Its All There

[MJS]

Many times, especially when the subject of that 'evil' word cross training comes up, some will say that there is no need to because everything is already contained in your base art, you just need to look for it. Kind of like the hidden applications of kata...they're there, but you need to be able to work and find them.

So, what does everyone think about this? This question is open to all arts. Do you need to cross train because something in your art is lacking, or is it really in there, somewhere, mixed in with everything else, but you need to take the time to extract it? Do you need to take up Judo, BJJ, or Sambo to get better on the ground, or are 'grappling' aspects already in your art?

Now, I've heard countless times that there are grappling moves in Kenpo, which is my base art. After talking with some other Kenpo people and experimenting, I've come to see that yes, there are in fact some grappling moves in Kenpo. However, I felt that for myself, I wanted to further expand, so I took up BJJ. While I don't want to roll on the ground for 20min looking for a submission, the art does provide you with a bit more, seeing that it what it specializes in..the ground.

So..back to the original question: Do you feel that everything is already in your art or do you have to look elsewhere to fill in the holes? Of course, I've been told that the holes are not necessarily in the art, but in the individual, for what its worth.

 

[Drac]

So..back to the original question: Do you feel that everything is already in your art or do you have to look elsewhere to fill in the holes? Of course, I've been told that the holes are not necessarily in the art, but in the individual, for what its worth.

I agree that the holes are in the individual and not the art..Whatever you can add to your present art will make you a better MA in the long run..

 

[KempoGuy06]

Many times, especially when the subject of that 'evil' word cross training comes up, some will say that there is no need to because everything is already contained in your base art, you just need to look for it. Kind of like the hidden applications of kata...they're there, but you need to be able to work and find them.

So, what does everyone think about this? This question is open to all arts. Do you need to cross train because something in your art is lacking, or is it really in there, somewhere, mixed in with everything else, but you need to take the time to extract it? Do you need to take up Judo, BJJ, or Sambo to get better on the ground, or are 'grappling' aspects already in your art?

Now, I've heard countless times that there are grappling moves in Kenpo, which is my base art. After talking with some other Kenpo people and experimenting, I've come to see that yes, there are in fact some grappling moves in Kenpo. However, I felt that for myself, I wanted to further expand, so I took up BJJ. While I don't want to roll on the ground for 20min looking for a submission, the art does provide you with a bit more, seeing that it what it specializes in..the ground.

So..back to the original question: Do you feel that everything is already in your art or do you have to look elsewhere to fill in the holes? Of course, I've been told that the holes are not necessarily in the art, but in the individual, for what its worth.

Im base are its SKK (blue belt) but I to took BJJ, at first only because it was offered at my dojo, now Im glad that I do because there isnt much ground work in Kempo (as far as Ive seen anyway). BJJ has obviously expanded my ground work but it has also enhanced my Kempo because it has 1.) given me more weapons defense techniques and 2.) help me to read someones body movements if we are locked up, standing.

The only thing that I can see thus far as a "hole" in SKK is redirection. It does have circular movements and good footwork, but Id like to see more redirection thrown in with some imporvement on footwork. From what Ive seen of it I believe Aikido would be a good art to supplement this.

just my 2 cents

B

 

[FearlessFreep]

It doesn't really matter what's in your art if you don't train that part seriously.

An example that sometimes comes to mind is in Taekwondo. In one of the Taegeuk forms is a move that involves a grab to the neck/head and a knee up to the body/face. In another are several inside elbows to the face. etc..etc... So that means that within the "art" of Taekwondo" are clinches, knees, elbows, all close quarter stuff. Techniques not normally associated with Taekwondo, but you can say they are there as part of the art. Great for Taekwondo and great for you if you practice Taekwondo to be able to say "yeah, Taekwondo has close quarters striking"

Now, do you practice it? I don't mean practice just the form but do you take those techniques out of the form and drill them over and over and over, beating the crap out of your heavy bag with your knees and elbows and practicing your clinches against a partner, and...etc... ?

I can't say for any art or any school or instructor within any art so I'm not trying to criticize Taekwondo or any other art that uses forms. My only point is that there is a big difference between saying "My art has..." and "*I* can effectively do..."

And the reason I think this is an issue is that you may be able to say "my art has..." but if you are not training it then you are not going to be as effective as someone whose art *does* heavily emphasize those techniques. You may say "Taekwondo has knees and elbows so I don't need to cross train in Muy Thai to pick up those close range strikes" but if you are not training those inside strikes to be effective then what use does it do to claim your art has them if you can't really use them?

You may find all sorts of 'hidden' techniques in your forms or whatever; joint locks, grappling, throws, whatever... that seem to be part of some other popular art-de-jour. So that's a good thing. but for goodness sake *learn* from those arts that make those techniques part of their bread and butter. Whether or not you cross-train is up to you. HOwever, if you say your art has grappling, good, but if you are serious about it, it's probably a good idea to roll with some BJJ cats so see how much grappling you really have in *you*. It may be a hidden technique, but don't hide it from your training

 

[Steel Tiger]

So..back to the original question: Do you feel that everything is already in your art or do you have to look elsewhere to fill in the holes? Of course, I've been told that the holes are not necessarily in the art, but in the individual, for what its worth.

The bagua I do has a massive syllabus - striking, grappling, and some weapons, but I know there are deficiencies. Its my job as a student and teacher to recognise and overcome those deficiencies. In the last year or so I have begun to examine the greatest strength of bagua, variability and flexibility, in depth. This has lead me to some interesting conclusions. Given the size of the syllabus and the complexities of bagua principles, there really is no need for me to cross train. I do dabble in jian, but that is just because I am fascinated by the Chinese straight sword.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think it would be near impossible to take "everything" and turn it into a system. I also don't think it would be very successful if someone did pull it off. People like to specialize, some more then others. But a University program in all branches of science wouldn't work either, there is just too much stuff there for a person to go after everything. You can get a base understanding across most of the board, but eventually everyone dives into a area that interests them

 

[Em MacIntosh]

My personal expression of self defense is full of holes. The ones I'm aware of I try to hide well. My official 'arts' are karate, jiu-jitsu and kickboxing. They'll all full of holes whether respectively or combined as a hybrid. Some of my weaknesses I'm aware of: no exoskeleton, lack of prescience and my luck is 50/50.

 

[terryl965]

I agree that the holes are in the individual and not the art..Whatever you can add to your present art will make you a better MA in the long run..

I have to concur with this.

 

[Xue Sheng]

To me "Its All There" does not mean that kicking, punching, qinna and grappling are all in the art, just how to deal with these types of attacks are there.

And if you have the teacher that has actually LEARNED the art he/she is teaching and if you have the patients to LEARN your chosen art you will do fine as long as you train, train and train some more and when you've done that go out and train.

And as has already been said "holes are in the individual and not the art"

Now with that said I train Taiji and I train Sanda but I am not training them to make up for deficiencies in either, I train them because I REALLY like training them and both of my sifus are highly qualified, very well trained and very good at their CMA style and I can honestly say neither have anything lacking in their art as far as fighting goes; just different approaches to fighting and that makes it VERY interesting

 

[tellner]

I agree that the holes are in the individual and not the art..Whatever you can add to your present art will make you a better MA in the long run..

I have to disagree no matter how ideologically incorrect it may be. No art is good at everything. Every art is lousy at something. Boxing has no wrestling. BJJ has nothing but the most rudimentary striking. TKD weapons do not exist. Sera has no ground grappling. Kendo completely sucks at empty hand fighting. The facile "They're all good, and if you just explore your Art enough you'll find what you're looking for" is a nice sentiment on the surface. What it does is blame the student for the inevitable deficiencies of any particular style.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have to disagree no matter how ideologically incorrect it may be. No art is good at everything. Every art is lousy at something. Boxing has no wrestling. BJJ has nothing but the most rudimentary striking. TKD weapons do not exist. Sera has no ground grappling. Kendo completely sucks at empty hand fighting. The facile "They're all good, and if you just explore your Art enough you'll find what you're looking for" is a nice sentiment on the surface. What it does is blame the student for the inevitable deficiencies of any particular style.

And I disagree with you and I had a long response but a silly mistake copied it over with something completely different and I now have to go, I will respond in full later.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

There are simply no absolutes. Meaning that nothing and no one is always right or has all the answer's.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have to disagree no matter how ideologically incorrect it may be. No art is good at everything. Every art is lousy at something. Boxing has no wrestling. BJJ has nothing but the most rudimentary striking. TKD weapons do not exist. Sera has no ground grappling. Kendo completely sucks at empty hand fighting. The facile "They're all good, and if you just explore your Art enough you'll find what you're looking for" is a nice sentiment on the surface. What it does is blame the student for the inevitable deficiencies of any particular style.

First I should have said I disagree with you kinda because I think we have 2 conversations going on here in this post now - Specialized MA and non-specialized MA

Certain styles were designed for a very specific reason such as kendo. If, in real application of kendo, you are wielding a katana then a grappler is best not to attack you lest he get cleaved in two. However if back in the old days of feudal Japan the sword was lost they did have other Martial arts to fall back on to fight with such as Jujitsu.

In many traditional CMA styles there is weapons training but that part of the training when it comes down to a typical self-defense situation is for the mist part useless. The fact is you are not likely to be carrying a Dao or a Jain with you wherever you may go just in case you need to defend yourself. Same goes for guns, chances are there are very few martial arts that train you how to shoot.

However I am talking about the things you are likely to encounter on the street these days and yes you could come up against a gun and if that is the case you may have been trained how to take a gun from someone but in all honesty if it is hand over the money or try to take the gun away, I am handing over the money. Knife, same deal. Katana, Jain, Dao, baseball bat, battle-axe, man in a full set of armor on horse back with a lance. Much the same... but I will admit I might snicker at the guy in the full set of armor.

There is no one martial art that can handle every single give situation, study all the Systema you want, there is little or no defense against an ICBM. Train all the Sanda you can but I am still betting on the tank, and as a side note most Police/Military Sanda training already admits use a gun or a weapon it is more effective and this stuff is only if you have no other recourse. And in the Chinese Police and military (just like any other in the world) they also train how to use these weapons. But they do not train you how to defend against them should you be without one while training you how to use them generally, that is taught in Sanda.

What I am talking about here in this post is what has been talked about ad nauseam all over MT and similar web discussions. Kicking, punching, joint locking and grappling.

First I will say I am damned impressed by grappling styles and their dedication to training but I feel it also the height of arrogance to feel that we in the 20th and now the 21st century were the first to deal with grappling and that we know better now, when martial arts are needed less, that those that used it years ago when martial arts were needed more. Grappling is a VERY old art, oldest CMA in existence today and likely the oldest on record Pankration. So it is likely when people were coming up with various TMA styles they did consider the possibility.

Just because an art does not teach grappling does not mean they do not teach how to deal with it. But it sometimes take a whole lot of patients, which many don't have, to really learn the art they are training in order to know how to deal with these situations. Also it sometimes takes getting hurt and we don't, in general these days, like to get hurt, we all want it to come easy. And of course there are those teaching an art that either don't understand it or don't see the point of something, or their own prejudice gets in the way and the result is they do not teach the whole art. I myself have a real hard time these days with teaching any Taiji sword forms, I simply do not see why, yes it is good for health purposes and it helps internal but it will NEVER be used in real application outside of the school, you just can't roam the streets carrying a sword these days. But many martial arts are whole arts and can deal with just about anything (meaning within the realm of physical confrontation - kick, punch, joint lock, grapple and some weapons) thrown at them.

But there are without any doubt arts that were designed for very specific purposes and PLEASE don't make me reproduce that incredibly long list of world wide martial arts to point them out, that is really a pain and I think you get where I am coming from.

There are simply no absolutes. Meaning that nothing and no one is always right or has all the answer's.

Very true

But you also need to take into account just because someone else’s way is not the same as yours does not mean it will not work or it is wrong. My Taiji sifu and my Sanda sifu have very different approaches to things and they are both incredible effective. Just one is quick and causes you great pain and the other takes his time stays Disturbingly realxed (from the pov of the attacker) and causes you great pain.

 

[still learning]

Hello, Something to think about?

The other person attacking you...CAN BE FASTER, QUICKER, MORE ADVANCE IN TRAINING, STRONGER, BIGGER, AND SO ON....

How do you train against someone better than you? which arts prepare one for this?

ONE ART? Verbal..?

You can train in everything?....than someone shoots you or hit you from behind? ....what now?

You can run..but if the other guy is faster? ....

The only thing we can do? ...is make our selves a better person overall...a liitle stronger, a little quicker, more prepare, avoid and awareness lessons....and VERBAL training too! PREVENTION IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE CURE! ...and some kind of self-defense (simple stuffs)

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT? ......Aloha ...still thinking...

 

[SageGhost83]

There are simply no absolutes. Meaning that nothing and no one is always right or has all the answer's.

I agree. No one art has all of the answers. Just about every art will give you a good base and some serviceable skills, but I guess it depends on the individual. Where do you want to take your training? To many of us, including myself, we are content just learning the one art and trying to become extremely proficient within it. For others, we want to learn a total skillset that addresses every range of combat (standing, close in, ground, and weapons). Some styles are built and/or taught in a way that is very wide-ranging (think BBT, HRD/KSW, and TCMA), and some styles focus more one particular area such as striking (TKD, karate, Boxing), grappling (Judo, Pankration, BJJ), or weapons (Kendo, Kumdo, Escrima - I know that it is more than just weapons, but bear with please). So if you practice a style that focuses on one particular area and you want to cover most of the bases, then you would probably need to cross train or switch to a wider system. If want the same, but you already practice a wide-ranging system that covers most areas, then you could probably look within your own system and find exactly what you are looking for. No one style covers *all* of the bases, but depending on what you are looking for as an individual martial artist, some styles will cater to you more than others. I practice WTF Taekwondo, so I know that my art doesn't cover everything, but it provides me with what I am looking for in the arts, so I don't really seek any cross training. I just want to focus on my current art and become proficient in that.

 

[SageGhost83]

I agree. No one art has all of the answers. Just about every art will give you a good base and some serviceable skills, but I guess it depends on the individual. Where do you want to take your training? To many of us, including myself, we are content just learning the one art and trying to become extremely proficient within it. For others, we want to learn a total skillset that addresses every range of combat (standing, close in, ground, and weapons). Some styles are built and/or taught in a way that is very wide-ranging (think BBT, HRD/KSW, and TCMA), and some styles focus more one particular area such as striking (TKD, karate, Boxing), grappling (Judo, Pankration, BJJ), or weapons (Kendo, Kumdo, Escrima - I know that it is more than just weapons, but bear with please). So if you practice a style that focuses on one particular area and you want to cover most of the bases, then you would probably need to cross train or switch to a wider system. If want the same, but you already practice a wide-ranging system that covers most areas, then you could probably look within your own system and find exactly what you are looking for. No one style covers *all* of the bases, but depending on what you are looking for as an individual martial artist, some styles will cater to you more than others. I practice WTF Taekwondo, so I know that my art doesn't cover everything, but it provides me with what I am looking for in the arts, so I don't really seek any cross training. I just want to focus on my current art and become proficient in that.

:duh:Sorry...BBT = Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, HRD = Hwarangdo, KSW = Kuk Sool Won, TCMA = Traditional Chinese Martial Arts.

 

[morph4me]

Even if there was an art that covered everything, it would take decades to find all of the hidden applications, secret techniques and all the rest of whatever the art claims to have. By cross training in arts that specialize in the percieved weaknesses of your own, you make yourself a more well rounded and capable martial artist a little sooner, and in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with expedience as long as it isn't done at the cost of effectiveness and efficiency.

 

[MJS]

I agree that the holes are in the individual and not the art..Whatever you can add to your present art will make you a better MA in the long run..

I agree. Of course, there are those that disagree and insist that you need to look no further than the art itself. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[MJS]

First I should have said I disagree with you kinda because I think we have 2 conversations going on here in this post now - Specialized MA and non-specialized MA

Certain styles were designed for a very specific reason such as kendo. If, in real application of kendo, you are wielding a katana then a grappler is best not to attack you lest he get cleaved in two. However if back in the old days of feudal Japan the sword was lost they did have other Martial arts to fall back on to fight with such as Jujitsu.

In many traditional CMA styles there is weapons training but that part of the training when it comes down to a typical self-defense situation is for the mist part useless. The fact is you are not likely to be carrying a Dao or a Jain with you wherever you may go just in case you need to defend yourself. Same goes for guns, chances are there are very few martial arts that train you how to shoot.

However I am talking about the things you are likely to encounter on the street these days and yes you could come up against a gun and if that is the case you may have been trained how to take a gun from someone but in all honesty if it is hand over the money or try to take the gun away, I am handing over the money. Knife, same deal. Katana, Jain, Dao, baseball bat, battle-axe, man in a full set of armor on horse back with a lance. Much the same... but I will admit I might snicker at the guy in the full set of armor.

There is no one martial art that can handle every single give situation, study all the Systema you want, there is little or no defense against an ICBM. Train all the Sanda you can but I am still betting on the tank, and as a side note most Police/Military Sanda training already admits use a gun or a weapon it is more effective and this stuff is only if you have no other recourse. And in the Chinese Police and military (just like any other in the world) they also train how to use these weapons. But they do not train you how to defend against them should you be without one while training you how to use them generally, that is taught in Sanda.

What I am talking about here in this post is what has been talked about ad nauseam all over MT and similar web discussions. Kicking, punching, joint locking and grappling.

First I will say I am damned impressed by grappling styles and their dedication to training but I feel it also the height of arrogance to feel that we in the 20th and now the 21st century were the first to deal with grappling and that we know better now, when martial arts are needed less, that those that used it years ago when martial arts were needed more. Grappling is a VERY old art, oldest CMA in existence today and likely the oldest on record Pankration. So it is likely when people were coming up with various TMA styles they did consider the possibility.

Just because an art does not teach grappling does not mean they do not teach how to deal with it. But it sometimes take a whole lot of patients, which many don't have, to really learn the art they are training in order to know how to deal with these situations. Also it sometimes takes getting hurt and we don't, in general these days, like to get hurt, we all want it to come easy. And of course there are those teaching an art that either don't understand it or don't see the point of something, or their own prejudice gets in the way and the result is they do not teach the whole art. I myself have a real hard time these days with teaching any Taiji sword forms, I simply do not see why, yes it is good for health purposes and it helps internal but it will NEVER be used in real application outside of the school, you just can't roam the streets carrying a sword these days. But many martial arts are whole arts and can deal with just about anything (meaning within the realm of physical confrontation - kick, punch, joint lock, grapple and some weapons) thrown at them.

But there are without any doubt arts that were designed for very specific purposes and PLEASE don't make me reproduce that incredibly long list of world wide martial arts to point them out, that is really a pain and I think you get where I am coming from.



Very true

But you also need to take into account just because someone else’s way is not the same as yours does not mean it will not work or it is wrong. My Taiji sifu and my Sanda sifu have very different approaches to things and they are both incredible effective. Just one is quick and causes you great pain and the other takes his time stays Disturbingly realxed (from the pov of the attacker) and causes you great pain.

I was going to initially reply to your first post, but opted for this one, as it went more in depth. Speaking for myself only, I guess I'm split down the middle. I think that many times when someone says that "X" isn't in their art, its because they're looking at it from a different point of view. I'd say that there was no grappling in Kenpo, yet we have defenses for chokes, grabs and takedowns. Now looking at it face value, you won't see a set defense to escape the mount or any other grappling positions, yet after playing with some ideas and techs., I did find some applications. But it took work on my end.

Of course, you will have those that say that if you want to fight a grappler, you need to know how to grapple..plain and simple, if the traditional grappling methods were so good, how come they're not used in the ring. The list goes on and on and on.

I cross train for a few reasons, one being that I enjoy it and the other because I wanted to go more in depth in certain areas. A person I know used to use the term 'cross referencing' whenever we'd talk about the arts. I believe the point was not so much as throwing yourself into a totally new art, but instead to work with folks from other arts, and learn and understand how they operate. I don't think that we should have to throw away a move because someone else says it won't work or because they can't get it to work, but instead, look at the move and see how it can apply to modern times. In other words, take those takedown defenses from Kenpo, work them against a grappler, and tweak as needed.

I hope all that rant made sense.

Mike

 

[jks9199]

I agree that the holes are in the individual and not the art..Whatever you can add to your present art will make you a better MA in the long run..

To me "Its All There" does not mean that kicking, punching, qinna and grappling are all in the art, just how to deal with these types of attacks are there.

I have to disagree no matter how ideologically incorrect it may be. No art is good at everything. Every art is lousy at something. ... The facile "They're all good, and if you just explore your Art enough you'll find what you're looking for" is a nice sentiment on the surface.

I agree. Of course, there are those that disagree and insist that you need to look no further than the art itself. What are your thoughts on that?

Every style combines holds, throws, and blows in different proportions. Every style has some theory of how to handle holds, throws, and blows. Some sport-oriented styles say "they're illegal techniques; don't use them and tell the ref!" A common striking art approach is "if you're knocked down, get back to your feet; don't leave your weapons in place to be grabbed."

But no style can really contain "everything" and still be practical to teach or learn. There's simply too much. While each system can contain a response and approach towards each combat area (holds, throws, and blows), and many systems even unify the approach -- none can excel in each area. An aikido or judo stylist will have better throws than a jujitsu practitioner, who'll have better holds and locks than a karate student, who'll have better strikes than each of the others. And the more an art includes, the less it can go in-depth into each. In other words -- a system that tries to include a roughly even balance between each will, by practical necessity, include less of each area than one that focuses primarily on one, while having a few samples of the others. To steal Dr. Gyi's analogy -- to handle more, it'll be a dump truck or a jeep system, while those with tighter focus are more like a high end sports car. You can take a dump truck anywhere -- but it's not likely to win a beauty contest. And it won't be near as fast as that sports car, on a dry, smooth road.