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

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with everything you wrote, but it brought a question to mind. Does "knowing about" or occasional exposure to things (as opposed to committed study) really make one more well rounded? I mean, reading this forum for years has brought us all to at least a moderate degree of intellectual familiarity with a lot of styles, training models and perspectives. But I wouldn't go so far as to say we're more well rounded... well, maybe intellectually more well rounded.

Said a little differently, isn't the danger of dunning-kruger most present when you think you know more than you do. Occasionally exploring another art may give you just enough information to create the unconscious incompetence you're trying to avoid.

That's a valid point. There is definitely some danger that we get to thinking we know more than we do. Hell, I see this regularly with instructors talking about how to counter another style and clearly (to someone who knows the style in question), they are proposing something that would not work. Some of the value in continually exposing ourselves to people in other styles is that they show us on a regular basis how little we know. I've had enough experience with Ueshiba's Aikido, for instance, to know that there's much of their approach I actually don't understand. I've seen people in NGA with little exposure to that art confidently make claims about it that I know to be inaccurate - Dunning-Kruger, indeed. So, exposure to other styles and practitioners is one of the ways to protect against D-K. You see this in BJJ, and it's one of the things you recommend about the art, in general. It's something Drop Bear sees in MMA, and he similarly recommends it. People interact between schools/gyms, so if you're not as good as you think you are, someone will help you improve your awareness pretty soon. This is the same thing we're talking about with interaction between styles.

And I will argue that what we learn (intellectually) on MT can contribute to us being more well-rounded, in that it makes us aware (if we're willing to be honest with ourselves) of what we do not know. If I just look at videos of Wing Chun, for instance, there's much that seems to make sense. But when I hear someone on the WC forum talk about their power generation, it doesn't make sense to me. Clearly, I know less about the mechanics of WC than my viewing of a video would lead me to believe. Awareness of that lack of understanding is part of being more "well rounded", IMO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Taking it a little further, a warning light goes off when folks say their art addresses every need. It strikes me as the opposite of the above.

Agreed, entirely.

Except for Ameri-Do-Te, of course.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I'm adding that to my CV.

 

[mograph]

To me, being "well-rounded" for its own sake is not a valuable goal. Instead, I see these goals as valuable:

• being able to respond to the situations that I'm likely to encounter
• exercising most of my body without neglecting major areas (don't skip leg day!)

But it still seems to come down to the first point: responding to likely situations. I'm not a bouncer, nor do I compete, frequent rough bars or live in a rough neighborhood. I'm fifty-seven, easily ignored, and not too bad at mild conflict de-escalation. So do I want to spend limited time and money learning to respond to situations that a younger, more aggressive man might encounter? Nope. It makes more sense for me to focus on health and efficient use of my body (structure).

I also agree with earlier points that an artist might find all he/she needs in his/her own style, and might not need to fill those needs by switching to another style. I also agree that if you compete, it makes sense to learn about other styles, and ideally, spar against practitioners of those styles if you are likely to find yourself facing them.

I also see the value in clarifying the definition, concept or framing of our own styles by learning more about other styles: we often can better understand something by seeing what it is not. But this still suggests retaining a focus on our own style as our dominant, personal, or "home" style.

However, as we age and learn more about ourselves, we might change how we think -- so our current training methods might not work for us as we change. In those situations, it might pay to check out another studio teaching the same style before we change styles. Of course, I recognize the issues inherent in switching studios, especially after having invested time in one studio/teacher.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Fan of getting into other styles for a time, learning by immersion, into the other, the new, thing.... then returning to the main style/art whatever. Of course, with the caveat that the main art/style thing just might change over time.

I am Not a fan, personally... meaning for me... of training in two different arts during the same time frame, i.e. doing TKD one day, judo the next, like that. I think you sell the learning of both short, in a physical education sense, as the muscle memory formation is not brought to fruition nearly as quickly in that fashion.

Just my $0.02.

Agreed that it can slow down both arts. It can also prevent problems. I'll use as an example two real people. One was a training partner, who trained Shotokan Karate while training Nihon Goshin Aikido. The other is a student who trained Shotokan Karate for 8 years, then started training NGA. The one who co-trained the two managed to integrate them well, and never really had a problem with conflicts between the two. The one who trained Shotokan first often finds himself struggling against his well-trained movements, which often keep him too far away for proper NGA technique execution.

There are advantages both ways, IMO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Brian what do you think to the idea that every art contain a means of addressing shortcomings strictly from within it self?? or is that not possible or likely? thank you x

I think it's possible, but not optimal. My primary art contains the principles for effective ground work. But if someone wants to get really good at ground work, they'll do it much faster by cross-training in BJJ. Why? Because those guys focus on it a lot more, and are really good at doing so. A mediocre BJJ instructor can probably teach solid ground control and escape better than an exceptional NGA instructor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes that make sense.. thank you! Is like you cannot make deep fried chicken in a broiler kind of thing yes?

Though there are multiple different solutions to the same problem too you would agree with that??

I think for me in my art some -if not a majority in my experience- of practitioners have either forgotten or misinterpreted the core tenets of the art, or they were never made aware of them in the first place which lead to the situation where they feel compelled to modify their broiler to deep fry the chicken wings.. Fried chicken wings is their compulsion! possibly that is why they do not fit their hakama no more haha.. Now I am hungry

I thought I was following your reasoning there at first, Jenna, then I was just thinking of food.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think it's possible, but not optimal. My primary art contains the principles for effective ground work. But if someone wants to get really good at ground work, they'll do it much faster by cross-training in BJJ. Why? Because those guys focus on it a lot more, and are really good at doing so. A mediocre BJJ instructor can probably teach solid ground control and escape better than an exceptional NGA instructor.

To expand on this a bit more ...
Sometimes this is the case even when the specific techniques being looked at are shared in common between the two arts.

Suppose you are a practitioner of Generalist Do, an art designed to offer a well rounded approach with some high-percentage moves for most situations you are likely to encounter. This art might be centered around stand-up striking, but also includes some basic throws, some basic defenses and escapes from the ground, some basic weapons use and disarms. If you go to an expert in a more specialized art (like BJJ), they will likely be able to show you nuances and details of your basic moves that you probably wouldn't have learned from your original teacher. You don't necessarily have to learn the whole arsenal of the specialist, but it's worth tapping their expertise to improve your fundamentals.

 

[Jenna]

I think it's possible, but not optimal. My primary art contains the principles for effective ground work. But if someone wants to get really good at ground work, they'll do it much faster by cross-training in BJJ. Why? Because those guys focus on it a lot more, and are really good at doing so. A mediocre BJJ instructor can probably teach solid ground control and escape better than an exceptional NGA instructor.

That make sense too yes thank you.. let me ask you some thing else then yes?

With ground work in mind, which will you suggest to a student is more productive use of her training time - a. cross train in a ground style to address perceived shortcomings in NGA, or b. work to eradicate points of weakness within NGA that could result in a ground fight at all? I do not know if I have put that clearly enough.. I mean the solution to a problem of potentially (and it is disputable) limited ground work skill in NGA can be to go to another gym and do ground work with them, or, to work in your own dojo within NGA to see and rectify what is happening when you try to pull each other on the ground.. why? with the aim of terminating the opponent progress decisively against their intent to force you on the ground at all.. like the solution then can be within the system itself no??

What would you think?? thank you x

I thought I was following your reasoning there at first, Jenna, then I was just thinking of food.

Ha yes samesies.. that is pattern of my days.. being all beautifully mindful of the whole universe then just get utterly distracted by pizza aroma out the back of some little camionetta and forget where I am supposed to be going pffft..

 

[Tony Dismukes]

With ground work in mind, which will you suggest to a student is more productive use of her training time - a. cross train in a ground style to address perceived shortcomings in NGA, or b. work to eradicate points of weakness within NGA that could result in a ground fight at all? I do not know if I have put that clearly enough.. I mean the solution to a problem of potentially (and it is disputable) limited ground work skill in NGA can be to go to another gym and do ground work with them, or, to work in your own dojo within NGA to see and rectify what is happening when you try to pull each other on the ground.. why? with the aim of terminating the opponent progress decisively against their intent to force you on the ground at all.. like the solution then can be within the system itself no??

What would you think?? thank you x

The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.

The problem is that anyone can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.

If you argue that you are training for self-defense and are unlikely to encounter an attack from an expert wrestler, you should consider the additional variables which can make going to the ground more likely in a street scenario. How about being blind-side tackled by a much larger assailant on a slippery or uneven surface?

If you bet everything on never being taken down, then you are in a boat load of trouble if you ever end up on the ground with a larger attacker on top of you. I'm not saying everybody should become expert at fighting while on the ground, but the fundamentals of being able to defend yourself, escape a bad position and get back to your feet are extremely useful, even to a stand-up martial artist.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To expand on this a bit more ...
Sometimes this is the case even when the specific techniques being looked at are shared in common between the two arts.

Suppose you are a practitioner of Generalist Do, an art designed to offer a well rounded approach with some high-percentage moves for most situations you are likely to encounter. This art might be centered around stand-up striking, but also includes some basic throws, some basic defenses and escapes from the ground, some basic weapons use and disarms. If you go to an expert in a more specialized art (like BJJ), they will likely be able to show you nuances and details of your basic moves that you probably wouldn't have learned from your original teacher. You don't necessarily have to learn the whole arsenal of the specialist, but it's worth tapping their expertise to improve your fundamentals.

Agreed, and I can give a very specific example. I teach a basic hip throw (okay, it might actually be 3 different throws in Judo). I do it pretty well. With your deeper Judo background, you probably do it (meaning them) better. Someone active in Judo (I'm not sure how active you are in that area these days) would certainly be better at the nuances of a hip throw than I am, because it's a more core bit of kit in Judo than in NGA. There's almost certainly less of a disparity between my hip throwing knowledge and yours than between my ground escape (sweep) knowledge and yours, but I expect there's still a difference there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That make sense too yes thank you.. let me ask you some thing else then yes?

With ground work in mind, which will you suggest to a student is more productive use of her training time - a. cross train in a ground style to address perceived shortcomings in NGA, or b. work to eradicate points of weakness within NGA that could result in a ground fight at all? I do not know if I have put that clearly enough.. I mean the solution to a problem of potentially (and it is disputable) limited ground work skill in NGA can be to go to another gym and do ground work with them, or, to work in your own dojo within NGA to see and rectify what is happening when you try to pull each other on the ground.. why? with the aim of terminating the opponent progress decisively against their intent to force you on the ground at all.. like the solution then can be within the system itself no??

What would you think?? thank you x

I'd say there are three approaches (obviously, just forcing three choices here).

1. For just some basic, functional ability to escape some goober on the ground, what I teach is decent. If that's all someone wants, what I teach is enough.
2. If someone wants to have more than that rudimentary functionality, their easiest path is to go study for a while (at least a few months) with someplace that specializes. If they want to get really good, they keep going there.
3. If they want to strengthen what's in NGA (a step-up I have done, myself), they can go learn some basics from a specialist, then get good at teaching that. This probably takes as much training as #2, but covers less content, since they'd need to get good enough at it to teach it.

I don't think it's reasonable to try to bring BJJ-level ground work to NGA. The only way to do that is to have that as a specialty, and then we'd be doing BJJ. The real question is what is the "gap". For me, there was a gap I saw in my original NGA training - I didn't find much of the ground work functional. So I studied a bit with other folks who knew better and used that to incorporate some of our principles more fully into ground work. For me, that fills the basic gap in the art, and what most people are looking for from it. But not necessarily in my arsenal. If I can come up with time and money (and keep myself healthy enough), I'll probably train to blue belt in BJJ, and that will fill the gap I see in my personal arsenal. For some others, they see a bigger gap, and may want to train more heavily to fill it.

Ha yes samesies.. that is pattern of my days.. being all beautifully mindful of the whole universe then just get utterly distracted by pizza aroma out the back of some little camionetta and forget where I am supposed to be going pffft..

Great. Now I'm thinking of pizza. You're not helping.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.

The problem is that anyone can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.

If you argue that you are training for self-defense and are unlikely to encounter an attack from an expert wrestler, you should consider the additional variables which can make going to the ground more likely in a street scenario. How about being blind-side tackled by a much larger assailant on a slippery or uneven surface?

If you bet everything on never being taken down, then you are in a boat load of trouble if you ever end up on the ground with a larger attacker on top of you. I'm not saying everybody should become expert at fighting while on the ground, but the fundamentals of being able to defend yourself, escape a bad position and get back to your feet are extremely useful, even to a stand-up martial artist.

Well stated, Tony. I definitely consider myself a stand-up fighter. But I've fallen down in training, so why shouldn't I expect that as a possibility in the street.

EDIT: And being a stand-up fighter doesn't mean I won't take someone's back and use a RNC if I'm on the ground and no other is threatening.

 

[mograph]

... the fundamentals of being able to defend yourself, escape a bad position and get back to your feet are extremely useful, even to a stand-up martial artist.

Preach, brother.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think the mistake is in believing that doing a bit of crosstraining will give someone the skills they need to out-grapple a grappling specialist. That won't happen. If you want to out-grapple a grappling specialist, then you need to become a grappling specialist.

As to dealing with the possibility of finding yourself on the ground with an adversary in a self-defense situation, yes it would be foolish to believe that could never happen to you. So what is the solution? The two extremes would be to do nothing to prepare for it, or become a grappling specialist. Or you can find something in between. You could evaluate your needs, your talents, your interests, and the time and energy you are willing to invest in it, and work on solutions to at least escape that situation so that you can then manage your defense and your ultimate escape from a more comfortable position on your feet. What you feel is appropriate, is up to you. Just be realistic about your decision.

You may find these solutions already exist within the curriculum and the principles that your system practices and teaches. Or you may decide you need guidance from other sources.

Even choosing to do nothing about it is a perfectly good decision to make, as long as you are honest about it with yourself. If you are content with your training and you have no inclination to do something that is not already part of what you do, you can decide that is all you are interested in doing.

 

[Jenna]

The solution you propose (I don't have to train ground work because I won't ever let anyone take me down) was very widespread before the advent of MMA showed that it is much harder to stop a takedown by a skilled grappler than standup fighters thought. Even now, it's still a pretty common idea.

The problem is that anyone can be taken down. Those who insist their art makes them invulnerable to takedowns are typically easier to take down, because they haven't put in the hours of hard training dedicated to defending against skilled takedown artists.

If you argue that you are training for self-defense and are unlikely to encounter an attack from an expert wrestler, you should consider the additional variables which can make going to the ground more likely in a street scenario. How about being blind-side tackled by a much larger assailant on a slippery or uneven surface?

If you bet everything on never being taken down, then you are in a boat load of trouble if you ever end up on the ground with a larger attacker on top of you. I'm not saying everybody should become expert at fighting while on the ground, but the fundamentals of being able to defend yourself, escape a bad position and get back to your feet are extremely useful, even to a stand-up martial artist.

Yes valid points absolutely! Make plenty of sense thank you

I prefer to exhaust the honing of the skill I have already acquired and adapted to over time in one sole system over bringing in new and (for me) often contradictory aspects from other systems.. That is not to contend validity of other systems for me this is just personal way of thinking and working..

Yes you are right, do not bet the bank on any MA outcome.. I would say do not bet the bank on any MA at all.. It is immutable truth there is always the bigger and badder than you no matter how you care to train

 

[Jenna]

I'd say there are three approaches (obviously, just forcing three choices here).

1. For just some basic, functional ability to escape some goober on the ground, what I teach is decent. If that's all someone wants, what I teach is enough.
2. If someone wants to have more than that rudimentary functionality, their easiest path is to go study for a while (at least a few months) with someplace that specializes. If they want to get really good, they keep going there.
3. If they want to strengthen what's in NGA (a step-up I have done, myself), they can go learn some basics from a specialist, then get good at teaching that. This probably takes as much training as #2, but covers less content, since they'd need to get good enough at it to teach it.

I don't think it's reasonable to try to bring BJJ-level ground work to NGA. The only way to do that is to have that as a specialty, and then we'd be doing BJJ. The real question is what is the "gap". For me, there was a gap I saw in my original NGA training - I didn't find much of the ground work functional. So I studied a bit with other folks who knew better and used that to incorporate some of our principles more fully into ground work. For me, that fills the basic gap in the art, and what most people are looking for from it. But not necessarily in my arsenal. If I can come up with time and money (and keep myself healthy enough), I'll probably train to blue belt in BJJ, and that will fill the gap I see in my personal arsenal. For some others, they see a bigger gap, and may want to train more heavily to fill it.


Great. Now I'm thinking of pizza. You're not helping.

Again yes that make sense also.. your personal arsenal necessitate you schooling your self outside of core NGA syllabus yes.. that is all cool..

Though can I ask you please because you are persuaded to seek additions to your core NGA then there is not implication in this that NGA is insufficient as title of this thread to be a well-rounded system that it require out side agency to fix gaps it cannot it self fix??? thank you again x

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think the mistake is in believing that doing a bit of crosstraining will give someone the skills they need to out-grapple a grappling specialist. That won't happen. If you want to out-grapple a grappling specialist, then you need to become a grappling specialist.

Sometimes you don't have to actually out-grapple the specialist. You just have to be able to survive long enough to escape and re-establish your preferred range.

In the early days of MMA, grapplers dominated almost every fight. Then came the era of strikers who learned just enough grappling to protect themselves long enough to escape and get back to their "A" game. Finally we got to the modern era of fighters who are highly proficient in all ranges.

As to dealing with the possibility of finding yourself on the ground with an adversary in a self-defense situation, yes it would be foolish to believe that could never happen to you. So what is the solution? The two extremes would be to do nothing to prepare for it, or become a grappling specialist. Or you can find something in between. You could evaluate your needs, your talents, your interests, and the time and energy you are willing to invest in it, and work on solutions to at least escape that situation so that you can then manage your defense and your ultimate escape from a more comfortable position on your feet. What you feel is appropriate, is up to you. Just be realistic about your decision.

Yep. For most self-defense purposes you don't need to be able to out-grapple a specialist. I'd say a good benchmark would be this: if you are tackled to the ground by a larger, stronger opponent who has some decent natural grappling instincts or a little experience doing backyard wrestling with his friends, and this guy gets mounted on you and tries to punch your face in, can you protect yourself and get back to your feet? If so, you have enough ground fighting expertise for the vast majority of self-defense situations.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I teach a basic hip throw (okay, it might actually be 3 different throws in Judo). I do it pretty well. With your deeper Judo background, you probably do it (meaning them) better.

Maybe. My throws are actually pretty mediocre overall, although I have occasional days when things just click.

 

[Steve]

Sometimes you don't have to actually out-grapple the specialist. You just have to be able to survive long enough to escape and re-establish your preferred range.

In the early days of MMA, grapplers dominated almost every fight. Then came the era of strikers who learned just enough grappling to protect themselves long enough to escape and get back to their "A" game. Finally we got to the modern era of fighters who are highly proficient in all ranges.



Yep. For most self-defense purposes you don't need to be able to out-grapple a specialist. I'd say a good benchmark would be this: if you are tackled to the ground by a larger, stronger opponent who has some decent natural grappling instincts or a little experience doing backyard wrestling with his friends, and this guy gets mounted on you and tries to punch your face in, can you protect yourself and get back to your feet? If so, you have enough ground fighting expertise for the vast majority of self-defense situations.

Defense is quicker to learn than offense, I think. I would say anyone with the equivalent of a blue belt in BJJ (not specifically that, but at about that level), will do just fine in most grappling situations. You might not be able to win the ADCC or the Mundials, but you'll have decent body awareness, and have enough experience to avoid making unnecessary mistakes. We're talking a year or two of training with people who know what they're doing.