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

[Flying Crane]

I was going with the analogy of the OP, but yes, that former boxer can still likely do damage as well. No argument there.

I appreciate that. It often seems that these observations are weighted heavily to one side and are often reluctant to acknowledge the other side.

 

[Ironbear24]

There is no knowledge that is not power.

 

[drop bear]

not in the uk there aren't, its a,Very minority sport, its easier to find bog snorkelers' than wrestlers'
but even if there was quite a few, im still more likely to get in a fight with an over weight bloke with a,shaved head and big bycepts, they are every where and all seemingly have an attitude as big as there waste line

Untill the Russians turn up.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Untill the Russians turn up.

That's crazy. How can someone support something like that? They should come to the U.S. and get some lol.

 

[thanson02]

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!

Thank you for your post Bill. This is insightful and I feel like I have a better understanding of what you were talking about on the other post you mentioned.

 

[JR 137]

And even more former wrestlers. The 45 year old dude who competed in wrestling from junior high to his senior year of high school still knows more than enough to put a hurting on someone on the ground who doesn't train that on a regular basis. He might be out of shape now, and even fat, but if the fight is over in a minute that won't matter very much. Even if the fight lasts longer, the former wrestler knows how to hold a position using less than all of their strength, allowing them to recover during the fight, particularly against someone who is unskilled on the ground.

I'm 41, not 45

 

[jobo]

Untill the Russians turn up.

yea I'm not messing with those Russian, they are a very hardy people who swing great big kettle bells about before breakfast

 

[jobo]

Well, no, that's not what you said. What you said was this:



There's a difference between "unskilled, untrained assailants who are big and slow may try to grab you" and "grapplers are fat blokes who cant move fast." The first might be sometimes true. The second is very rarely true. Being fat and slow is a serious disadvantage in grappling, which is why most wrestlers, judoka, jiu-jiteiros, samboists, etc are in excellent shape.

No, most wrestlers, judoka, jiu-jiteiros, and samboists aren't walking the streets looking to mug people. Neither are most boxers, karateka, savateurs, etc. Your original post didn't say anything about anyone wandering around looking to attack random people. You said "real world". In the real world, a grappler is someone who trains in a grappling system.

the term " real world" discounts things that though technical possible are vanishingly unlikely. . Much of the debate on here focuses on the worse possible situation. I could spend the,whole evening walking round the pubs and clubs of this fair city trying to find any one trained grappler, and most likely not manage it. Therefore the real world chance of me finding one on a remote tow path whist walking my dog, is very very remote even less so that he then attacks me with no provocation. However my city is knee deep in fat blokes, with,shaved heads big arms and pit bull, meeting them is a daily event, meeting one who wants to fight me over some minor disagreement happen all to frequently.

so real world gtapplers are 250 lb tubs of lards with a home barbell and roid rage

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Therefore the real world chance of me finding one on a remote tow path whist walking my dog, is very very remote even less so that he then attacks me with no provocation.

Yeah, the odds of being mugged by a trained martial artist of any sort (grappler, striker, or otherwise) are relatively low. Your original post didn't say anything about muggers or unprovoked attackers.

However my city is knee deep in fat blokes, with,shaved heads big arms and pit bull, meeting them is a daily event, meeting one who wants to fight me over some minor disagreement happen all to frequently.

If you are frequently meeting people (trained or not) who want to fight you over minor disagreements, then I would suggest you either need to change your hangouts or else work on your interpersonal skills.

so real world gtapplers are 250 lb tubs of lards with a home barbell and roid rage

If you're going to use the word "grapplers" to describe any untrained person who grabs his opponent in a fight, then there are tons of skinny people who fit that definition as well. I've seen plenty of fights between untrained opponents all of sizes (and genders) where one or both resort to grabs, tackles, headlocks, etc. It's not the exclusive province of big guys.

 

[jobo]

Yeah, the odds of being mugged by a trained martial artist of any sort (grappler, striker, or otherwise) are relatively low. Your original post didn't say anything about muggers or unprovoked attackers.



If you are frequently meeting people (trained or not) who want to fight you over minor disagreements, then I would suggest you either need to change your hangouts or else work on your interpersonal skills.



If you're going to use the word "grapplers" to describe any untrained person who grabs his opponent in a fight, then there are tons of skinny people who fit that definition as well. I've seen plenty of fights between untrained opponents all of sizes (and genders) where one or both resort to grabs, tackles, headlocks, etc. It's not the exclusive province of big guys.

im using it to apply to people who have a weight advantage and using it to over come you, its not that thin people don't grapple, so much as this is the fat blokes only strategy.
its like that round here,if you wanted a fight you would only have to walk a couple of hundred yards before you found someone to oblige you, my interpersonal skills consist of " shut up you fat slob or il slap you" surprisingly most do

 

[Flatfish]

I can see that.....

 

[Flying Crane]

To expand on this a little bit...

Even if you have no interest in ever seriously taking up a second art, it's worthwhile to occasionally explore different systems just to give you additional perspective into your primary martial art. There's an old saying that "a fish doesn't know it's wet." When you've only ever trained one system, it's common to have a lot of unquestioned assumptions about how things are done, just because you've never seen them done differently.

When you explore a different system, you may encounter different body mechanics, tactics, and training methods. Your first goal should be to figure out why they do it that way. Once you've started to understand this different approach and the advantages it gives, you can ask yourself why it's done differently in your primary art. Once you see more options for how something can be done, you are in a better place to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. That can lead you into a whole journey of discovery into how the different components of your art (principles, mechanics, tactics, techniques, and training methods) fit together.

Perhaps you study art A and spend a little time exchanging knowledge with an expert in art B. You find that art B has a way of throwing a punch which is more powerful than what you have learned in art A. So why doesn't art A use this punching method? Maybe it's because that method leaves you more open for a certain type of counter. Why doesn't art B worry about that counter? Because they have a certain game plan for when that counter comes? Why doesn't art A use that game plan? Because art A is built around a certain set of tactical priorities for a certain context and that game plan would violate those priorities. Once you see that art B is built around a different set of priorities for a different context, you begin to become more aware of the foundations your own art is built around. You are the fish who is starting to understand water.

At other times the new art might use some of the same principles as your own, but they are presented or practiced or conceptualized differently. Sometimes seeing that different explanation can give you a breakthrough in understanding how those principles are applied in your primary art.

Another possibility is that exploring a new system will make you aware of the limitations of your primary art. That doesn't necessarily mean your primary art is bad or that it needs to be changed or your need to study additional arts to "round yourself out." Every system has limits. Every combination of systems has limits. Every training method has limits. Every person has limits. That's reality. This being the case, in the words of Harry Callahan, "a man's got to know his limitations." When you know what you don't know, then you can adjust your game plan accordingly. When you think your system gives you something it doesn't ... let's just say that the Dunning-Kruger effect can lead to painful outcomes.

Hey Tony, I wanted to acknowledge your post, you raise some points that I don't disagree with.

There are many reasons to explore and study more than one system, including the self-discovery of simply figuring out what system is best for you. If you have no experience outside of what you have trained for XX years, then you don't even have any idea of what other approaches to training and combat are out there. I strongly believe that not every system is a good fit for every person, for a variety of reasons. Finding the best fit for oneself requires looking around a bit and seeing what else is out there. Experiencing another method might cause someone to actually switch over completely, when they find something that they with connect better as a methodology, than what they had been doing before. Ive done that a couple of times over the years myself.

In the end, people will do what they relate to and what they find interest in. If people try to force themselves to do something in which they have little or no interest, out of a sense that it is "good for them", it won't last. That is human nature. That does not mean that the experience did not hold some value, and that is part of the self-discovery I mentioned above.

In the end we all simply do what we do, and none of us are perfect, no matter what we do.

 

[wingchun100]

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

Depends on how many hours they devoted to washing machine repair instead of surgery!

 

[drop bear]

im using it to apply to people who have a weight advantage and using it to over come you, its not that thin people don't grapple, so much as this is the fat blokes only strategy.
its like that round here,if you wanted a fight you would only have to walk a couple of hundred yards before you found someone to oblige you, my interpersonal skills consist of " shut up you fat slob or il slap you" surprisingly most do

The correct term is crappling,

TOP DEFINITION
crappling
When someone is beginning to learn a grappling martial art such as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu but cant yet be classed as being able to properly grapple.
You're not grappling man, you're still crappling.

 

[jobo]

The correct term is crappling,

TOP DEFINITION
crappling
When someone is beginning to learn a grappling martial art such as Brazilian Jiu Jitsu but cant yet be classed as being able to properly grapple.
You're not grappling man, you're still crappling.

im having that

 

[Skullpunch]

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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?

6) 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.

7) 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.

8) 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."

1) It depends on context. In MMA, well rounded means you can handle yourself in every situation - standing, on the ground, in the clinch. Outside of MMA circles I don't hear it used very often but when I do it's typically based to varying degrees on the MMA standard in some shape or form. Your description that I put in bold sums it up pretty well.

2) The last sentence here is a bit of a stretch imo. I'm sure it's true with certain individuals but if your hypothesis is dependent on this sweeping generalization then I think it would be best if you rethink said hypothesis into one that is independent of such a hit-or-miss variable.

3) In the case of your example above, regarding someone who is a black belt in karate that wants to improve thier ground game, I would argue that if, after 10 years of doing karate, they are STILL not a competent grappler and they want to be a competent grappler then they should've picked up a grappling art a very long time ago. I'm sorry but if you've been training for 10 years and still don't know what you're doing on the ground but you want to know what you're doing on the ground....what can that possibly be called other than a hole in your training (or something else that means the exact same thing)?

4) I'm in the same boat which is why I seldom, if ever train striking these days. Even getting on the mats a couple of times per week is a struggle at times. It's all on the individual though, when I was a crazy, hot-headed young college kid who prioritized being able to kick everyone's *** more highly than I prioritize it now I found the time to work more training in and pick up additional stand-up work.

5) It's not that simple. Improvement and skills within anything in life - martial arts included - do not follow a linear curve. If we put it on a scale between 1 and 10, you don't train for 2 years to get to 1, 2 more years to get to 2, 2 more years to get to 3, etc. etc. until you reach 10. It would be closer to the truth if you said that you go from 0 to 5 at a similar rate to going from 5 to 6. Your biggest gains are during the early stages and while you should be getting better as you train longer, your rate of improvement slows as you get better, and that trend continues until you hit a point where one could argue that - compared to cross training - brings diminishing returns because you're at a level where even minor improvements require tremendous effort and patience. The logic behind cross training involves this premise. If you've been doing karate and nothing else for 5 years and you continue doing karate and nothing else for the next 2 years, unless you're dedicating your entire life to training you will only have improved so much in those 2 years because of the law of diminishing returns. You just won't improve as much as you did in your first 2 years (unless you completely wasted your time in your first 2 years and your training was at a mcdojo). If you've been doing karate and nothing else for 5 years and you do karate + bjj for the next 2, you might get only a tiny bit better standing or maybe even no better at all, struggling to maintain your skill in that area due to time constraints with splitting up your training - but you can improve leaps and bounds on the ground and in standup grappling, and thus become more well rounded because you've gained a larger improvement of skills across the spectrum as a whole than you did by dedicating yourself to one system.

6) You don't have to think you've progressed as far as you can to want to do something different, you just have to either prefer to do something different or think you can progress faster by doing something different. Also...."true purpose of training"? Seriously? Everyone has their own purpose for training, what somebody else's purpose for training should be is not for you to dictate.

7) What exactly does "training for martial arts at a basic level" mean? I don't know for sure...but considering what the word "martial" means, I've always assumed that the basic level of martial arts training is to prepare for warfare. By that line of thinking I would argue that there are virtually no "true" and "pure" martial arts on earth anywhere outside of military systems such as MCMAP, Krav Maga, and whatever else involves combat knives, grenades, nukes, guns, drones, etc. Even if we fixate on the eastern systems - the oldest one I know of is shuai chiao, which was designed as a means of countering attacks from horned helmets that soldiers used to wear in ancient China. Any which way you want to slice this, it all comes back to war. So I have to ask...are YOU training according to the basic intent of martial arts? If so....how? Or is it possible that you're training based not on THE basic intent of martial arts (if it even exists at all).....but YOUR basic intent of martial arts....because you're an individual....and as an individual, you and millions of other martial artists each have your own basic intent?

8) I never thought that in my cross training days either.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Bill

Good post and good topic to discuss.

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.

Bill, I do believe styles have holes in them, and historically it was not uncommon (if a person had the means) to train in several arts. Then those people might bring back those techniques to their dojo to help fill those gaps, or to change their art to adjust to their new understanding. Take this quote from Wikipedia about Wado

"From one point of view, Wadō-ryū might be considered a style of jūjutsu rather than karate. It should be noted that Hironori Ōtsuka embraced Shotokan and was its chief instructor for a time. When Ōtsuka first registered his school with the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai in 1938, the style was called "Shinshu Wadō-ryū Karate-Jūjutsu," a name that reflects its hybrid character. Ōtsuka was a licensed Shindō Yōshin-ryū practitioner and a student of Yōshin-ryū when he first met the Okinawan karate master Gichin Funakoshi. After having learned from Funakoshi, and after their split, with Okinawan masters such as Kenwa Mabuni and Motobu Chōki, Ōtsuka merged Shindō Yōshin-ryū with Okinawan karate. The result of Ōtsuka's efforts is Wadō-ryū Karate.[3]

To the untrained observer, Wadō-ryū might look similar to other styles of karate, such as Shōtōkan. Most of the underlying principles, however, were derived from Shindō Yōshin-ryū an atemi waza focused style of Jujutsu. A block in Wadō may look much like a block in Shōtōkan, but they are executed from different perspectives.
"Ōtsuka merged Shindō Yōshin-ryū with Okinawan karate. The result of Ōtsuka's efforts is Wadō-ryū Karate.[3]"

Otsuka sensei learned jujitsu first and was master of it before meeting sensei Funakoshi and embracing Shotokan then he merged the two. Clearly he felt there were holes in Shotokan and jujitsu and from his perspective then on how to fill he created Wado.

Wikipedia also has this to say about Kenwa Mabuni

" Born in Shuri on Okinawa in 1889, Mabuni was a 17th generation descendant of the famous warrior Uni Ufugusuku Kenyu.[4] Perhaps because of his weak constitution, he began his instruction in his home town in the art of Shuri-Te (首里手) at the age of 13, under the tutelage of the legendary Ankō Yasutsune Itosu (糸州安恒) (1831-1915). He trained diligently for several years, learning many kata from this great master. It was Itosu who first developed the Pinan kata, which were most probably derived from the 'Kusanku' form.

One of his close friends, Chōjun Miyagi (宮城長順) (founder of Gōjū-ryū) introduced Mabuni to another great of that period, Higaonna Kanryō (東恩納寛量), and began to learn Naha-Te (那覇手) under him as well. While both Itosu and Higashionna taught a 'hard-soft' style of Okinawan 'Te', their methods and emphases were quite distinct: the Itosu syllabus included straight and powerful techniques as exemplified in the Naifanchi and Bassai kata; the Higashionna syllabus, on the other hand, stressed circular motion and shorter fighting methods as seen in the popular Seipai and Kururunfa forms. Shitō-ryū focuses on both hard and soft techniques to this day.

Although he remained true to the teachings of these two great masters, Mabuni sought instruction from a number of other teachers; including Seishō Aragaki, Tawada Shimboku, Sueyoshi Jino and Wu Xianhui (a Chinese master known as Go-Kenki). In fact, Mabuni was legendary for his encyclopaedic knowledge of kata and their bunkai applications. By the 1920s, he was regarded as the foremost authority on Okinawan kata and their history and was much sought after as a teacher by his contemporaries. There is even some evidence that his expertise was sought out in China, as well as Okinawa and mainland Japan. As a police officer, he taught local law enforcement officers and at the behest of his teacher Itosu, began instruction in the various grammar schools in Shuri and Naha."

Again we can see how Mabuni cross trained in several styles f karate under several different teachers and then created his own style based on their different instruction.

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 agree with you on this however as I have shown above with the example of Otsuka and Mabuni sensei both trained with several instructors and created their own styles. They even trained with some of the same instructors or at least the instructors of their instructors and yet their styles are different. They came up with different solutions to the problems of self defense.

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?

I agree it does take a lifetime to master an art, but is the person looking to master an art form; or do they want to learn to defend them selves, be a successful tournament competitor, carry on a family heritage (speaking about a person carrying on a family system) etc. etc. All of these are valid reasons to study the martial arts but... they would all have different training objectives. The person wanting to study karate as a discipline to train the body and the mind doesn't need to look outside of their system, although the competitor might have to in order to stay competitive as the game evolves. Just look at how karate/TKD systems evolved as competition entered the picture.

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.

I agree that committing to a long term study of a different martial art could affect your primary art, and that is a danger. I remember one of my seminar buddies told me that his Thai Chi was taking over his Modern Arnis study of the forms (he was adapting the principles/lessons he was learning practicing Thai Chi and it was showing in his Modern Arnis forms. My TKD background can be seen in my Modern Arnis forms while at the same time my understanding of application of movement from Modern Arnis has also transformed my TKD forms.

Yet I believe this is a natural progression of things as I've shown above, with the examples of Otsuka and Mabuni. Now to a person now studying Wado or Shito ryu and trying to keep it in it's pure form, it would be anathema to change the system by blending in something else (or perhaps cross training) yet that is exactly what the two founders did.

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 agree with students becoming bored, however I don't think that is what was going on with Mabuni and Otsuka sensei nor even Funakoshi sensei. Again from Wikipedia

"Gichin Funakoshi had trained in both of the popular styles of Okinawan karate of the time: Shōrei-ryū and Shōrin-ryū. After years of study in both styles, Funakoshi created a simpler system that combined the ideals of the two.[5] He never named this system, however, always referring to it simply as "karate." Funakoshi's karate reflects the changes made in the art by Ankō Itosu, including the Heian/Pinan kata series. Funakoshi changed the names of some of the kata in an effort to make the Okinawan kata names easier to pronounce in the Japanese Honshū dialect."

Once again after studying two systems fro several years he created his own simpler system to meet his needs i.e. the way he thought it should be.

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!

Referring to your comment in bold. If that suits your needs then great, all of the power to you.

I'll close with this; for me cross training has greatly impacted my understanding of the martial arts over the past 36 years of study. Although I consider myself a Jack of all trades, master of none", but the phrase "eternal student" of some actually fits me better. I'm 56 as well and an instructor who seeks not to give my students blow off answers, yet I don't have answer for everything. Speaking of which I have a class in 40 minutes so I need to go.

 

[Mark Lynn]

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.

In our American Karate/TKD association we are encouraged to study and be ranked in another art, in fact many of our black belt instructors have time with other systems. The association also holds continuing education classes for the senior brown belts and black belts often bringing in instructors who have experience in other arts to teach as a way to broaden the instructors knowledge base and learning experience. In fact I think to pass to 6th dan, you must have studied another art until 1st dan. So for our association it isn't a method to weed out those who aren't committed to the art or to the idea of becoming an instructor, rather it is the opposite.

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.

I too believe that with most arts the more you learn the better one can be expected those attributes that give superiority in self defense, but for the most part I believe that in regards to armed attacks or to using weapons in a defensive manner this doesn't hold true. I feel the same way with the over sport orientated systems.

For example in regards to the weapons I also study and teach Presas Arnis (which is a blend of Modern Arnis and Kombatan Arnis). Our American Karate/TKD association has had me teach over the years several 1-2 hour long classes for not only the brown and black belts but also for the general student population at our annual seminar and banquet/awards day. So I have taught a variety of students/instructors of different ages, ranks, sexes, etc. etc. in primarily impact and edged weapons use and defense. I also am currently teaching a small group of these same type of students of various ranks who come from a American Karate background our Presas Arnis curriculum on a monthly basis. So as much as we want to say a weapon is just an extension of the hand that isn't really true. Because if it was then the more experienced the person was the more comfortable they should be using a weapon but I often times find the reverse is true.

I feel using a stick or a knife as it being a great equalizer, meaning that a white belt can be just as confident using it as a senior black belt. Truthfully I've had instructors dismiss the idea of cross training in weapons telling me they'd feel more confident dropping the weapon and fighting empty hand instead of using the weapon (even if the other person had a weapon).

In regards to the sport orientated systems, I think of the sport form of TKD. Take the emphasis on kicking to the head because it is more crowd pleasing, more exciting to watch. In the olympic TKD style I don't think you can punch to the head, but you are encouraged to kick there. OK so from a SD stand point focusing on doing the sport is taking away from the time you could be spending on more SD related material. Likewise focusing on sport XMA type weapons kata practice while maybe exciting to watch; throwing my weapon in the air to catch it and screaming at the top of my lungs really has no real application SD wise no matter how many years you do it. Likewise if my focus was on the more SD related side of the spectrum to be really competitive on the XMA or open karate circuit I need a weapons coach, a gymnastic coach (for my flips and butterfly kicks), strength and conditioning coaches, all of which might make me a better kata competitor but not really help me defend my self.

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.

I do train more than one art and it does help me and hinder me as well. For instance I currently train/teach American TKD, Kobudo (more traditional weapons), and Presas Arnis (which is a combination of two styles of FMAs, but they are related), as well as other FMAs. My study of the FMAs is really where my focus is, but my main teaching duties throughout the week centers more around the TKD.

So how does it help. By studying both Kombatan and Modern Arnis helped me to see different sides of similar systems. Both arts were developed by two brothers who had different training experiences but still learned from the same family roots. So while one art focuses a lot on the self defense side of things (i.e. Modern Arnis), Kombatan taught more weapon groups i.e. double stick, single stick, stick and knife, knife, empty hand, along with some staff, palm stick etc. etc. Modern Arnis as I learned it here in America in the mid 90's focused more on the singe stick, empty hand and a little double stick, but because of GM Remy's friendship with Wally Jay there is a much deeper influence on the locking, trapping, take down and throws than the Kombatan side. Because there is cross over between arts I got a different perspective of things than say the pure Modern Arnis or Kombatan student.

Likewise another area that has been helped by cross training is in my study of the FMAs and Kobudo. I've taken the double stick component from Kombatan and applied it to the Sai, Tonfa, Kama (weapons found in Kobudo), exploring different ways to train and teach double weapons, disarming etc etc. I've applied some of the flexible weapon disarm principles and applied them to the nunchaku etc. etc. This has opened up a lot of growth for me over the past few years.

Modern Arnis has impacted my study of American TKD basic techniques quite a bit, as well as our kata or forms. Learning from different instructors in Modern Arnis has helped me to gain insight into different principles of take downs, locking, and body management as well as empty hand vs weapon defense, both impact and edged.

But there is a down side to this.
I don't have the great developed kicking skills anymore, I don't spend time practicing many of the kicks I learned because now they hurt me (probably since I didn't keep them up in the first place). I don't know all of the advanced TKD forms (I have no interest in them really), so I can't pass them on to my black belts.

In regards to my Kobudo training sometimes my other skills/knowledge gets in the way of my training. Sometimes I feel as if I'm going backwards, and it's very frustrating for me and some of my students. A few of my students and I take a once a month formal Kobudo class and what seems natural to us isn't what is being taught (technique or skill wise) to the general student base for one reason or another. Another way it impacts me negatively is that in regards to kata sometimes I don't look the same as the others because I tend to blend or flow more from my FMA background. Over time some things change (kata wise) and I tend to not accept the change (this is my 9th year in the program) and question things.

I tend to not quite go along with the program (in some circumstances) and that isn't good really for my students or the other students on the floor. I don't put in as much time perfecting a kata's technique as I do thinking about why do we do it this way etc. etc.? So my performance of the kata suffers.

But there are many unexpected benefits to cross training
One has been working with another GM in the FMAs; recently one of my students/assistant instructor and I started to learn a completely different escrima system underneath a GM who relocated to our area for a short while. GM Art sought out our FMA cross training group (the MAPA) to introduce himself and he offered to teach us his system. So 1-3X a month we get together with him and learn his system. Now it is totally different from Modern Arnis/Kombatan Arnis (it's a mix of Serrada and Defondo), and being students again we see similarities between our styles but we learn from his perspective, it not only validates our training in some ways but also gives us new insight into techniques and training concepts that I then bring back to my classes. On top of this we made a very good friend and training mentor.

Likewise through my seeking out other instructors in Modern Arnis like Datu Dieter Knuttel, SM Dan Anderson, Datu Tim Hartman, our school has developed friendships and training relationships with these (and other) instructors, all of which helps my school grow in the understanding of Modern Arnis. While I don't teach their respective systems per say, since they all have their own versions of Modern Arnis, I do teach some of their material and their material has helped my students as they pick and chose what works for them as well.

So in closing I am a big believer in cross training and working with others, I have been studying the martial arts for 36 years, I'm not a purest of any system by any means, and the more that I teach the more I find myself teaching drills and stuff that were never "taught" to me, rather I'm making my own way now based on the teaching and understanding that these and other instructors have taught me but still teaching a "core art(s)" (Presas Arnis and American TKD). Well time for my afternoon classes.

 

[oftheherd1]

In our American Karate/TKD association we are encouraged to study and be ranked in another art, in fact many of our black belt instructors have time with other systems. The association also holds continuing education classes for the senior brown belts and black belts often bringing in instructors who have experience in other arts to teach as a way to broaden the instructors knowledge base and learning experience. In fact I think to pass to 6th dan, you must have studied another art until 1st dan. So for our association it isn't a method to weed out those who aren't committed to the art or to the idea of becoming an instructor, rather it is the opposite.



I too believe that with most arts the more you learn the better one can be expected those attributes that give superiority in self defense, but for the most part I believe that in regards to armed attacks or to using weapons in a defensive manner this doesn't hold true. I feel the same way with the over sport orientated systems.

For example in regards to the weapons I also study and teach Presas Arnis (which is a blend of Modern Arnis and Kombatan Arnis). Our American Karate/TKD association has had me teach over the years several 1-2 hour long classes for not only the brown and black belts but also for the general student population at our annual seminar and banquet/awards day. So I have taught a variety of students/instructors of different ages, ranks, sexes, etc. etc. in primarily impact and edged weapons use and defense. I also am currently teaching a small group of these same type of students of various ranks who come from a American Karate background our Presas Arnis curriculum on a monthly basis. So as much as we want to say a weapon is just an extension of the hand that isn't really true. Because if it was then the more experienced the person was the more comfortable they should be using a weapon but I often times find the reverse is true.

I feel using a stick or a knife as it being a great equalizer, meaning that a white belt can be just as confident using it as a senior black belt. Truthfully I've had instructors dismiss the idea of cross training in weapons telling me they'd feel more confident dropping the weapon and fighting empty hand instead of using the weapon (even if the other person had a weapon).

In regards to the sport orientated systems, I think of the sport form of TKD. Take the emphasis on kicking to the head because it is more crowd pleasing, more exciting to watch. In the olympic TKD style I don't think you can punch to the head, but you are encouraged to kick there. OK so from a SD stand point focusing on doing the sport is taking away from the time you could be spending on more SD related material. Likewise focusing on sport XMA type weapons kata practice while maybe exciting to watch; throwing my weapon in the air to catch it and screaming at the top of my lungs really has no real application SD wise no matter how many years you do it. Likewise if my focus was on the more SD related side of the spectrum to be really competitive on the XMA or open karate circuit I need a weapons coach, a gymnastic coach (for my flips and butterfly kicks), strength and conditioning coaches, all of which might make me a better kata competitor but not really help me defend my self.



I do train more than one art and it does help me and hinder me as well. For instance I currently train/teach American TKD, Kobudo (more traditional weapons), and Presas Arnis (which is a combination of two styles of FMAs, but they are related), as well as other FMAs. My study of the FMAs is really where my focus is, but my main teaching duties throughout the week centers more around the TKD.

So how does it help. By studying both Kombatan and Modern Arnis helped me to see different sides of similar systems. Both arts were developed by two brothers who had different training experiences but still learned from the same family roots. So while one art focuses a lot on the self defense side of things (i.e. Modern Arnis), Kombatan taught more weapon groups i.e. double stick, single stick, stick and knife, knife, empty hand, along with some staff, palm stick etc. etc. Modern Arnis as I learned it here in America in the mid 90's focused more on the singe stick, empty hand and a little double stick, but because of GM Remy's friendship with Wally Jay there is a much deeper influence on the locking, trapping, take down and throws than the Kombatan side. Because there is cross over between arts I got a different perspective of things than say the pure Modern Arnis or Kombatan student.

Likewise another area that has been helped by cross training is in my study of the FMAs and Kobudo. I've taken the double stick component from Kombatan and applied it to the Sai, Tonfa, Kama (weapons found in Kobudo), exploring different ways to train and teach double weapons, disarming etc etc. I've applied some of the flexible weapon disarm principles and applied them to the nunchaku etc. etc. This has opened up a lot of growth for me over the past few years.

Modern Arnis has impacted my study of American TKD basic techniques quite a bit, as well as our kata or forms. Learning from different instructors in Modern Arnis has helped me to gain insight into different principles of take downs, locking, and body management as well as empty hand vs weapon defense, both impact and edged.

But there is a down side to this.
I don't have the great developed kicking skills anymore, I don't spend time practicing many of the kicks I learned because now they hurt me (probably since I didn't keep them up in the first place). I don't know all of the advanced TKD forms (I have no interest in them really), so I can't pass them on to my black belts.

In regards to my Kobudo training sometimes my other skills/knowledge gets in the way of my training. Sometimes I feel as if I'm going backwards, and it's very frustrating for me and some of my students. A few of my students and I take a once a month formal Kobudo class and what seems natural to us isn't what is being taught (technique or skill wise) to the general student base for one reason or another. Another way it impacts me negatively is that in regards to kata sometimes I don't look the same as the others because I tend to blend or flow more from my FMA background. Over time some things change (kata wise) and I tend to not accept the change (this is my 9th year in the program) and question things.

I tend to not quite go along with the program (in some circumstances) and that isn't good really for my students or the other students on the floor. I don't put in as much time perfecting a kata's technique as I do thinking about why do we do it this way etc. etc.? So my performance of the kata suffers.

But there are many unexpected benefits to cross training
One has been working with another GM in the FMAs; recently one of my students/assistant instructor and I started to learn a completely different escrima system underneath a GM who relocated to our area for a short while. GM Art sought out our FMA cross training group (the MAPA) to introduce himself and he offered to teach us his system. So 1-3X a month we get together with him and learn his system. Now it is totally different from Modern Arnis/Kombatan Arnis (it's a mix of Serrada and Defondo), and being students again we see similarities between our styles but we learn from his perspective, it not only validates our training in some ways but also gives us new insight into techniques and training concepts that I then bring back to my classes. On top of this we made a very good friend and training mentor.

Likewise through my seeking out other instructors in Modern Arnis like Datu Dieter Knuttel, SM Dan Anderson, Datu Tim Hartman, our school has developed friendships and training relationships with these (and other) instructors, all of which helps my school grow in the understanding of Modern Arnis. While I don't teach their respective systems per say, since they all have their own versions of Modern Arnis, I do teach some of their material and their material has helped my students as they pick and chose what works for them as well.

So in closing I am a big believer in cross training and working with others, I have been studying the martial arts for 36 years, I'm not a purest of any system by any means, and the more that I teach the more I find myself teaching drills and stuff that were never "taught" to me, rather I'm making my own way now based on the teaching and understanding that these and other instructors have taught me but still teaching a "core art(s)" (Presas Arnis and American TKD). Well time for my afternoon classes.

Thanks. Very insightful.

 

[Jenna]

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

that is deep.. and concise too