Which includes punching, kicking traps, . Clinch which includes joint locks or manipulations. elbows head buts standing chokes knees. Ground which includes joint locks manipulations chokes head butts elbows ground and pound. Left out is eye pokes, bites, ect. Cover these 3 ranges and several arts have these tools that one does not have to look out side of there art. They just need to spend more cover time training the key tools. I just really think there has over time been to much put in different styles that they loose effectiveness from trying to train to much un needed selfdefence tools. A good way to see this is watch people spar watch some ring fights even some street fights. A small amount of structured tools are used far more often then alot of what most schools teach. So why teach such a large amount of nonuseful methods. Matter of fact a person could give the most common tools of training to any New person in say 6 months and then give them the training time for another 18 months To over all improve. And then that person has the rest of there life to just keep getting better. No 5 years of learning new tools after tools Then more years learning a few more then 20 years trying to understand them. And the aspects of M/A training still holds its value that is building a better person

 

[DeLamar.J]

There has been much hashing and rehashing about what makes arts complete.

What in your opinion makes an art "complete," why, and is your art complete in your opinion?

A complete martial art should provide 5 things.
1.stand up fighting
2.grappling skills
3.bladed weapon, double weapon, and a long weapon
4.basic firearm training
5.martial arts philosophy

 

[MJS]

If you take the time to look at most arts that have been around for somtime .you will find that most have way to much incorporated into them to make most the training useful. A art that builds less on the different levels of unarmed combat is most often going to be more effective for more people. Use the concept of stand up, clinch and ground. which fits todays understanding of fighting. Why build a mountion of stand up tools that you would most likely never get off in most fights. Same in the other 2 areas, Round off the most common needed tools and you have a much more complete art. Complete means being able to deal with the diffferent aspects of the fighting ranges Bruce used the concept of kicking ,punching trapping and grappleing ranges. Now its better said as standup. Which includes punching, kicking traps, . Clinch which includes joint locks or manipulations. elbows head buts standing chokes knees. Ground which includes joint locks manipulations chokes head butts elbows ground and pound. Left out is eye pokes, bites, ect. Cover these 3 ranges and several arts have these tools that one does not have to look out side of there art. They just need to spend more cover time training the key tools. I just really think there has over time been to much put in different styles that they loose effectiveness from trying to train to much un needed selfdefence tools. A good way to see this is watch people spar watch some ring fights even some street fights. A small amount of structured tools are used far more often then alot of what most schools teach. So why teach such a large amount of nonuseful methods. Matter of fact a person could give the most common tools of training to any New person in say 6 months and then give them the training time for another 18 months To over all improve. And then that person has the rest of there life to just keep getting better. No 5 years of learning new tools after tools Then more years learning a few more then 20 years trying to understand them. And the aspects of M/A training still holds its value that is building a better person

Great post! I tend to lean more towards this thinking. Then again, there are people who would strongly disagree. People may look at that and think, "Well, if I'm not learning the 'complete' system, how am I going to know what tools I should keep and what tools I should not?" If we look at many systems out there, and for a reference point, I'll use Kenpo. Both EPAK and Tracy have techniques in the hundreds, Tracy having quite a bit more. Now, we could look at this and think, "Why have 50 techniques for a punch?" "Am I going to be able to know what to do if I'm attacked due to the fact that I have so much to pick from?"

If we look at an art like Krav Maga, we'll see that while they have a defense to a number of attacks, many of the defenses are based off of one initial response. A 2 hand choke, regardless if its from the front, side or rear, utilizes the same initial 'pluck' as they call it, to remove the hands. This in turn, eliminates the need for the student to have to think about what attack is happening to them before they begin their defense.

I agree, there are many of the aspects you've mentioned included in a given art. I personally see nothing wrong with learning the full package, but understand that its important to have a handfull of things that you should put some extra time into perfecting. I'd rather have 10 things I can pull off than 50 I can't.

Mike

 

[Drag'n]

^thats so true. The more techs you have to choose from the slower your reaction speed becomes.
Muay Thai has few techniques, but learning to apply them effectively against a skilled attacker takes dedicated practise. Its simplicity is the key to its effectiveness.

 

[Brother John]

There has been much hashing and rehashing about what makes arts complete.

What in your opinion makes an art "complete," why, and is your art complete in your opinion?

I don't believe in a "Complete" martial art. I really don't. I used too, but no longer.

American Kenpo is the art that I study and teach, but it's not MY art. MY art is a compilation of the skills I've gained and the knowledge I've aquired through the various styles I've studied and trained in over the last 26 years. Hopefully I've got a well rounded array of skill sets that will help me in whatever situations I may find myself in when I need to defend myself or others.
THere: Well-rounded. I think that's a better term.
I'd say an art is 'well rounded' if it's not known for compartmentalization. In other words...if you can't look at it and say "It's a striking art" or "It's a grappling style"...those are limited by definition. Some arts don't do that..and they tend to be well rounded.
ONE thing I really appreciate a lot about American Kenpo is that THOUGH it is known for and excells in balistic striking....there's also some pretty good grappling w/in it that can be milked out of it and amplified/extrapolated upon.

Hope I didn't ramble tooooo much.

Your Brother
John

 

[MartialIntent]

A complete martial art should provide 5 things.
1.stand up fighting
2.grappling skills
3.bladed weapon, double weapon, and a long weapon
4.basic firearm training
5.martial arts philosophy

Respectfully - I can't agree with this at all. This is a very "modern" disposable view of completeness. As I've said elsewhere - but am happy to restate - *all* arts are 100% complete. If a weak point exists then it does so entirely within the practitioner either physically or by intent [or lack of].

I can't speak for any arts except perhaps my own Aikido which pays only very limited due to grappling [as you mean it], bladed or double weapon and makes no concession at all to firearm training. Thus by the definition you give, my Aikido is not a complete art. I could only laugh at this as much as I'd laugh at the fact that these criteria pretty much rule out the majority of TMAs as complete arts - and which by implication can only result in their classification as one step away from being without merit.

I've gotta say these arbitrary measures of worth are very hackneyed indeed. I'll state my opinion again, there are *no* omissions in our TMAs either old or modern, the only omissions you'll find are in the conditioning or heart of the artist and I'd be more than happy to take up that argument with anyone on any specific example of weakness.

Respects!

 

[Andrew Green]

As I've said elsewhere - but am happy to restate - *all* arts are 100% complete. If a weak point exists then it does so entirely within the practitioner either physically or by intent [or lack of].

sure, IF you define complete based on the standards of that art, it will be complete based on it's own standards.

Based on a outside view, that is nonsense.

I'll state my opinion again, there are *no* omissions in our TMAs either old or modern, the only omissions you'll find are in the conditioning or heart of the artist and I'd be more than happy to take up that argument with anyone on any specific example of weakness.

So... Kyudo is a complete art?

Why, under current art seperations, did professional soldiers train in *many* systems?

 

[Robert Lee]

Respectfully - I can't agree with this at all. This is a very "modern" disposable view of completeness. As I've said elsewhere - but am happy to restate - *all* arts are 100% complete. If a weak point exists then it does so entirely within the practitioner either physically or by intent [or lack of].

I can't speak for any arts except perhaps my own Aikido which pays only very limited due to grappling [as you mean it], bladed or double weapon and makes no concession at all to firearm training. Thus by the definition you give, my Aikido is not a complete art. I could only laugh at this as much as I'd laugh at the fact that these criteria pretty much rule out the majority of TMAs as complete arts - and which by implication can only result in their classification as one step away from being without merit.

I've gotta say these arbitrary measures of worth are very hackneyed indeed. I'll state my opinion again, there are *no* omissions in our TMAs either old or modern, the only omissions you'll find are in the conditioning or heart of the artist and I'd be more than happy to take up that argument with anyone on any specific example of weakness.

Respects!

If you look at what you call TMA first it was not a TMA. it was a method put together in a teaching format to produce a certion amount of awareness.. Now as far as being compelte. And we will use Aikido as you say that is what you train. Aikido covers several aspects of what it cinsiders use useable selfdefence training. Depends in yeilding energy and timing. to make it work. Now before Aikido Aikijututsu was considered a format Then before that jujitsu. So Aikido was a spin off style that was modified to adapt for useconsidered workable. Then why was jujitsu consider a lesser art or aikijustsu. Because a softer method was looked at. So Aikido came to be. Now yes it can work is it complete No is any art complte NO why. Because styles changed by a person That felt the changes suited the direction they focused on how they wanted to evolve. Then as taught to others They found within that style what they could use. AND new what they could not. Will aikido work well if you went to the ground. If you train your Aikido tools on the ground to find which tools will work there. And modify what can work if slightly changed. so its not complete. You have to complete that part. The answer is Try what you train on a resistive person. DO not have To use full force but see how things change. see how you have to rethink certion aspects. Sure certion things will start working. others will just fall apart. One never knows what works most often if not tested from time to time. Aikido aginst aikido as most schools trains teaches you to defend aginst a aikido based answer. If 1 style was complte answered all the needs. Why would we need or have so many different branches. BECAUSE some one thought they had abetter answer or more effective way. Then it became a style. When you the person train You find what you can do. thats your answer. If you need more take it. throw all else away for you do not need that. BUT say now you instruct . You give certion aspects to others as a guide for them to take what they find there own. It can taught as you were taught. Better that way some times. But less is better you know that. You can not use all you have been showed. And the story I have a life time to learn yes you do. But if you have to use it you need it then You have aspects that you know you can do well you will do those then Not the other tools you see that does not work so well for you. A M/A was not meant to be a end all know all It is a step of learning thats all. I mans idea of selfdefence. Round off what you find you are weak at you can now do more. Take a look at what you use more in Your aikido work it hard and often. Train the other aspects to keep those ideas. But what you do best is your real aikdo. Not someone elses.

 

[Xue Sheng]

A complete martial art should provide 5 things.
1.stand up fighting
2.grappling skills
3.bladed weapon, double weapon, and a long weapon
4.basic firearm training
5.martial arts philosophy

I might have some agreed here if you said to be a complete martial artist. But still you have set an awfully high standard and possibly unattainable.

However if this is you criteria for a complete martial art you have set a standard so high that no single art will be able to attain it.

Just on the basis of "Martial arts Philosophy" alone. From where, whose philosophy, China, Japan, Korea, India, Western, Filipino, Karate, Judo, Aikido, Shaolin, Taoist, Wing Chun, Xingyi, Kali, TKD, JKD? Or all martial arts philosophies?

 

[Brother John]

Why, under current art seperations, did professional soldiers train in *many* systems?

I think....
so that their own skill sets would be more complete, not so that an individual art would be.

Your Brother
John

 

[Cirdan]

A system can never be complete, it should just do it`s job and do it well.
For instance the Infantry produces good riflemen, not sumo wrestlers or pilots.