How much(different styles) does it take?

[bigfootsquatch]

Hi all,

I know several people, including myself, have crosstrained in different styles. Maybe we do this because we just enjoy learning. Others get frustrated with their current style and move to another. Some just move and take whatever is close. There is also the BIG reason of people wanting to become a more "complete" martial artist.

My question is why and what(or would if you arent currently) do you crosstrain in, and do you think that each individual martial art should be complete in itself?

I'll post my opinion after the discussion gets going.

Thanks!

 

[Aikicomp]

In our system (American Ju-Jitsu) we have been cross training since day one. (Karate, Judo, Aikido and Savate). So, when you make Shodan in Ju-Jitsu, you are also a Shodan in each of the 4 seperate arts that make up our style of Ju-Jitsu bringing the total to 5.

We also have it set-up so if one wished they could concentrate on only one or two of the arts. The person would train/test in those seperately and receive rank in the seperate art/s they trained in.

Hope that makes sense.

Michael

 

[xJOHNx]

I do Jinenkan, muay thai on occasions (should really pick it up again) and hopefully soon silat. Not every art is perfect on it's own.

In muay thai I was limited by rules, e.g. not putting my fingers down the guys socket, not kicking his jewelry and so on. I stopped because of the bad athmosphere that was going on. Too much weekend fighters.

In Jinenkan I learn alot of different techniques (even styles you could say as some are linear, while other are circular). They are more geared towards really doing damage instead of sportmanship. I have some things that I don't like, but I keep it to myself.

Silat: only recently did a class. I like it, at moments I feel a big correlation with Jinenkan (attitude wise that is) and it also feels like an art meant for damage.

I should focus more on my ground game, as I only have my previous judo stuff to back it up. But than again, I don't want to go to the ground. But that's no reason not to be prepared.

No art is perfect, as there is always soething distinct different to it. Maybe some styles do have every aspect of fighting down, but you don't learn it in two or three days.
I think that continued training is something that is missing and mostly the reason why people judge artsto be incomplete.

 

[dbell]

No one art is perfect or all encompassing. But each art is good in it's own way, depending on what it was designed to teach and do.

I've studied in Judo, Aikido, Kendo, MDK TSD, Hapkido and several other arts to various levels, normally to at least 3rd Dan (in the first five listed for sure) and in some cases up from there.

I did it because of moving, wanting to learn more, and for learning more about me and my body.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. You know, I personally believe that any art is enough. In fact, I think that cross-training can be incredibly detrimental to someone's development as a "complete" martial artist (and that means what exactly?).

Essentially, people have a (rather incorrect) belief that a martial art is defined by it's techniques, which is frankly not the way it works. Tae Kwon Do is not Tae Kwon Do because of it's kicks, Tae Kwon Do kicks because it's Tae Kwon Do. BJJ isn't BJJ because of it's ground-based grappling, BJJ focuses on ground-based grappling because it's BJJ. Hmm, that may not be too clear. Let's try again.

Martial arts teach a range of things, commonly a personal philosophy (or belief system), through the medium of combative-style techniques. Those combative techniques are simply an expression of that philosophy in action, and represent only some possible expressions. And the individual philosophy of one art or another will see them adopt one physical approach over another, but that doesn't mean the art is limited to that only. So if you truly understand your system, and can adopt it's inherrant philosophy, it becomes truly limitless, and there is no need to look any further (to other arts). People often do this simply because they don't understand their own art well enough.

The best way I have come across for training in other systems, though, is when you recognise that your experience does not include expertise in one or other areas/ranges etc. In this case, someone who is experienced in their primary system (a stand-up striking based system, say), and recognises that they don't understand the ground well enough, goes and trains at a BJJ school. There, they get an understanding of what is encountered in that new environment, what is possible, and so on, and they then can apply that new knowledge to the primary system. In that way, the philosophy of the stand-up striking system can be applied in ground fighting. But if this is done too early in a students development, it simply adds to internal confusion, and slows down the attainment of skills and understanding of both systems. Add to that the fact that under stress, no matter what the situation, you will always go to what you unconsciously feel is the strongest, having conflicting methodologies means you cannot be confident of what will come out, if anything.

So, in answer to the questions posed, there is no such thing as a "complete" martial artist or martial art, simply more or less complete understanding of the art being studied. So crosstraining for that reason is not the right way to go about it.

 

[CoryKS]

How many languages do you need to know? For most people, it's one, but studying others opens up new opportunities for communication. How many words are required for a complete vocabulary? Can you have too many words? Is there ever a reason to borrow words from other languages? How many sentences does it take to express all your wants and needs?

 

[Omar B]

I've done several styles over a lifetime, of Japanese and Korean origin. Right now I'm in Seido which is the first style I started in as a child.

You ask "do you think that each individual martial art should be complete in itself" Why do you use the word "should" there? I think each martial art (and let's concentrate on the art here) is a work in and of itself, just like any other art is a complete unit in and of itself. It has a unifying theme, a philosophy and and specific set of techniques, just like any other work of art. Some martial arts do change and evolved though, and that being part of their nature and philosophy is like any other artistic expression such as dance which also change.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Hi all,

I know several people, including myself, have crosstrained in different styles. Maybe we do this because we just enjoy learning. Others get frustrated with their current style and move to another. Some just move and take whatever is close. There is also the BIG reason of people wanting to become a more "complete" martial artist.

My question is why and what(or would if you arent currently) do you crosstrain in, and do you think that each individual martial art should be complete in itself?

I'll post my opinion after the discussion gets going.

Thanks!

Depends greatly on what your personal goals are and the nature of your current system. If you are in a school that teaches sport taekwondo, for example, cross training is not unreasonable.

I have trained in more than one art over the years and have found that each one has its unique benefits and has something to offer.

I think that if you are trying to pick up skills, cross training can be great. The only caveat is if the arts in question are teaching overlapping skills in different ways.

For example, a taekwondoist crosstraining in judo is not going to run into much, if any overlap. On the other hand, if he trains in Shotokan, there is a substantial overlap in content, but many subtle differences in the execution of that content, not to mention differences in terminology. In such a case, it would be a good idea to train in one and then in the other rather than both at once.

Being a hapkidoist, I find that hapkido pretty much addresses all of my needs as a system. I won't say that it is the end all be all or that there is nothing outside of it that I could use, but in terms of what I actually need, its all there.

Daniel

 

[Shifu Steve]

Let me start by saying that my training in multiple styles was not by choice but circumstance. I began my training with an interest in Ju-Jitsu however my teacher had a background in Chinese Martial Arts as well. So my training was divided between both.

My experience with this type of training was positive although I agree that it's not for everyone. In my case the early years of my training focused on Ju-Jitsu and a CMA (now a Taiwanese Martial Art) called Ou-Der Kuntao. Do to technical synergies between the two styles juxtaposed by a contrast of hard/soft, the underlying philosophical concepts resonated with my personality. That paired with the fact that the technical approach was in line with my preferences maximized my ability to perform the techniques and shortened the learning curve.

This is really an overly wordy way of saying I basically was lucky and found myself in a situation where I could reach my potential (based on a variety of factors that were to my benefit). It just as easily could have been a different outcome; something closer to what Chris Parker describes. I too believe that in many cases if you look outside your chosen art every time you don't find an "answer" you will never fully develop your potential in that art and your training will be lacking for it.

As I’ve attested to before, all styles have inherent limitations to them by virtue of what they focus on. I’m not saying there aren’t answers to those limitations, or even that those limitations detract from the styles effectiveness. The thing is at some point the martial artist has to take some sort of ownership of their style (in order to reach their potential in it) and let it essentially become an extension of their own philosophy (I’m speaking strictly to the artistic sense of the martial art). Part of this is examining the style, breaking down the techniques, relating the concepts, understanding the limits and using the knowledge of the process to answer certain questions.

This isn’t to say I don’t think training in multiple styles isn’t a good idea. I’m just saying if your doing it because you hit a wall so to speak within your primary art then you may not have looked at your own art deeply enough. Dabbling in multiple styles is akin to the old saying “jack of all trades master of none.” If you want to seriously take on more than one approach, I think it’s crucial to first have a very good understanding of one. Then you can easily incorporate other styles into your overall system and they will enrich your learning, help you understand your primary art better and possibly increase your knowledge base as a martial artist.

 

[Laus]

I think each art is complete in its own right, but I suppose that depends on what you want to get out of it. If you are focused on the dynamics of fighting, then a bigger toolkit is never a bad idea. If its more about the philosophy or lifestyle, then crosstraining is probably unnecessary and possibily detrimental. I sort of stradle the fence in that regard - I am not deeply spiritual, and don't really subscribe to any of the philosophies normally associated with the arts, but I relish doing spiritual battle with my self. I also happen to really like the physical challenge of fighting, and the more I can learn about how to do it the happier I am.

I am myself a dedicated crosstrainer. Karate is my primary art and the bulk of my dedication goes into that, but I am always doing something else along side it. Most recently that's been Aikido, which has essentially become a second primary for me, and I hope I can do the two concurrently for many years to come (who knows what life may bring, but thats the plan).

I cross train for the challenge and for the extra knowledge, and to remind myself that I don't know everything - it keeps me humble to struggle with something unfamiliar. I find value in having the perspectives of two different Senseis as well. I also just like learning to move my body in new ways, whether in kata or in a fight. I started crosstraining around my third year in Karate (at this point with the same Sensei, so he tailored it to compliment the karate). I have never found it to be detrimental, if anything it has made me a whole lot better at what I do - its shown me things that were not obvious before and that has enhanced my karate immeasurably.

Training with weapons taught me precision, showed the purpose of certain movements and gave me an eye for details I had never given much thought to. Tai Chi taught me how to move more effectively (and gracefully), to control and direct my energy, to keep my head clear, and developed my rooting and balance in ways I had never managed to grasp before.

I also like to have alternatives. Karate has taught me a lot about how to finish a fight decisively, in ways that are not usually pleasant for the receiving party. Aikido teaches me how to end a fight in ways that will (usually) not cause permanent damage (and have fewer legal ramifications). Considering the world we live in I think thats a pretty good thing.

That said, crosstraining effectively is very time consuming, and as much as I love it I don't do it unless I have the time to fully commit to everything I'm doing. I was fortunate enough to be training through college, so with my student's schedule I was able to train enough to become fairly proficient in everything I was doing, managing 3 dans (one - the Tai Chi - was more a cermonial rank, since Tai Chi doesn't use that kind of system, which basically meant we could be trusted to teach it in our dojo) and a 1st kyu before I graduated and my schedule changed. That kind of intensity is no longer possible, so I stick to my two 'primaries' now, but I am eternally grateful for the extra insight I aquired during those obsessive crosstraining years.

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

If you are so in love with your art that you want to remain faithfull or presserve it's purity then doing 1 art is good for you.

If it's well rounded and deals with differnt ranges of combat and different weapons than you might not need anything else.

If your most concerned with your own personal abilities and knowledge, want to increase your odds and whatnot than I feel you need a core style but after a year or 2 in your core art you also should spend maybe 20-40 % your MA time crosstraining. (and staying with your core art.)

MMA is a good stand alone art but it wont usually (Greg Jackson will)teach you small joint mainipulations or weapons defenses, therefore the MMA guy might want to crosstrain with some Jujutsu, CQC. Krav Maga or FMA folks.

Judo is a great art but it's generally lacking in good srtrikes or kicks, so maybe a Judoka might want to crosstrain with some Karate, Boxing or Muay Thai.

CQC is a great combative system and can prepare you well for a violent assult but maybe you have been doing it for 2-3 years and you want something higher order, something with more art to it, some Jazz for your CQC Rock and Roll, so maybe you do Aiki Jujutsu, AIkido, or Gung Fu.

I did a few different styles before getting into Combat and AikiJujutsu.
I use JJ as my core, but the footwork was lacking, the strikes were lacking and our primary instructor did not teach weapons but the Sempai taught knife and improvissed weapons. Therfore I have sense crosstrained in CQC and FMA/IMA for the footwork, strikes, hand blending amd weapons.
I also pick the bBrains of and crosstrain with friends who do Judo and BJJ whenever I can to improve my thrwos and ground fighting.

It's an individual choice and journey, the Arts. You decide.

 

[MJS]

Hi all,

I know several people, including myself, have crosstrained in different styles. Maybe we do this because we just enjoy learning. Others get frustrated with their current style and move to another. Some just move and take whatever is close. There is also the BIG reason of people wanting to become a more "complete" martial artist.

My question is why and what(or would if you arent currently) do you crosstrain in, and do you think that each individual martial art should be complete in itself?

I'll post my opinion after the discussion gets going.

Thanks!

What do I train in: Kenpo, 3rd degree black. Modern Arnis, 1st degree black, and while its been a while since I've been on the mat, BJJ, no rank.

Do I think each art should be complete? IMO, there really is no, one, complete art. Yes, arts do touch on specific areas, so yeah, I suppose you could say its complete. For example: Kenpo has defenses for punches, kicks, grabs, clubs, guns, knives and takedown defenses. Is it complete? Sure seems like it. However, if someone wants to expand on a certain area, say grappling, while some may disagree, I feel that if you want to expand, you're going to have to look outside your art, at one that specializes in that area. Ex: If I want to get better on the ground, I'm going to have to go to BJJ, Judo, Jujitsu, Wrestling, etc. And thats what I did. The same thing for weapons. The FMAs, IMO, is the place to go to when you're looking to expand on weapons. I've seriously modified my weapons defense, now that I've been training in Arnis, for as long as I've been.

Now, some may say, "Well, perhaps those grappling secrets are in Kenpo, but you're not seeing them. You need to spend more time." And that may be....however, I've been a firm believer, and this is just my opinion, that its better to go to a source that specializes in that area.

Now, I'm not one to move from one art to the next, spending short amounts of time in each. I've been doing Kenpo alone, for 20+yrs. I still actively train in Arnis, taking weekly lessons. The BJJ...well, I certainly dont claim to be the next Royce, but I work the basics enough, so I feel confident to defend myself against the average person.

I enjoy training. There're so many things out there. If someone wants to just spend their time doing 1 thing, thats fine. The arts that I train in, IMO, have made me a more well rounded martial artist, than I once was. I enjoy training, and dont plan on stopping any time soon.

 

[ap Oweyn]

A clinical supervisor of mine once said of psychological theories that they're simply a way of organizing your work. I think the same holds for styles, which are essentially theories as well: Codified, somewhat idealized frameworks from which to extrapolate later.

With that in mind, a style is the combination of two things: A person's best effort to organize his work and a group of people who (consciously or unconsciously) agree with him.

At the end of the day, though, a style is a collection of material. And it's the material that makes someone complete or incomplete. The advantage of a style is that (hopefully) it's been through testing and refinement so that the individual elements assembled in it fit together fairly smoothly. Whereas, if you're taking the kicking from taekwondo and the punching from traditional pugilism, it's going to fall to you to reconcile the differences between the two so that it all flows properly.

Asking how many styles you need, to my mind, misses the point. Styles don't perform. You do. People like this idea of "skill by association." They say "my style addresses close range, so grappling wouldn't be a threat to me," or "my style is based on knife fighting, so I'm not worried about getting stabbed."

Your style doesn't fight. Anymore than a history textbook would take your final exam for you. It's your command of the material that matters. However you organize your work to get there is up to you. But at the end of the day, what matters is the degree to which you've internalized that material. Some people do that through one source. Others do it through multiple sources. But ultimately, there are only two kinds of technique: 1) things you can do and 2) things you can't.


Stuart

 

[Shifu Steve]

At the end of the day, though, a style is a collection of material. And it's the material that makes someone complete or incomplete. The advantage of a style is that (hopefully) it's been through testing and refinement so that the individual elements assembled in it fit together fairly smoothly. Whereas, if you're taking the kicking from taekwondo and the punching from traditional pugilism, it's going to fall to you to reconcile the differences between the two so that it all flows properly.

I think the obvious advantage of a style is that it's an organized, codified, tested approach. One way to approach it is to adopt it as doctrine and stay within its parameters. This is a traditional approach. Another way is to take aspects of it that you prefer (i.e. find effective) and adopt them into some form of personal system/philosophy. This is a more modern take as the availability of information on a wide range of martial arts exists now more than ever. Not to say this didn't happen in the past, it obviously did and accounts for new approaches (at the time) in martial arts.

Trying to assimilate more than one approach into a hybrid is no easy task because there has to be an underlying methodology. Rather than just walking the path you are essentially blazing a new trail. Like ap Oweyn said "it's going to fall to you to reconcile the differences between the two so that it all flows properly." If this is approached haphazardly it could be a mess and a waste of time.

 

[kaizasosei]

Everyone will come up with his own bag of tricks. The most thirsty for knowledge and most innovative will usually check out all sources when it comes to the subject of interest. While each martial art is like a language or like a good book, the common theme is violence and how to deal with it. Technically one can eliminate true violence/violent intent, and indeed that is the aim of sport as well as combat art. However, for violence alone, i believe the answer is, it doesn't take any styles. Most people are perfectly capable of violence even without any ma training. The more skillfull with their bodys and tools, the more dangerous.


i think that observing many arts is most reasonable, but dedication to one or few is the whole point of ma study and to stop searching for knowledge in one art is worse than to stop searching the world of magazines, videos books.

It never ceases to amaze me how many new things you can learn and start to see in the very same books and manuals as always.

Everybody will do ma for different reasons at different times...
what does it take pertaining to what goal actually?
If i understand the correctly, then i would agree with what was already said.. that one could aim for balance by polishing away ones weaknesses if necessary drawing from another art.



j

 

[geezer]

How many arts do you need to study to handle all kinds of combat? A lot, ...more than any one person can master. James Bond and Jason Bourne are fictional, remember. To be truly complete, at the very least you need a good close-range, stand-up art, and a longer range art with more kicking, you need a knowledge of throws, grappling and ground-work. And you need a working knowledge of submission techniques including large and small joint locks and breaks as well as your percussive or impact techniques.

OK, I suppose this much is feasible if you are very talented and train very hard. For example you could study a blend of Bjj and traditional jiu jutsu to get your grappling and locking skills. Boxining, or perhaps a "short-bridge" kung-fu system like Wing Chun or Pak-Mei for your stand-up in-fighting, and any of the long bridge kicking styles for long range work. Maybe you could simplify a bit by training at an MMA school that teaches grappling, boxing and Muay Tai combined, or by studying a traditional art like Hapkido to get both the joint locks and kicks at the same time. Kenpo also covers a lot of ground. But then what are you going to do about weapons? For "the street", you need to be able to sticks and blades at the least. So, like MJS already said, you need a good combat oriented FMA.

Now what about firearms? In my state, anybody can carry a sidearm, open or even concealed without a permit. So you better take some combat handgun training. Once you've got that, how are your rifle skills. My brother, for example, has a "master" rating in open sight competition at 1,000 yards and is a hell of a hunter too. If he had too, he'd get you and you'd never even see him. Heck, maybe you should join the rangers or seals. Of course, I know a guy who was a fighter pilot for the Navy. How do you deal with that. Or my step-mom's nephew. Second in command of a nuclear aircraft carrier. Are you good at deflecting nukes? OK, now I am being really silly. I admit it. But my point is that one person can only do so much... even if you are a totally committed survivalist nutcase. And besides, compared to other times and places, most of us live in reasonably safe surroundings.

So, all that said, I'd rather learn a more realistic range of martial arts skills and do them as well as I can. Then, if you ever have to use your stuff, get the other guy to play your game.

 

[ap Oweyn]

Do you need to be able to kick to properly address long range? Or is it sufficient to use good footwork and timing to close the range quickly to something in which you're more adept?

And I'm not targeting kicking in particular.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Hi all,

I know several people, including myself, have crosstrained in different styles. Maybe we do this because we just enjoy learning. Others get frustrated with their current style and move to another. Some just move and take whatever is close. There is also the BIG reason of people wanting to become a more "complete" martial artist.

My question is why and what(or would if you arent currently) do you crosstrain in, and do you think that each individual martial art should be complete in itself?

I'll post my opinion after the discussion gets going.

Thanks!

Nothing against cross training but it all it comes down to how patient you are and what your goal is in training MA.

And yes the majority of systems out there are complete if you are trained properly and have the patience to train it.

 

[Chris Parker]

How many arts do you need to study to handle all kinds of combat? A lot, ...more than any one person can master. James Bond and Jason Bourne are fictional, remember. To be truly complete, at the very least you need a good close-range, stand-up art, and a longer range art with more kicking, you need a knowledge of throws, grappling and ground-work. And you need a working knowledge of submission techniques including large and small joint locks and breaks as well as your percussive or impact techniques.

OK, I suppose this much is feasible if you are very talented and train very hard. For example you could study a blend of Bjj and traditional jiu jutsu to get your grappling and locking skills. Boxining, or perhaps a "short-bridge" kung-fu system like Wing Chun or Pak-Mei for your stand-up in-fighting, and any of the long bridge kicking styles for long range work. Maybe you could simplify a bit by training at an MMA school that teaches grappling, boxing and Muay Tai combined, or by studying a traditional art like Hapkido to get both the joint locks and kicks at the same time. Kenpo also covers a lot of ground. But then what are you going to do about weapons? For "the street", you need to be able to sticks and blades at the least. So, like MJS already said, you need a good combat oriented FMA.

Now what about firearms? In my state, anybody can carry a sidearm, open or even concealed without a permit. So you better take some combat handgun training. Once you've got that, how are your rifle skills. My brother, for example, has a "master" rating in open sight competition at 1,000 yards and is a hell of a hunter too. If he had too, he'd get you and you'd never even see him. Heck, maybe you should join the rangers or seals. Of course, I know a guy who was a fighter pilot for the Navy. How do you deal with that. Or my step-mom's nephew. Second in command of a nuclear aircraft carrier. Are you good at deflecting nukes? OK, now I am being really silly. I admit it. But my point is that one person can only do so much... even if you are a totally committed survivalist nutcase. And besides, compared to other times and places, most of us live in reasonably safe surroundings.

So, all that said, I'd rather learn a more realistic range of martial arts skills and do them as well as I can. Then, if you ever have to use your stuff, get the other guy to play your game.

Until we got to your nuclear scenario, you were pretty much describing Ninjutsu, just so you know....

We teach close range stand-up striking and grappling, mid-to-long range striking and kicking (actually, we have close range kicking as well...), throws, chokes, limb controls (both large and small joint), ground fighting, weapon use and defence, including firearms and modern knife use and defence, group defence, intuition, awareness, and far far more.... and our primary strategy (and a major reason our system is so far-ranging) is to take an opponent out of their area of speciality and into another area in which we are stronger.

Just so you know....

 

[geezer]

Until we got to your nuclear scenario, you were pretty much describing Ninjutsu, just so you know....

I thought you might notice the parallel, Chris!

As for myself... well I'm a 'chunner and getting really good at that is enough to keep me busy for this lifetime. So, like ap Oweyn suggested... if I can't get away, I'll close and give them what I've got from close up.

If I have to fight from further away, I'll use a stick. Sticks are good. So are rocks, chairs, stools, bottles, salt shakers, billiard balls, flashlights, tools, sporting equipment, my steering wheel lock (aptly named "The Club"), pens, pencils, keyboards (and not metaphorically, either), that framed picture of my family on the desk... well you get the idea.