What does it mean to be well-rounded and why would I want that?

[Bill Mattocks]

I've seen the question posed recently, but it's also been posted multiple times in the past on MT and other martial arts discussion forums.

The question, generically, goes like this:

"I have been promoted to [insert rank here, typically 1st degree black belt] in style [insert style here] and I'm thinking of taking up another style so that I can become more WELL-ROUNDED as a martial artist. What style do you think I should take?"​

So I often make a smartass comment, which I am trying to avoid from now on, because it's counterproductive and mean. What I'd like to do instead is examine what thoughts are going through my head when I read this question (and to the OP of the recent post, I am not picking on you; this is a very common topic).

First of all, what does it mean to be 'well-rounded'?

The dictionary gives many meanings, but I suspect the the people who post about wanting to become well-rounded martial artists are referring to comprehensive, including many things, or having a large variety of training. Based on what I've read in the various threads about the subject, it often seems that the person wishing to become more well-rounded sees or believes they have gaps in their training, which training in another style of martial arts would fill.

So I understand the basic premise, I think. Say a person has been training in a stand-up, striking art such as karate. They feel they lack a 'ground game' and cannot properly defend themselves on the ground as well as a competent wrestler, judoka, or jiu jitsu artist might. And on the surface, I can see that point.

But then I have to ask if the person making the request is really certain that they art they currently study doesn't have the necessary applications in it to fill that perceived gap. Typically, it seems the people asking such questions don't have a lot of time into their training, but they still feel they have learned all there is to learn about it. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that in my case, a decade of training is hardly adequate to say one knows it all, or even close. Having achieved the first of ten grades of black belt, one can hardly say one has a firm grip on what the entire system can do in capable hands. It's like being able to name all the tools in the toolbox, but not being able to use each of them to their full potential.

This is why I often recommend that the person who suggests that their style has a hole in it to consider that perhaps their style does not have a hole in it. Perhaps they need to train more, because they are not yet qualified to judge.

Alternatives I do not like to think about, but which may also exist, would be that the person's style isn't actually a complete system. In other words, it may actually have holes in it. This would be a sad situation indeed. Alternatively, the instructor may not be capable of teaching the system well enough to provide those needed abilities. Sadly, I think this may sometimes happen when you have someone training for a few years and going off to start their own training facility, having only a rudimentary grasp of their system themselves. Their students may perceive that the style in question has holes in it because the instructor doesn't have the knowledge or training or experience to pass along the complete system.

But this is why I often ask people who feel they need some other kind of training to ask their current instructor and see what he or she thinks they should do. The answers may be instructive.

I also wonder if the person wanting to change styles isn't going to lose some ability in the style they currently train in. I know some people have more free time than I do, but I find it difficult to devote two training days a week to in-dojo training (from 5PM to 9:30PM) and one half-day working out at home. I don't think I could take on more at this stage in my life. And I know from experience that if I miss a week or two's worth of training, I lose quite a bit of my edge. Things start to fall apart. I have to stay in my training, or I feel my ability declining. How then, is a person supposed to give 100% to training in two or more different styles at the same time? I can't quite get my mind around that one.

So having discussed well-roundedness is, let me now move on to why a person would want to be (presumably) well-rounded.

From my point of view, having the belief that it takes a lifetime to truly master any given martial art, I don't know what dividing my remaining time on this earth between multiple systems would get me. If I were a carpenter, I would devote my time to becoming the best possible carpenter, rather than beginning to learn plumbing in a desire to be more well-rounded. In other words, and to use a common term, I would rather not be a jack of all trades, and a master of none. In my ruder moments, simply say would you rather be good in one system, or suck at a bunch of them?

So I would say this about cross-training...

It's fine if that's what you want to do. And I don't see anything at all wrong with exposing oneself to other styles of martial arts, such as with informal training or seminars or sharing knowledge, practicing moves and techniques from other styles, etc. It's all grist for the mill. However, there's a difference between doing that and committing to long term training in a different style, particularly if it means neglecting your current style.

And again, I think that for most of us, we're not that competent yet in our own styles that we can firmly say that we know all there is to know about it, we know it has holes that cannot be addressed in our own training, and the only answer is to train in some other styles. I suspect more often, the problem is that the student, or the instructor (or both) are lacking. In some cases, regrettably, it is possible that the style itself is too superficial to provide a complete experience.

What I think is more likely, is that students become bored. They are tired of going to class and doing the same kata, the same kihon, the same sparring. They think they have progressed as far as they can, and they want to experience new things. That's fine, I guess. It betrays a lack of maturity and a lack of understanding what the true purpose of training is, I think, but if one is really that bored, I guess they need to do whatever to cure that.

I also think some few students are too attracted to the signs of success in a given training system. They want more belts in more styles. They want more patches. They want more tournament trophies. Again, if that is truly what they want, I guess it's OK, but it also betrays a lack of understand what martial arts training is for at a basic level, in my humble opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I like other styles of martial arts, and I respect the people who train in styles other than my own. I've learned a lot from some of my friends who train in other styles, and some of the things we do in the dojo where I train are from other styles of martial arts. It's fun, it's interesting, and in some cases, it's eye-opening. But I never think to myself, "Gee, maybe my system is crap and I should go train with those guys," or "Gee, maybe I have learned all I can learn and I need to become more well-rounded by training with someone else." What I think to myself typically is, "Wow, those guys are great! I need to keep training hard in my system so that I can learn how we would deal with situation X, or technique Y, and maybe I will find out how our system does it and then I can show my friends a thing or two!"

I truly believe that in my case, if there is anything 'missing' in my training, it's on me. My instructor is world-class, and I mean that literally; he's known and respected around the world. Just to be training with him is an honor; people see his name on my dojo patch and they're awestruck. The system I train in is fantastic; I have never, ever, had a situation where I asked "How would we do X or Y," and our instructors do not have an answer, and by answer I don't mean a BS blow-off crap answer but a real example that obviously works against a resisting opponent. I'm 56 and I'm pretty well over hero worship and cult of personality; my BS detector is very functional. If it didn't work, or it only worked on non-resisting opponents, I'd know it. So if there are ANY holes in our system, that is on me 100%. Why would I want to abandon that and train elsewhere? I started pretty late in life, and I can guarantee I won't master this system before I take the big dirt nap. So I don't think I would even consider training in any other system. No time!

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I agree with you that many (most) martial artists aren't fluent enough in their MA system to determine if there are any holes in it. However, there are two issues I have with what you posted.

The first is; the best way isn't necessarily to continue our own training, or directly asking your own instructor. That's one way, but then we can never know if it's us, our instructor, or the system that has holes, unless we end up no longer having holes. I think it would make more sense to find someone who has been training for decades, and is a multiple degree black belt, ask them what holes they have, and if that's a system issue or their personal issue (if a 70 year old has trouble handling fast spinning kicks, I would think that has more to do with his age/reaction time). Also see if you notice any issues coming up when they spar. This is assuming you have access to watch/talk to someone that experienced in your system, but IMO it would be the best way.

Also, let's say a system does not have any holes. It may still take you decades to fill all those holes, and if you want to master your art, that's fine. But, if you for whatever reason need to have them filled sooner, practicing an art that deals with those situations as the primary goal will help you fill those holes in a couple years, rather than a couple decades.

 

[Andrew Green]

It's all just a matter of opinion and what your goals are.

You're a karate guy, so maybe it means poking around in a few other styles of karate and having a grasp of "karate" from more then one perspective.

Or maybe it means throwing in a range of connected art, doing some White Crane, maybe a little Kendo and Judo, etc.

Or maybe it means working in with completely different things from different regions, doing some Boxing, Muay Thai, Savate, Wrestling, etc.

Or maybe it means being comfortable with a wide range of aspects, knowing how to strike, grapple, use bladed weapons, blunt weapons, firearms, etc.

Or maybe it means exploring different lineages within your own style, and possibly the root styles it came from.

Or maybe it means connecting related areas of life, like nutrition, Strength and Conditioning, yoga, etc.

Who cares, just have fun and be healthy.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I've seen the question posed recently, but it's also been posted multiple times in the past on MT and other martial arts discussion forums.

The question, generically, goes like this:

"I have been promoted to [insert rank here, typically 1st degree black belt] in style [insert style here] and I'm thinking of taking up another style so that I can become more WELL-ROUNDED as a martial artist. What style do you think I should take?"​

So I often make a smartass comment, which I am trying to avoid from now on, because it's counterproductive and mean. What I'd like to do instead is examine what thoughts are going through my head when I read this question (and to the OP of the recent post, I am not picking on you; this is a very common topic).

First of all, what does it mean to be 'well-rounded'?

The dictionary gives many meanings, but I suspect the the people who post about wanting to become well-rounded martial artists are referring to comprehensive, including many things, or having a large variety of training. Based on what I've read in the various threads about the subject, it often seems that the person wishing to become more well-rounded sees or believes they have gaps in their training, which training in another style of martial arts would fill.

So I understand the basic premise, I think. Say a person has been training in a stand-up, striking art such as karate. They feel they lack a 'ground game' and cannot properly defend themselves on the ground as well as a competent wrestler, judoka, or jiu jitsu artist might. And on the surface, I can see that point.

But then I have to ask if the person making the request is really certain that they art they currently study doesn't have the necessary applications in it to fill that perceived gap. Typically, it seems the people asking such questions don't have a lot of time into their training, but they still feel they have learned all there is to learn about it. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that in my case, a decade of training is hardly adequate to say one knows it all, or even close. Having achieved the first of ten grades of black belt, one can hardly say one has a firm grip on what the entire system can do in capable hands. It's like being able to name all the tools in the toolbox, but not being able to use each of them to their full potential.

This is why I often recommend that the person who suggests that their style has a hole in it to consider that perhaps their style does not have a hole in it. Perhaps they need to train more, because they are not yet qualified to judge.

Alternatives I do not like to think about, but which may also exist, would be that the person's style isn't actually a complete system. In other words, it may actually have holes in it. This would be a sad situation indeed. Alternatively, the instructor may not be capable of teaching the system well enough to provide those needed abilities. Sadly, I think this may sometimes happen when you have someone training for a few years and going off to start their own training facility, having only a rudimentary grasp of their system themselves. Their students may perceive that the style in question has holes in it because the instructor doesn't have the knowledge or training or experience to pass along the complete system.

But this is why I often ask people who feel they need some other kind of training to ask their current instructor and see what he or she thinks they should do. The answers may be instructive.

I also wonder if the person wanting to change styles isn't going to lose some ability in the style they currently train in. I know some people have more free time than I do, but I find it difficult to devote two training days a week to in-dojo training (from 5PM to 9:30PM) and one half-day working out at home. I don't think I could take on more at this stage in my life. And I know from experience that if I miss a week or two's worth of training, I lose quite a bit of my edge. Things start to fall apart. I have to stay in my training, or I feel my ability declining. How then, is a person supposed to give 100% to training in two or more different styles at the same time? I can't quite get my mind around that one.

So having discussed well-roundedness is, let me now move on to why a person would want to be (presumably) well-rounded.

From my point of view, having the belief that it takes a lifetime to truly master any given martial art, I don't know what dividing my remaining time on this earth between multiple systems would get me. If I were a carpenter, I would devote my time to becoming the best possible carpenter, rather than beginning to learn plumbing in a desire to be more well-rounded. In other words, and to use a common term, I would rather not be a jack of all trades, and a master of none. In my ruder moments, simply say would you rather be good in one system, or suck at a bunch of them?

So I would say this about cross-training...

It's fine if that's what you want to do. And I don't see anything at all wrong with exposing oneself to other styles of martial arts, such as with informal training or seminars or sharing knowledge, practicing moves and techniques from other styles, etc. It's all grist for the mill. However, there's a difference between doing that and committing to long term training in a different style, particularly if it means neglecting your current style.

And again, I think that for most of us, we're not that competent yet in our own styles that we can firmly say that we know all there is to know about it, we know it has holes that cannot be addressed in our own training, and the only answer is to train in some other styles. I suspect more often, the problem is that the student, or the instructor (or both) are lacking. In some cases, regrettably, it is possible that the style itself is too superficial to provide a complete experience.

What I think is more likely, is that students become bored. They are tired of going to class and doing the same kata, the same kihon, the same sparring. They think they have progressed as far as they can, and they want to experience new things. That's fine, I guess. It betrays a lack of maturity and a lack of understanding what the true purpose of training is, I think, but if one is really that bored, I guess they need to do whatever to cure that.

I also think some few students are too attracted to the signs of success in a given training system. They want more belts in more styles. They want more patches. They want more tournament trophies. Again, if that is truly what they want, I guess it's OK, but it also betrays a lack of understand what martial arts training is for at a basic level, in my humble opinion.

Don't get me wrong. I like other styles of martial arts, and I respect the people who train in styles other than my own. I've learned a lot from some of my friends who train in other styles, and some of the things we do in the dojo where I train are from other styles of martial arts. It's fun, it's interesting, and in some cases, it's eye-opening. But I never think to myself, "Gee, maybe my system is crap and I should go train with those guys," or "Gee, maybe I have learned all I can learn and I need to become more well-rounded by training with someone else." What I think to myself typically is, "Wow, those guys are great! I need to keep training hard in my system so that I can learn how we would deal with situation X, or technique Y, and maybe I will find out how our system does it and then I can show my friends a thing or two!"

I truly believe that in my case, if there is anything 'missing' in my training, it's on me. My instructor is world-class, and I mean that literally; he's known and respected around the world. Just to be training with him is an honor; people see his name on my dojo patch and they're awestruck. The system I train in is fantastic; I have never, ever, had a situation where I asked "How would we do X or Y," and our instructors do not have an answer, and by answer I don't mean a BS blow-off crap answer but a real example that obviously works against a resisting opponent. I'm 56 and I'm pretty well over hero worship and cult of personality; my BS detector is very functional. If it didn't work, or it only worked on non-resisting opponents, I'd know it. So if there are ANY holes in our system, that is on me 100%. Why would I want to abandon that and train elsewhere? I started pretty late in life, and I can guarantee I won't master this system before I take the big dirt nap. So I don't think I would even consider training in any other system. No time!

While were do grappling, now, we used to just come right out and tell people we weren't teaching on that end of the spectrum.

 

[Flying Crane]

I started a thread a short time ago where I proposed the idea that, whether you think you can, or you think you cannot, you are right.

I still believe that largely holds true.

Meaning, in a system that has been well taught and well learned, you can probably find solutions to most of what you will encounter. That does not mean your curriculum holds all techniques for all possibilities. It just means that there ought to be some solutions within your training, if you understand your system well.

There are many reasons to study more than one system, some good and some not good. But when it comes right down to it, I don't see it as necessary.

One's mileage may vary.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

As usual, Bill, you've made a thoughtful and well-written post. However, I'd like to offer some counterpoints to some of your ideas.

But then I have to ask if the person making the request is really certain that they art they currently study doesn't have the necessary applications in it to fill that perceived gap. Typically, it seems the people asking such questions don't have a lot of time into their training, but they still feel they have learned all there is to learn about it.

I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that in my case, a decade of training is hardly adequate to say one knows it all, or even close.

This is why I often recommend that the person who suggests that their style has a hole in it to consider that perhaps their style does not have a hole in it. Perhaps they need to train more, because they are not yet qualified to judge.

It's true that any good style should offer a lifetime's worth of things to learn. You never know it all. That said, I believe that after a decade in an art you should have a good idea of the territory contained in an art even if you don't know all the details. If someone has been studying boxing for 10 years, they should know that they aren't going to be learning kicks or chokes or sword techniques in the 11th year.

Alternatives I do not like to think about, but which may also exist, would be that the person's style isn't actually a complete system. In other words, it may actually have holes in it. This would be a sad situation indeed.

On the contrary, I would suggest that every single style in existence is "incomplete" in some way. That's because even the best systems can only competently address the areas which the founders and practitioners who developed the system have had significant experience in. The world of violence is too large for anyone, even violence professionals or martial arts masters, to be familiar with all of it.

A 17th-century swordsman preparing for a duel. A 16 year old girl fending off a date rapist. A bouncer ejecting a rowdy drunk. A professional fighter preparing for a match with a master grappler. A senior citizen using a knife to defend against home invaders. An orderly working to restrain a mentally ill patient without injuring him. People fighting in the snow while bundled in thick coats. People fighting in the jungle. People fighting on boats. The list goes on and on. Many principles, tactics, techniques and attributes can carry over from one setting to another. Many do not. No one has the answers for everything.

I also wonder if the person wanting to change styles isn't going to lose some ability in the style they currently train in.

That's a legitimate concern, especially if the person stops training their old style entirely. If you want to continue progressing in multiple styles, then you have to find the time to practice them all. It's easier if you just want to maintain a certain level of proficiency in your original art - you still have to practice, but not as much. It's even easier if you just want to maintain certain specific skills from your original art and your new art is flexible enough to allow you to use those skills during sparring.

If I were a carpenter, I would devote my time to becoming the best possible carpenter, rather than beginning to learn plumbing in a desire to be more well-rounded.

The question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line and why? If you are a carpenter, would you say "I just want to be the best at hammering a nail. I don't want to take time away from my hammering skills to learn how to use a power saw."? If you are a home owner with a limited budget for repairs, could it make sense to learn some basic plumbing and carpentry so you can fix the easy stuff yourself and only call a specialist for major projects?

You might also consider an important difference between specialization in the building trades and in methods of fighting. If you encounter a plumbing issue you aren't qualified to tackle, you can always call in an expert. If you are in a fight and encounter a situation you aren't prepared for, it's rarely practical to hand the problem over to someone else.

I have never, ever, had a situation where I asked "How would we do X or Y," and our instructors do not have an answer, and by answer I don't mean a BS blow-off crap answer but a real example that obviously works against a resisting opponent.

It can be tricky to evaluate techniques that "obviously work" when you don't have experience in a given domain. Ground-fighting is an easy example of this. There are lots of advanced practitioners in various stand up arts who teach "anti-grappling" or "ground defense" techniques that they believe in, that their students believe in, and that fail utterly against even a moderately competent grappler.

(I'm not saying everybody needs to become expert in a ground fighting style. Unless you are preparing for MMA match or happen to pick a fight with a wrestler, you can probably get by with just a few fundamental skills for protecting yourself on the ground and getting to your feet. I'm saying that even for those basics there are some very skilled martial artists teaching techniques that are ... extremely suboptimal, to put it politely.)

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

First of all, what does it mean to be 'well-rounded'?

If we just talk about the striking art, in a WC thread, I suggested to rotate the body to make punching arm and chest as 180 degree to gain extra distance and extra power. Your right arm, chest, left arm can be treated as one arm. This is the "one arm" concept. Some WC people said that's against their WC principle.

IMO, the term "well-round" is not to allow any MA system to put any physical limitation on yourself.

 

[Charlemagne]

But then I have to ask if the person making the request is really certain that they art they currently study doesn't have the necessary applications in it to fill that perceived gap. Typically, it seems the people asking such questions don't have a lot of time into their training, but they still feel they have learned all there is to learn about it. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that in my case, a decade of training is hardly adequate to say one knows it all, or even close. Having achieved the first of ten grades of black belt, one can hardly say one has a firm grip on what the entire system can do in capable hands. It's like being able to name all the tools in the toolbox, but not being able to use each of them to their full potential.

This is why I often recommend that the person who suggests that their style has a hole in it to consider that perhaps their style does not have a hole in it. Perhaps they need to train more, because they are not yet qualified to judge.

I'm having a hard time following some of the logic you are using, so I apologize for that in advance.

For this discussion, I'm going to stick with the example of the particular arts you chose (karate plus judo, wrestling, etc.), as it makes things clear, though you could have easily chose others as well.

How long should it take before someone has exposure to all the system has to offer, or at least the majority of it? I'm not talking about mastery of the system, or even competence, I am talking about exposure. So, in your karate example, does training in a dedicated fashion for a few years really not provide you with enough exposure to see what the system comprises in regards to range, technique, etc.? Presumably the Karate studio in question, if it is a recognizable style, has a curriculum that students get to see (I certainly wouldn't train in a place that didn't). Plus, students can certainly interact with and observe their teachers, the senior students, and often in the case of workshops or seminars, their teacher's teacher.

Do you really think that Karate student needs to study for 10+ years before they figure out that there really isn't much of a ground game? If we flip the script, does the Judoka really need study for 10+ years before they figure out that, no, there really isn't a deep striking system hidden down the road somewhere? Certainly, the ability to utilize the techniques of any martial art should get better with age (providing one has the physical attributes), and while that may allow someone to work around gaps or deal with them more effectively, it does not eliminate them.

I can certainly agree with your suggestion to speak to your instructor and get his/her perspective. What I cannot agree with is the idea that one should just keep on training and hope that those things get figured out down the road.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm having a hard time following some of the logic you are using, so I apologize for that in advance.

For this discussion, I'm going to stick with the example of the particular arts you chose (karate plus judo, wrestling, etc.), as it makes things clear, though you could have easily chose others as well.

How long should it take before someone has exposure to all the system has to offer, or at least the majority of it? I'm not talking about mastery of the system, or even competence, I am talking about exposure. So, in your karate example, does training in a dedicated fashion for a few years really not provide you with enough exposure to see what the system comprises in regards to range, technique, etc.? Presumably the Karate studio in question, if it is a recognizable style, has a curriculum that students get to see (I certainly wouldn't train in a place that didn't). Plus, students can certainly interact with and observe their teachers, the senior students, and often in the case of workshops or seminars, their teacher's teacher.

Do you really think that Karate student needs to study for 10+ years before they figure out that there really isn't much of a ground game? If we flip the script, does the Judoka really need study for 10+ years before they figure out that, no, there really isn't a deep striking system hidden down the road somewhere? Certainly, the ability to utilize the techniques of any martial art should get better with age (providing one has the physical attributes), and while that may allow someone to work around gaps or deal with them more effectively, it does not eliminate them.

I can certainly agree with your suggestion to speak to your instructor and get his/her perspective. What I cannot agree with is the idea that one should just keep on training and hope that those things get figured out down the road.

In my opinion, the issue is not really centered around what technique, or what approach to combat, a system does not have. Rather, the issue is more about recognizing that ones skills can be utilized in a wide range of circumstances, and one ought to be able to devise a solution to a wide variety of problems. No system will have "everything" in it. But, a good system ought to have a wide range of use and capability.

Example: I don't care for grappling. I have no interest in training it. Learning a bit of grappling to give me "well rounded" skills will not give me the ability to out-grapple a dedicated grappler. So, I stick to what I know. That is where I find my solutions.

 

[Touch Of Death]

In my opinion, the issue is not really centered around what technique, or what approach to combat, a system does not have. Rather, the issue is more about recognizing that ones skills can be utilized in a wide range of circumstances, and one ought to be able to devise a solution to a wide variety of problems. No system will have "everything" in it. But, a good system ought to have a wide range of use and capability.

Example: I don't care for grappling. I have no interest in training it. Learning a bit of grappling to give me "well rounded" skills will not give me the ability to out-grapple a dedicated grappler. So, I stick to what I know. That is where I find my solutions.

But there are some basic escapes, like just throwing your arm around a guy, will mess his whole game up. It is worth a seminar, or two.

 

[drop bear]

To understand what you do. It is worthwhile understanding more than what you do.

 

[Flying Crane]

But there are some basic escapes, like just throwing your arm around a guy, will mess his whole game up. It is worth a seminar, or two.

Well, do you think that a grappling school is the only place where these things are taught? A lot of the basics are quite universal from one system to another. Nobody needs a seminar or two of grappling. Any skill needs ongoing practice and polish. What is taught within the system and is continuously practiced is worth far more that what one receives in a seminar, absent regular follow-up training.

 

[drop bear]

The thing is I bet bill basically does this anyway.

What would your style be like if for some reason you could only punch?

 

[jobo]

these a ways seem to turn into what happens to your karate skills if you are up against a trained grappler,, you ether win or lose dependent on who is the best. But back in the real world grapplers are fat blokes who cant move fast and try to use their weight against you. Simple up right karate throwing, arm locks etc,should more than take care of that.

 

[oftheherd1]

Good post Bill. I have often thought about the idea of well roundedness myself. Especially from the point of view that one must go outside of one's primary (or so far only) martial art. I have mentioned before that when I was in Korea, I was told that when a person reached 3rd Dan in their art, they were encouraged to study and be belted in another art. But I think that was more to weed out those that might not be truly committed to their art, and the idea of probably becoming an instructor. I was never told it was to make the person more well rounded.

I also agree that with most martial arts, the more you learn, the better one can be expected to develop those attributes that give superiority it self defense. But I also understand that one may sometimes be surprised by an attack or defense they have never encountered before. But in agreement with you, I think those things diminish as one progresses in their chosen art.

There are persons who do train in more than one art. I don't know how much that favors "more well roundedness" but since I haven't been around such a person to evaluate their abilities. But I suppose it may be possible.

I will hope to hear from more of those who have and do train and learn in more than one art.

 

[Charlemagne]

As usual, Bill, you've made a thoughtful and well-written post. However, I'd like to offer some counterpoints to some of your ideas.







It's true that any good style should offer a lifetime's worth of things to learn. You never know it all. That said, I believe that after a decade in an art you should have a good idea of the territory contained in an art even if you don't know all the details. If someone has been studying boxing for 10 years, they should know that they aren't going to be learning kicks or chokes or sword techniques in the 11th year.


On the contrary, I would suggest that every single style in existence is "incomplete" in some way. That's because even the best systems can only competently address the areas which the founders and practitioners who developed the system have had significant experience in. The world of violence is too large for anyone, even violence professionals or martial arts masters, to be familiar with all of it.

A 17th-century swordsman preparing for a duel. A 16 year old girl fending off a date rapist. A bouncer ejecting a rowdy drunk. A professional fighter preparing for a match with a master grappler. A senior citizen using a knife to defend against home invaders. An orderly working to restrain a mentally ill patient without injuring him. People fighting in the snow while bundled in thick coats. People fighting in the jungle. People fighting on boats. The list goes on and on. Many principles, tactics, techniques and attributes can carry over from one setting to another. Many do not. No one has the answers for everything.



That's a legitimate concern, especially if the person stops training their old style entirely. If you want to continue progressing in multiple styles, then you have to find the time to practice them all. It's easier if you just want to maintain a certain level of proficiency in your original art - you still have to practice, but not as much. It's even easier if you just want to maintain certain specific skills from your original art and your new art is flexible enough to allow you to use those skills during sparring.



The question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line and why? If you are a carpenter, would you say "I just want to be the best at hammering a nail. I don't want to take time away from my hammering skills to learn how to use a power saw."? If you are a home owner with a limited budget for repairs, could it make sense to learn some basic plumbing and carpentry so you can fix the easy stuff yourself and only call a specialist for major projects?

You might also consider an important difference between specialization in the building trades and in methods of fighting. If you encounter a plumbing issue you aren't qualified to tackle, you can always call in an expert. If you are in a fight and encounter a situation you aren't prepared for, it's rarely practical to hand the problem over to someone else.



It can be tricky to evaluate techniques that "obviously work" when you don't have experience in a given domain. Ground-fighting is an easy example of this. There are lots of advanced practitioners in various stand up arts who teach "anti-grappling" or "ground defense" techniques that they believe in, that their students believe in, and that fail utterly against even a moderately competent grappler.

(I'm not saying everybody needs to become expert in a ground fighting style. Unless you are preparing for MMA match or happen to pick a fight with a wrestler, you can probably get by with just a few fundamental skills for protecting yourself on the ground and getting to your feet. I'm saying that even for those basics there are some very skilled martial artists teaching techniques that are ... extremely suboptimal, to put it politely.)

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

 

[Headhunter]

 

[Tony Dismukes]

But back in the real world grapplers are fat blokes who cant move fast and try to use their weight against you.

What color is the sky on your planet?

 

[jobo]

What color is the sky on your planet?

what are you taking issue with? The fact that people with low mobility but high body weight try and use their weight against you and grapple rather than use speed and movement

 

[DanT]

Would you let a doctor operate on you if they told you they did washing machine repair on the side.