The Generalist and The Specialist

[Ironcrane]

As someone who has also 'been around' I'd have to say that both have their strengths, and weaknesses. But there is one weakness that all martial arts share, and that is they are practiced by mortal men, and women. When you get right down to it, you don't need to be a grappler to takedown the striker, or have a bunch of your friends with you to beat the grappler. You don't even need to know anything about martial arts. All you need is to pick up a lead pipe, and hit the other person in the knee as hard as you can. Or run them over with your car. Or push a piano out of a window from the top floor of a building to fall right on top of them. Or poke their eyes out with a fork. Or any other number of things. Hell, do nothing, and eventually the other person will kick the bucket on their own.
With all that in mind, just do what it is you love.

 

[Buka]

Is this discussion about self defense, or about competitive fighting? (sorry, I'm confused)

 

[Supra Vijai]

As someone who has also 'been around' I'd have to say that both have their strengths, and weaknesses. But there is one weakness that all martial arts share, and that is they are practiced by mortal men, and women. When you get right down to it, you don't need to be a grappler to takedown the striker, or have a bunch of your friends with you to beat the grappler. You don't even need to know anything about martial arts. All you need is to pick up a lead pipe, and hit the other person in the knee as hard as you can. Or run them over with your car. Or push a piano out of a window from the top floor of a building to fall right on top of them. Or poke their eyes out with a fork. Or any other number of things. Hell, do nothing, and eventually the other person will kick the bucket on their own.
With all that in mind, just do what it is you love.

This for some reason immediately reminded me of Kill of the Week from Zombieland

 

[Supra Vijai]

... while I have a lot of respect for all of them, and fun at all of them-all of the so-called "generalists" I've met over the years specialize in something, and, once they're done competing, they might be better served in going back to their "specialty."

Just quoting this because it seems to assume all generalists are geared towards competition and/or the UFC. With us for example, I'd say we are generalists of the most extreme degree. We train a variety of skill sets covering traditional unarmed, traditional weapons, modern unarmed (self defense) and modern weapons to name a few. We also then have the option once we hit a certain rank to choose one aspect to specialize in - once we get that down pat we can move to something else to specialize. All that said, we are not competitive in the slightest. We don't do tournaments, we don't hold demo's for the public, you'd even be hard pressed as far as I'm aware to find us putting videos of ourselves training online because that's not what we are geared for. We train with a "survivalist" mindset - simply put, do whatever it takes to survive - and part of that is being a generalist.

Any specialization we then do is to supplement and complement our skill sets to give us the biggest possible edge out on the streets where there are no padded floors, no refs and no rules. It means you have a wide palette of skills to choose from and work on rather than getting caught in the belief that one particular skill i.e grappling is the strongest. An interesting point brought up in class last night just to finish off was (paraphrased) "A lot of people think grappling is the strongest because they watch the UFC and "know" most fights go to ground and that's where you can submit your opponent or win. What they don't seem to realize is that the ground is also where the other guy loses"

 

[Cyriacus]

Is this discussion about self defense, or about competitive fighting? (sorry, I'm confused)

Well, Im discussing Self Defence whilst referencing competitive arenas. I dont know about everyone else

 

[MJS]

Yeah, I saw the mention of a BJJ match, which you then put a non-BJJ practitioner in, but honestly I thought that was just taking things too far. You might as well say that a tennis player will do better in a tennis match than a golfer. I get what you were aiming for, but the reality was a bit lost...

Perhaps I'm still missing what you're saying. My point was in a setting that favors the specialist, the specialist will no doubt, always win. IMHO, I dont consider the UFC to favor one or the other. I say this because neither person is really limited to what they can/can't do. And before you mention the rule set....IMO, there're still enough tools available for someone to get a win. I mean, if someone says that you can't eye gouge, well, my counter to that is simple....if thats the make it or break it thing, that is pretty sad...sad because we shouldn't have to rely on 1 thing to win.

I don't think so... for one thing, there wasn't already a floor around (for the first one) for them to prepare for, so the only preparation that could be done was the art-specific training that they were already doing. And yes, the floor can make a huge difference.

Hmm...so if you were going to enter a competition, you wouldn't research things? Ok, I'll give you the first time, but after that....if people failed to prepare then thats their fault. Thats why I used "Survivor" as an example. Shows been out since 2000. Thats why I laugh when people ***** about the conditions.

 

[MJS]

To clarify: I've had lots of teachers, over the years. Some had borad knowledge, some only knew their chosen art-all were specialists-they had their chosen art. Two of them let me-at a time when it wasn't common-study with the other, for a variety of reasons. By nature of the arc of my life, I became both a specialist and a genaralist-a grappler and a striker-a tae kwon do man and a kyokushin karateka. Consequently, though, I've been open to seeking teaching wherevfer I might find it.

THe baddest little man I ever studied under was a specialist, though, like me, he'd "been around." THat's what he said, I've been around. :lol: Like another of my teachers, he was diminutive...maybe 5'4". At the time-college-I was competing in full contact, bareknuckle tournaments, Golden Gloves boxing, judo tournaments, point fighting tournaments, oh, and competitive powerlifting.

This little guy, the "specialist," who'd "been around," though? He said, "You may be big; you may be strong and fast, but I have"-holding up his index finger-"this".

And I believed him......I'll take depth of knowledge over breadth, any day-I'll take the master judoka as my backup for a barfight over almost any three MMA fighters-and I've gotten to know lots and lots of MMA gyms and their "generalists" over the last 8 or 10 years.....from Phoenix and Albuquerque to Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, Tokyo and Edmonton-and, while I have a lot of respect for all of them, and fun at all of them-all of the so-called "generalists" I've met over the years specialize in something, and, once they're done competing, they might be better served in going back to their "specialty."

Just my opinion........

Nice post! You know, earlier I said that I considered myself a generalist, however, I think that was an incorrect statement. I think that like you, I would be considered both. Instead of just taking the weapon work and the supposed grappling that was in my base art, I expanded and sought out other arts (specialty) that would further expand my training.

 

[MJS]

Is this discussion about self defense, or about competitive fighting? (sorry, I'm confused)

I'd say both.

 

[Kenlee25]

Aha - But now, how does the generalist decide what They are going to do, when They get past the initial part of the engagement? Do You take them down? Do You throw punches? Do you run away? Do you kick them? Do you throw them? Do you clinch them? The specialisation doesnt have to mean the only thing you do. The specialisation means what you specialise in. You can specialise in Striking, and know Grappling, for example.

Instinct. Thinking is mostly in the initial part of the engagement. If you spend too much time thinking mid engagement ( besides the minimal amount needed to keep you safe ) you will mess up. You don't have time to think "okay so if i do this, he will do this, which will open me for this, which i can then follow with this..." I mean..you can't! You're getting punched at. You aren't going to choose between take him down or punch him out or kick his balls, you are just going to do it based on what is open for you to do at the time. It's much less of a choice as you make it seem.

You have to think without thinking, and that is one of the things martial arts teaches us how to do right?

 

[Cyriacus]

Instinct. Thinking is mostly in the initial part of the engagement. If you spend too much time thinking mid engagement ( besides the minimal amount needed to keep you safe ) you will mess up. You don't have time to think "okay so if i do this, he will do this, which will open me for this, which i can then follow with this..." I mean..you can't! You're getting punched at. You aren't going to choose between take him down or punch him out or kick his balls, you are just going to do it based on what is open for you to do at the time. It's much less of a choice as you make it seem.

You have to think without thinking, and that is one of the things martial arts teaches us how to do right?

Thats pretty much my point, exactly. The more generalised you are, the more you have to choose from.

Whoever it was here who said that theyre a Generalist Specialist, Im nodding at You. You can be a generalist all day long, but You need to have something to default to on splitseconds notice. If My every instinct is to grapple, and wrestle - Should I go train Boxing, and not a Grappling System? Or should I go learn a Grappling System, then learn to Box?

 

[Supra Vijai]

Thats pretty much my point, exactly. The more generalised you are, the more you have to choose from.

Whoever it was here who said that theyre a Generalist Specialist, Im nodding at You. You can be a generalist all day long, but You need to have something to default to on splitseconds notice. If My every instinct is to grapple, and wrestle - Should I go train Boxing, and not a Grappling System? Or should I go learn a Grappling System, then learn to Box?

It is my understanding that this something you will default to will be whatever you believe to be the most powerful. Would you agree?

For instance, in a training environment without high levels of adrenaline I can pull out the most intricate grappling style holds or take downs with not too much fuss. Once the adrenaline ramps up a bit though, I default to one of 2 or 3 strikes that I believe to be powerful so they are what come out.

With regards to your hypothetical, if every instinct is to grapple, I'd say sure focus on that but go train boxing anyway for those situations when grappling isn't a safe or viable option. If you never need to hit anyone then it doesn't mean you wasted your time, just added an extra skill and possibly got some benefits from it.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Hmm...so if you were going to enter a competition, you wouldn't research things? Ok, I'll give you the first time, but after that....if people failed to prepare then thats their fault. Thats why I used "Survivor" as an example. Shows been out since 2000. Thats why I laugh when people ***** about the conditions.

I agree with the whole research mentality but an issue I see with this is one of "mirroring". It's come up a few times in our class discussions as well as being mentioned in a couple of body language books I've been reading. Essentially for those not familiar with the term, a person will mirror or mimic another (opponent, new friend, potential threat, interviewer etc) if they believe they are outclassed or if they see the other person as being powerful and successful. It's a safety mechanism to try fit in, be accepted or admired or show an aggressor you are their equal and so not a threat to simplify it a fair bit. It's something that's hard wired in all humans through evolution - take the origins of many animal styles for instance - and needs a LOT of training to overcome.

With that in mind, as much research as you can do about the mat or the octagon or what the other guy had for breakfast, under adrenaline when you aren't thinking completely straight, a primal part of you is going to revert to that "mirroring". In essence you might be a striker through and through but when you see the other guy shaping up for a grapple, you mimic it without thinking about it thereby losing any advantage you might hold by being outside the other guy's area of strength. Especially given the history of the UFC (very much a Gracie show as pointed out earlier), grappling was shown to be superior - and why not, it was a marketing campaign for a grappling school! - and that mindset has not shifted all that much. Especially since it became not about specialist vs specialist but rather sport generalist vs sport generalist

 

[Cyriacus]

It is my understanding that this something you will default to will be whatever you believe to be the most powerful. Would you agree?

For instance, in a training environment without high levels of adrenaline I can pull out the most intricate grappling style holds or take downs with not too much fuss. Once the adrenaline ramps up a bit though, I default to one of 2 or 3 strikes that I believe to be powerful so they are what come out.

With regards to your hypothetical, if every instinct is to grapple, I'd say sure focus on that but go train boxing anyway for those situations when grappling isn't a safe or viable option. If you never need to hit anyone then it doesn't mean you wasted your time, just added an extra skill and possibly got some benefits from it.

Thats my point to a T

Specialise in what You default to, Generalise enough to get by.
You will default to the simplest effective things you can do, which often equates to fast or powerful, certainly.

We appear to be saying the same thing, Good Sir.

 

[Supra Vijai]

Thats my point to a T

Specialise in what You default to, Generalise enough to get by.
You will default to the simplest effective things you can do, which often equates to fast or powerful, certainly.

We appear to be saying the same thing, Good Sir.

Oh yay! I like it when that happens

But yes mate, complete agreement with you from my end. I quite like the phrasing on the bolded part by the way

 

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

Perhaps I'm still missing what you're saying. My point was in a setting that favors the specialist, the specialist will no doubt, always win. IMHO, I dont consider the UFC to favor one or the other. I say this because neither person is really limited to what they can/can't do. And before you mention the rule set....IMO, there're still enough tools available for someone to get a win. I mean, if someone says that you can't eye gouge, well, my counter to that is simple....if thats the make it or break it thing, that is pretty sad...sad because we shouldn't have to rely on 1 thing to win.

Ha, yeah, you might be missing it... or I might be less than clear! Let's see if we can fix that...

I suppose my point is that yeah, of course, if you take a specialist and a non-specialist, and put them in a situation which is restricted to the specialists area of comfort (and strength), sure the specialist will win. I'm just not sure what the point of such an example is. It's like saying that if you take a maths whizz and a spelling genius, and put them in a spelling bee, the spelling genius will win... well, yeah. Maths doesn't help that much there.

Thing is, though, that doesn't really give much of an indication as to whether the specialist or the generalist is better. All it says is that the situation was better suited to the specialist. The real question as to who is better would be who is more able to keep the situation in their favour... A BJJ guy keeping a BJJ competition/match in a BJJ environment isn't really showing that he's better at dictating the situation.

When we get to the UFC, no, I'm not going to mention the rule set, because it's less of an issue there. What favours one approach or another there is the physical environment. In the first few (the first four, at least), the surface was reputedly a lot softer than it presently is, as it was "firmed up" in order to get the fights happening at a faster pace (the crowd, at the time not knowing much about ground work, would boo when the fighters were on the ground, particularly if it looked like nothing really was going on). The firmer ground encouraged greater speed, which brought striking back into it in a much larger way. To address Tony's point of a harder floor potentially making the throws much more devastating, yeah, that's true... but not really that relevant. After all, the grapplers didn't dominate because they had throws that didn't do as much (although I do remember seeing Tito Ortiz knock someone out with a throw... that was impressive), they dominated because the strikers not only didn't know how to handle them, but also because the strikers couldn't really utilise what they brought to the table as well as on a different surface. Hell, a WWE ring is a firmer surface than the UFC one was (why? Because speed is exciting to watch...).

So when a striker can't move as fast as they're used to, which changes the timing they're used to using, and can't get as much power into their strikes as they normally would (as there isn't enough counter-push from the softer mat), but the grapplers have a surface they're used to, can use the timing they're used to, the range they're used to, the attacks they are powerful with, and more, are you still going to say that the early UFC was really an unbiased format? The modern form is more even, but it's still slightly more skewed towards the grapplers, due to common training methods, as well as the ruleset encouraging grappling. Striking is bigger than it was in the early days, but that's because the environment (the floor surface itself, as well as the rules, the addition of timed rounds, and more) changed.

Hmm...so if you were going to enter a competition, you wouldn't research things? Ok, I'll give you the first time, but after that....if people failed to prepare then thats their fault. Thats why I used "Survivor" as an example. Shows been out since 2000. Thats why I laugh when people ***** about the conditions.

Not just the first time, though. When the UFC was first done, it was supposed to be a one-off (mainly, honestly, to act as an "ad" for the Gracies, who had opened a school in LA, Hollywood, from memory), and was named the "Ultimate Fighting Championship" so that Royce could be named the "Ultimate Fighting Champion", and Gracie JJ referred to as the "Ultimate Martial Art". After that, when we got to the second, it was again the first time most there had a chance to experience the floor. The best they could do was ask those who were in the first one.

Oh, and I might mention that in the third one, even Royce wasn't happy about the "conditions"... it was held well above sea level, and the thinner air apparently was the excuse for his forfeiting, as he gassed out...

To the rest of the thread, something's struck me about it.

There is a common thought process here whereby people are "personalising" the idea of whether or not they (as individuals) are "specialists" or "generalists". As a result there are a range of comments along the lines of "there isn't a problem being both!" Myself, I feel this is really not the point.

The idea (when talking martial arts) is not that the individual person is a "specialist" or "generalist", it is the art itself which is trained which is defined as such, and as a result, really can't "be both" (and honestly, I don't think you can truly be both either). Additionally, the idea of one being more desirable than the other, I feel is not really right either.

Arts are specialist or generalist. They cannot be both. They are one or the other, based on the history and preferences of the founder(s), and the development (and developers) of the system itself. Based on those circumstances, the art develops either specialising in one area or another, or having a broader skill set, depending on it's needs. And, more commonly than anything, most arts are specialist in one way or another. Generalist arts are actually quite rare (true generalist arts, anyway). They exist, but they're the minority. Even something like MMA I'd class as a specialist art, when it really comes down to it, as it's designed specifically for a specific environment. It utilises a variety of ranges, but that's not the same as being a generalist system.

Then you get people who "specialise" in one area or another of their chosen system, such as Judoka who have their tokui waza (favoured techniques), or MMA athletes who have a preference for one range over another. That's down to personal approach, really. But here's the thing. It's not a matter of choice. And most certainly not a matter of conscious decision making.

 

[MJS]

I agree with the whole research mentality but an issue I see with this is one of "mirroring". It's come up a few times in our class discussions as well as being mentioned in a couple of body language books I've been reading. Essentially for those not familiar with the term, a person will mirror or mimic another (opponent, new friend, potential threat, interviewer etc) if they believe they are outclassed or if they see the other person as being powerful and successful. It's a safety mechanism to try fit in, be accepted or admired or show an aggressor you are their equal and so not a threat to simplify it a fair bit. It's something that's hard wired in all humans through evolution - take the origins of many animal styles for instance - and needs a LOT of training to overcome.

With that in mind, as much research as you can do about the mat or the octagon or what the other guy had for breakfast, under adrenaline when you aren't thinking completely straight, a primal part of you is going to revert to that "mirroring". In essence you might be a striker through and through but when you see the other guy shaping up for a grapple, you mimic it without thinking about it thereby losing any advantage you might hold by being outside the other guy's area of strength. Especially given the history of the UFC (very much a Gracie show as pointed out earlier), grappling was shown to be superior - and why not, it was a marketing campaign for a grappling school! - and that mindset has not shifted all that much. Especially since it became not about specialist vs specialist but rather sport generalist vs sport generalist

Yes, I can imagine that being the case in some situations, ie: meeting/becoming friends with someone more successful, so even though you may not be, you try to emulate them. However, when fighting, this is something that I've never done, and if I did, it was subconsciously, and I didn't realize I was doing it. IMO, I think it'd be a pretty foolish thing to do. For example...I've fought people fully knowing some of their strong points. Rather than try to match what they're doing, I did my best to avoid those things. Why would I grapple with a guy who's been wrestling in high school and college, knowing full well, it'd be nothing for him to clinch, take me down, etc.?

We see fighters studying their opponents all the time, before fights. One would think that would've been done with the Gracies.

 

[Chris Parker]

"Mirroring" is a very common behaviour, whether it makes sense or not, really. You see it all the time, when one fighter starts "bouncing", so does the other one... when one starts kicking, so does the other one. I will say that this is less of an issue with sporting martial artists in their matches, but can come out to a smaller degree. One thing I will say is that Supra (being one of my guys) is taught to see things in more of a "street psychology" approach, so his lessons have emphasised that, not sporting behaviours. In terms of the Gracies (with the early UFC matches), particularly with the very first ones, all the matches were on one night; if you won the first match, you went on to the next round... so scouting who you'd be up against wasn't really a large option, as you often didn't really get much warning as to who it'd be.

 

[elder999]

.

Oh, and I might mention that in the third one, even Royce wasn't happy about the "conditions"... it was held well above sea level, and the thinner air apparently was the excuse for his forfeiting, as he gassed out...

UFC III was held in Charlotte, North Carolina, which is pretty much at sea level, with an official altitude of 751 ft.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ah, yeah, you're right... I do remember Royce forfeiting due to exhaustion, though, and one of them was held at the top of a tower, which was nice and high. The commentators were making comments about the conditioning of the athletes at that altitude, basically saying they just 'had to deal with it', but giving Royce no issue with his withdrawal. Might need to go through my old tapes to find out which one I'm thinking of, though...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Chris, you're probably thinking of UFC 6, held in Casper, Wyoming. Oleg Taktarov and Tank Abbott fought in the finals and they were both completely gassed due to the altitude. Oleg got the win and then just lay on the floor gasping for air.

Royce forfeited his second match in UFC 3 after getting dehydrated in his first match with Kimo.