Serving more than one master?

[TKDinAK]

Been reading through the very interesting thread started by Manny, "My Top Five". What a great way to get a quick snapshot of different arts and styles. Some seem to be similar to one another, others appear to be far apart in style and function.

My question is, and keep in mind this is coming from a complete newbie to the arts (5 months), how in the world can one train under more than one master? And I'm not using the term master simply as in a person, perse, but also in the form you are studying.

Again, keep in mind the ignorance I have here, but it seems to me, to fully understand an art, so it becomes so natural it's more a part of who you are than what you do, takes years and years of hard training and study. For those who have studied more than one art, both mentally and physically, how do you go about keeping them seperate?

I know many lon-time practitioners throughout the years have done it, but from my limited perspective, it seems like a maddening venture... trying to cause the muscle memories you have trained for years to operate a certain way, to move and memorize a totally new form and function... well, from my limited perspective it seems like a plunge into some sort of physical schizophrenia.

I'm not an advocate of keeping to one form... not knowledgable enough yet to form a well thought outopinion... I'm more curious as to how it is done. How do you serve more than one master? From reading Manny's thread, it seems most have a singular top art form they study the most. Maybe the other forms are something they just dabble in? Maybe, after 20+ years of study, it's not that big of a deal to learn and incorporate other patterns, strikes, blocks, stances... etc... etc... etc..., and not cause your main study to be a total train wreck. Heck, simply learning a new pattern can cause me to make a train wreck of the previous pattern I just learned. LOL!

Just curious about this...

 

[oftheherd1]

Few, if any arts contradict each other. Therefore, anything you learn is either new, or an improvement of something you have already learned. I have heard of teachers who are upset if a student wishes to learn another art at the same time. Others are glad a student wishes to improve themselves, and brings an improvement back to their primary school.

In Korea, it isn't uncommon for a student to be encouraged to explore another MA after attaining 3rd Dan. They will either like the new art and make it their primary, or as expected, will return to their primary art with new skills and renewed enthusiasm for their primary art.

 

[terryl965]

TKDinAK you can truely blend arts together, the problem most have is they simply do not stay in one art long enough to get proper foundation. I have been involved in MA for over forty plus years and hold several BB's but my first art was Okinawa Karate and than Korean Karate which in reality was TKD, they just used the name to be recognizes over here in American.

I am a firm believer that you need to be a BB in one particular art before venturing into another one, some here believe as long as you have the basic principle you are fine. Every art blend well with each other even the weapons are just an extenction of your arm so basic movement and angle can be easily converted with the right instructor.

I am sure once you have a few years in you will simply like to know more and more and will seak out additional teaching. I am not saying everyone should or your Master or mine need more training but seeing other people example of certain techs sure is a plus in my book.

 

[Thesemindz]

As a beginner, I'd say stick with whatever art you're studying, at least as long as you're safe and enjoying your training, so that you don't get confused. But as you become more advanced you begin to see the similarities in the differences and the differences in the similarities. You realize that there are only so many ways to sit on someone's chest and bash their head against the ground, or punch them in the body and kick them in the groin. Sure, different arts have different focuses, and some are completely different. But most of the differences between fighting styles are cosmetic, philosophical, or contextual.

So the advanced student can begin to look around outside his own study and see what other people are doing. He can look at techniques from other arts and see where they reflect things he's already learned, and where they complement things he's already learned, and yes, where they contradict things he's already learned. And he can grow from that. But it's because he already has a frame of reference created by a thorough base of knowledge.

Sometimes a practitioner loses his Master, as I did, and has to broaden his horizons in order to continue to grow. Sometimes he finishes the system he began with and may continue to train in that while starting a second system, or move on entirely to something new. We all study for our own deeply personal reasons, and those reasons affect the choices we make on our path. Sometimes you meet dabblers, who just dip their toes in everything that comes along. They often end up with broad exposure to many concepts and techniques, but no depth of understanding because they never stick around long enough to internalize the method before they flit away to something shiny and new.

Many of the Masters have studied, and in many cases even Mastered, a number of martial arts. Some stick with one specific art and devote themselves to it their entire life. I don't think either is inherently right or wrong, just different. Mr. Parker studied karate, kenpo, kung fu, judo, and jujitsu. Funakoshi Sensei studied primarily the regional styles of his native karate before he created Shotokan. There is no right path. There is only your path.

Good luck. At the kenpo school I started in we used to have a creed that read, "you have taken but the first step in mastering a unique and powerful art, and to continue your journey you must follow in the footsteps of those who have come before you." That's how karate works. Hand to hand. Instructor to student. Generation after generation. Maybe you will stay where you are forever. Maybe you will leave tomorrow. We can't predict the twists and turns of the path. But karate isn't going anywhere. If it is in you, you will find it. Don't worry about serving two Masters. Whatever you are doing today, do it with utmost seriousness. And if, in time, you find yourself drawn in another direction, do not be afraid.

There is only one art of the sword.


-Rob

 

[punisher73]

I am going to disagree with some on here. MANY arts contradict each other in philosophy and approach. For example, the power generation methods used in Goju-Ryu are different than in Shorin-Ryu/Shotokan/TKD and would have you train in different ways. If you delve into kung fu methods of power, you will realize that many are also not compatible with many other linear arts.

Now, if you are talking about different styles with the same root, then it's not a big deal. For example, Shorin-ryu to Shotokan to TKD to TSD, they are all hard styles of karate using the same power generation methods so you are only changing fine details not foundational movement.

 

[Thesemindz]

I don't think anybody's disputing that there are contradictory arts, in fact I said as much in my post, what I was saying is that once you develop a thorough knowledge base in an art you can begin to see why the contradictory aspects of the arts each exist in their own way, and you can make educated decisions according to context. Sure, there are hard and soft arts, and internal and external arts, and standing and ground arts, and each generate and apply force in different ways. But the ultimate goal is the same. And in pursuit of that goal, I believe the advanced student can benefit from the study of even completely contradictory approaches.


-Rob

 

[andyjeffries]

My question is, and keep in mind this is coming from a complete newbie to the arts (5 months), how in the world can one train under more than one master? And I'm not using the term master simply as in a person, perse, but also in the form you are studying.

Again, keep in mind the ignorance I have here, but it seems to me, to fully understand an art, so it becomes so natural it's more a part of who you are than what you do, takes years and years of hard training and study. For those who have studied more than one art, both mentally and physically, how do you go about keeping them seperate?

For me it's very easy. I studied Taekwondo for a long time (20+ years that you quote fits me) and still do before trying a second art. My second art is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (although I haven't trained since pretty early this year, waiting for a knee op, had it done, now waiting for recovery*) and it's so completely different to Taekwondo that I don't have any problems keeping the two separate in my mind.

I've brought some of the BJJ techniques/principles over to my Taekwondo training (better submissions after takedowns in one-step sparring, better breakfalls than I had before, more specific-technique sparring strategies) but in general the two are very distinct in my mind. The only area I have difficulty with is tying my belt (in BJJ they do it with a cross over at the back, in our Taekwondo club the back of the belt is perfectly overlaid)

* had a torn medial cartilage - should be back at Taekwondo in 2 weeks and back at BJJ about 2 weeks after that (just to ensure my knee holds up OK in Taekwondo first) - in case anyone cares...

 

[Flying Crane]

I am going to disagree with some on here. MANY arts contradict each other in philosophy and approach. For example, the power generation methods used in Goju-Ryu are different than in Shorin-Ryu/Shotokan/TKD and would have you train in different ways. If you delve into kung fu methods of power, you will realize that many are also not compatible with many other linear arts.

Now, if you are talking about different styles with the same root, then it's not a big deal. For example, Shorin-ryu to Shotokan to TKD to TSD, they are all hard styles of karate using the same power generation methods so you are only changing fine details not foundational movement.

you beat me to it.

 

[punisher73]

I don't think anybody's disputing that there are contradictory arts, in fact I said as much in my post, what I was saying is that once you develop a thorough knowledge base in an art you can begin to see why the contradictory aspects of the arts each exist in their own way, and you can make educated decisions according to context. Sure, there are hard and soft arts, and internal and external arts, and standing and ground arts, and each generate and apply force in different ways. But the ultimate goal is the same. And in pursuit of that goal, I believe the advanced student can benefit from the study of even completely contradictory approaches.
-Rob

Then what is the purpose? If you know that the body is meant to move in an entirely different way than you either have to try and retrain your body in a whole new way, or you are just bastardizing the other art. Either way you are not really serving your own self. If you are just looking at applications, then again you are using the filter or your existing style and trying to make it fit into that. Most people don't make it to the level of "advanced" (which is NOT defined by rank) to really understand what it is the art is trying to do or acommplish. They look at the exterior trappings and think of application only and not the internal aspects of "why" you move this way or that.

 

[punisher73]

For me it's very easy. I studied Taekwondo for a long time (20+ years that you quote fits me) and still do before trying a second art. My second art is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (although I haven't trained since pretty early this year, waiting for a knee op, had it done, now waiting for recovery*) and it's so completely different to Taekwondo that I don't have any problems keeping the two separate in my mind.

I've brought some of the BJJ techniques/principles over to my Taekwondo training (better submissions after takedowns in one-step sparring, better breakfalls than I had before, more specific-technique sparring strategies) but in general the two are very distinct in my mind. The only area I have difficulty with is tying my belt (in BJJ they do it with a cross over at the back, in our Taekwondo club the back of the belt is perfectly overlaid)

* had a torn medial cartilage - should be back at Taekwondo in 2 weeks and back at BJJ about 2 weeks after that (just to ensure my knee holds up OK in Taekwondo first) - in case anyone cares...

Then in combat you will have that seperation of when to use TKD and when to use BJJ. They should be a seemless approach for it to be any benefit. You shouldn't be able to tell where one art begins and one art ends to truly benefit.

PS: Hope your knee heals quick and strong for you!

 

[JohnEdward]

I think it is difficult to practice more than one art at the same time that doesn't have a good portion of overlapping similarities. When you first start a second art it will be more difficult at first and over time it gets easier. It also depends on the art and all that entails to get over that learning curve. The less unfamiliar things to learn, the less steep of a learning curve, thus the easier it gets. But, the initial period of time can be really frustrating and difficult, especially for a person new to both arts. If a person can stick with it, the benefits I think out weigh the difficulty.

If you are going to take up a new art, I would recommend it after you have put in a considerable amount of time into the first one. That way it will be easier to keep everything straight in your head.

 

[Manny]

Well my two mexican cents that is about .0016 US cents jejejeje. Wanting to improve my TKD I embarqued in crosstraining, especifically Kenpo Karate by Ed Parker. In my dojang classes are designed to children and youths so the martial art I wanted or the self defense lessons I was seeking were almost cero, so without letting now I learned for a year kenpo karate with sucess I must say. I didn't tell my sambonim this.... why? very simple he will be desapointed , for that reason in some kind of clandestinity I trained twice a week TKD and twice a week kenpo karate. Giving a feet ill I have to drop one of the martial arts, simply my feet at that time could not stand the punishment so I drop kenpo and focused in my second dan test.

How I deal with the cosstraining? well sometimes with certain fear, my city is a small one , almost everyone knows eachother and my fear was to be caught by children or their parents saw me wearing a black gi or entering or leaving the kenpo dojo. Technically was another anymal, I caught easier the kenpo techs than the beginer cause of my TKD training but my stances for example were not 100% kenpo but some kind of modified TKD stances, the kicks even they were the same the kenpoits performed diferent, the sparring was too diferent always loosing at it because I sparred like a tkdoing using full powe kicks and no matter my puches or kicks scored right I loose the point cause the other guy slap me in the head quiker than I.

Right now I have an orange belt in kepo karate, and really liked but I can't go back to it, I am focusing myself teaching TKD with some kenpo techs that are rasonable to teach inside dojang.

Will I do crosstrining again? Yes in fact I am planning to do it again in another martial art but just because I love to learn something new not because I wanted a new black belt, however it's true (for me) that I will not leave TKD cause it's my main martial art, it's a good one and liked the way of life tkd is giving me. The point is, I like to do crosstraining to improve or enhance my TKD, not because I feel TKD is not worth it.

Manny

 

[Flying Crane]

I am going to disagree with some on here. MANY arts contradict each other in philosophy and approach. For example, the power generation methods used in Goju-Ryu are different than in Shorin-Ryu/Shotokan/TKD and would have you train in different ways. If you delve into kung fu methods of power, you will realize that many are also not compatible with many other linear arts.

Now, if you are talking about different styles with the same root, then it's not a big deal. For example, Shorin-ryu to Shotokan to TKD to TSD, they are all hard styles of karate using the same power generation methods so you are only changing fine details not foundational movement.

Then what is the purpose? If you know that the body is meant to move in an entirely different way than you either have to try and retrain your body in a whole new way, or you are just bastardizing the other art. Either way you are not really serving your own self. If you are just looking at applications, then again you are using the filter or your existing style and trying to make it fit into that. Most people don't make it to the level of "advanced" (which is NOT defined by rank) to really understand what it is the art is trying to do or acommplish. They look at the exterior trappings and think of application only and not the internal aspects of "why" you move this way or that.

There is some real clarity in these two posts, very very well said and I must give my enthusiastic agreement.

I'll illustrate the point with an example from my own training.

I've trained in a few different systems over the years, and this issue became glaringly obvious to me recently, to the point where I needed to make a deliberate decision to NOT train in some of those other systems and focus on the one that was the best fit for me.

Tibetan white crane, northern shaolin longfist, and Tracy kenpo all use a body rotation to power the primary techniques. On the surface it would seem that these systems are compatible, and maybe would even support each other if practiced side by side, but I've found that the opposite is true. The difference lies in how the stances are used, and in how far one rotates. White Crane uses a rotation that other systems would consider to be extreme. It is a very complete rotation driven by a distinct use of the stance. Northern Shaolin also uses a rotation driven by the stance, but how the feet engage is different, and the distance rotated is actually less than in White Crane. Tracy kenpo does it differently yet, using a static horse stance and twisting thru the waist. The engagement of the stance is different, and again that critical pivot distance is distinctly less.

When I practiced kenpo or shaolin, I was pivoting less than I should, and differently from how it is done in White Crane. This develops habits that are wrong for white crane, and my white crane sifu would call me out on it, telling me I'm not rotating far enough. It wasn't that it was just different, but in the context of white crane it was actually wrong.

When I would practice white crane, I would try to fully engage the stances and rotate to completion. But this was different from kenpo. So when I was training kenpo, my teacher would tell me, "no you are rotating too far, square up the shoulders and torso and don't go beyond that." Again, in the context of kenpo, the White Crane rotation was not just different, but was actually wrong.

The shaolin was in between these two. The rotation is not as far as white crane, but farther than kenpo, and again there is a difference in the stances. If I do shaolin like I do white crane, then it's wrong for shaolin. I would be turning shaolin into white crane. Likewise for kenpo: if I did shaolin like kenpo, then it's wrong for shaolin and I would be turning shaolin into kenpo. This is inappropriate for all of these systems.

I finally realized that I could not continue to practice all of these. I remember being in kenpo class, drilling technique in the kenpo way, and thinking to myself, "this is hurting my white crane".

White crane became my method, and I no longer train shaolin nor kenpo. I realized that in order to really thrive and progress and grow, I needed to have one systematic method and stick to that. Trying to do these other things was making all of it jumbled up. But if one does not recognize how these things differ, it is easy to think that they are compatible. After all, they all use a pivoting rotation, right? So they must all be close enough, right? Wrong.

 

[Earl Weiss]

In summary. Some arts may be similar and lead to confusion. Similar but different stances, similar but different strikes / Kicks etc. Other arts may be different and complimentary such as Striking and grappling arts as well as weapons. The core techniques are different enough so as to eliminate overlapping confusion yet you may realize benefits such as Cardio, flexibility, balance, body mechanic awareness that transfer from one to the other. the bigger issue is having the time, energy and perhaps funds to adequately train in more than one at a time. if I didn't have to work to fund such extraneous activities like eating and putting a roof over the family's head i could see doing the Grappling art in the morning, striking in the afternoon, and weapons in the evening. Fitting in Stentgth and cardio somewhere.

 

[oftheherd1]

There is some real clarity in these two posts, very very well said and I must give my enthusiastic agreement.

I'll illustrate the point with an example from my own training.

I've trained in a few different systems over the years, and this issue became glaringly obvious to me recently, to the point where I needed to make a deliberate decision to NOT train in some of those other systems and focus on the one that was the best fit for me.

Tibetan white crane, northern shaolin longfist, and Tracy kenpo all use a body rotation to power the primary techniques. On the surface it would seem that these systems are compatible, and maybe would even support each other if practiced side by side, but I've found that the opposite is true. The difference lies in how the stances are used, and in how far one rotates. White Crane uses a rotation that other systems would consider to be extreme. It is a very complete rotation driven by a distinct use of the stance. Northern Shaolin also uses a rotation driven by the stance, but how the feet engage is different, and the distance rotated is actually less than in White Crane. Tracy kenpo does it differently yet, using a static horse stance and twisting thru the waist. The engagement of the stance is different, and again that critical pivot distance is distinctly less.

When I practiced kenpo or shaolin, I was pivoting less than I should, and differently from how it is done in White Crane. This develops habits that are wrong for white crane, and my white crane sifu would call me out on it, telling me I'm not rotating far enough. It wasn't that it was just different, but in the context of white crane it was actually wrong.

When I would practice white crane, I would try to fully engage the stances and rotate to completion. But this was different from kenpo. So when I was training kenpo, my teacher would tell me, "no you are rotating too far, square up the shoulders and torso and don't go beyond that." Again, in the context of kenpo, the White Crane rotation was not just different, but was actually wrong.

The shaolin was in between these two. The rotation is not as far as white crane, but farther than kenpo, and again there is a difference in the stances. If I do shaolin like I do white crane, then it's wrong for shaolin. I would be turning shaolin into white crane. Likewise for kenpo: if I did shaolin like kenpo, then it's wrong for shaolin and I would be turning shaolin into kenpo. This is inappropriate for all of these systems.

I finally realized that I could not continue to practice all of these. I remember being in kenpo class, drilling technique in the kenpo way, and thinking to myself, "this is hurting my white crane".

White crane became my method, and I no longer train shaolin nor kenpo. I realized that in order to really thrive and progress and grow, I needed to have one systematic method and stick to that. Trying to do these other things was making all of it jumbled up. But if one does not recognize how these things differ, it is easy to think that they are compatible. After all, they all use a pivoting rotation, right? So they must all be close enough, right? Wrong.

An interesting perspective. I understand what you are saying. But if they are indeed contradictory, why do they continue? Why don't practitioners abandon them for what is better? Or, if they do work, how and when do they work?

Apparently they they do work as MA. So then I would hope there are things about them that work when your art doesn't. That is to be learned and applied when needed. That is not contradictory to me, but a chance to learn something new and useful.

Even so, I think I can agree that same time cross training may introduce problems as you illustrate. When I posted my answer I was thinking more along the lines of learning one art well, then deciding to look for another perspective to learn. On going back to the OP's original post, I see he was asking what you answered. Thanks to you and the others who read more carefully than me.

So to the OP, I would say cross training needs to be looked at very carefully, so as not to cause problems in learning as illustrated by Flying Crane. When you are well grounded in one art, along about 2nd or 3rd Dan, then you can consider if another art has something you would like to learn.

I still don't know that I like the thought of different arts being contradictory. I think they can have different perspectives on how to accomplish things. We as MA have to see what fits us best. I think that was mentioned by someone in this thread already. Of course, maybe that is just semantics, and we are all trying to say the same thing.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

 

[Flying Crane]

An interesting perspective. I understand what you are saying. But if they are indeed contradictory, why do they continue? Why don't practitioners abandon them for what is better? Or, if they do work, how and when do they work?

Contradictory does not have to mean "non-functional". They can all be functional. It's just that they go about developing similar skills in a somewhat different way. It is the methodology that can be contradictory. As Earl pointed out, sometimes the biggest problems lie in arts that are very similar, but with small differences. Those small differences are where confusion and contradiction can arise. It is tempting to overlook the small differences, when those are what really matter.

In the end, I think it's difficult to say that A is BETTER than B. Rather, it is either A is better FOR YOU than B, or simply A is what you were exposed to and trained in, it works well for you, so there is no need for you to study B because B is just different enough to cause you trouble. For someone else, B is the thing that works for them, and the thing in which they have training. For each of you, your method works, and that doesn't mean that another method doesn't work. For your method to "win" in this way, doesn't mean that another method must "lose". They each can be valid for the right individual, with the proper training.

 

[troubleenuf]

I ran into a gentleman a couple of years ago who was bragging that his school trained 10 different styles all at the same time. My response to that is if I studied 10 different languages all at the same time at the end of a year I would be able to say hello and goodbye in 10 different languages. But if I studied one language for a year I would be able to hold a conversation in that language. Just the way I look at it.

 

[Flying Crane]

I ran into a gentleman a couple of years ago who was bragging that his school trained 10 different styles all at the same time. My response to that is if I studied 10 different languages all at the same time at the end of a year I would be able to say hello and goodbye in 10 different languages. But if I studied one language for a year I would be able to hold a conversation in that language. Just the way I look at it.

as a person who attempted to study Spanish and German at the same time while in college, my experience is in agreement.

 

[Manny]

as a person who attempted to study Spanish and German at the same time while in college, my experience is in agreement.

Forget about German and stick with Spanish, I can guarantee you there are more spanish speaking people than german.
Besides we could post in Spanish and will be more easy to me jejejeje.

Manny

 

[Flying Crane]

Forget about German and stick with Spanish, I can guarantee you there are more spanish speaking people than german.
Besides we could post in Spanish and will be more easy to me jejejeje.

Manny

Given that I live in San Francisco now, Spanish is definitely more useful. I still cannot speak it, tho...