Why do people do multiple Martial Art Techniques?

While reading some of the people's messages I noticed a lot of people use more than one style. Do you think that makes you better? Why?

It's a natual transition to want to learn multiple arts as you progress. At the moment I study Goju, BJJ, and Iaido. The BJJ is incorported into our school but the Iaido practice is an hour away. I practice the Iaido a lot by myself but still one need a Sensei for all the little corrections and fine details. Nothing wrong with multiple arts "so long as you hold one as your core/main art". The other arts should only be part time and not flaunted at your regular dojo, your Sensei will freak if you start doing some weird kata in his shool....trust me.

Hmmmm....

"Better" is a loaded word, so I will simply say that I have studied several MA because I have not found one single art that covers every range as well as I would like.

exactly my point. When a person studies more than one MA they are trying to fill missing gaps in what schanne called your "core" art. But althought, Schanne, they are used to complete the your core art, how is it completing or even helping when all you are doing is adding a new complicaion?

How is it adding a new complication? Making yourself a more well-rounded fighter simplifies things.

If you only know how to stand-up fight and you get taken to the ground, then you will either flail around or be focused on getting back up. If you know stand-up along with grappling/groundfighting, then you can use your skills there and not be taken advantage of.
The same can be said for the opposite.

Joel

Why do people do multiple Martial Art Techniques?

Because it's a whole lot of FUN [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JoelM:
How is it adding a new complication? Making yourself a more well-rounded fighter simplifies things.

If you only know how to stand-up fight and you get taken to the ground, then you will either flail around or be focused on getting back up. If you know stand-up along with grappling/groundfighting, then you can use your skills there and not be taken advantage of.
The same can be said for the opposite.

Joel[/QUOTE]

Because believe or not different style conflict each other because they're all complete styles. Karate and Judo are both two complete martial arts and MAs styles, except for a chosen few, are not flexible so when you do both you complicate your techniques. It is like wearing a winter jacket over another winter jacket that just looks different, uncomfortable isn't it.

I know I don't konw everything, but I've never seen a karateka grapple before...

I liken it to wearing a winter jacket, which fits you great, and then adding to it a pair of winter pants, which help keep the rest of your body warm.

You don't have to take every single bit from every single style you study, as it has been said hundreds of times before on this board, Use what works, discard the rest.

But at least that's my thinking on it, I know some people are more traditional and only want to study one style. That's great for them, but not for me. I'll study anything as long as I can take something from it.

There are differnt paths to the top of the mountain, but once at the top, the view is the same.

I want to take every path...

Joel

SuperhumanK,

I think you have made up your mind, and I am not trying to be antagonisic to your take on things, however, I believe you are only considering "your" take on martial arts. The answers I think have been stated earlier: others feel that there are deficiencies in their studies (maybe from the way they are taught, not necessarily the art) or choose other arts for fun.

In any case, either by the student's perceived necessity or his/her enjoyment, it doesn't matter....it is the student's perogative and his or her choice...not your recommendations that count.

Regards,
-B

I have to disagree that different styles conflict with each other and that they are ALL complete styles. Complete in what sense? Does every style available today provide training in all ranges of fighting? No. If all styles where complete in the sense that they did train for all ranges of fighting then they would compliment each other.

The fact that today several schools are teaching a combination of systems brought together to cover the "gaps" should tell you that many arts are complimentary regardless of their lines of attack/defense. It is possible to study a "hard style" and a "soft style" together. It's the way you train that makes the difference.

I do feel someone should have a good understanding of one primary art before seeking out additional arts if only for the purpose of having a reference point. In the end fighting is fighting, the mechanics are the same. Different styles only provide you with a different means to getting there. When people mention Japanese/Okinawan karate as being impractical because it's too rigid or for whatever other reason, many fail to realize that the way you are taught isn't always the way you fight. This does tend to be a problem because some will argue that it is. The reason i say this is because at one point you must learn the basic mechanics of the techniques. Once they are learned you need to learn to flow through the technique then learn to apply it to resistance. Unfortunately a lot of practitioners and even worse, teachers, have lost sight of this and believe they are going to be effective in a fight by doing one step sparring or applying techniques they have never practiced against a resisting opponent. What’s the point? It doesn't matter if you study tae kwon do, shotokan or any other striking art the end result should be the same with proper training. Various forms of kempo/kenpo cover the various ranges of fighting just as the bujinkan does. They both incorporate various methods you would consider "contradictory" to each other, but when properly trained and understood they compliment each other.

I've trained in several arts over the last 10 years for two reasons. The first is due to my job i wasn't in on place for more than a month and had to train with whom ever i could regardless of style. The second reason was i wanted to have a better understanding of the various arts available and compare them. I feel i've grown more as a martial artist in these last ten years because of this versatility than if i stayed with only one style.

You mentioned you studied shotokan previously and now take JKD. Isn't JKD founded on the basis of several arts/fighting styles that Bruce trained and took what he felt was effective for him?

Please understand that I am not trying to convince but trying to understand why people don't think it is a complication. JKD is a mixture of arts but modified arts nothing is the same, plus once modify and take the time to get the philosophy and science right you will not be able to see the mixture. You have probably seen it because you have read about it.

Let me clear up what I mean by "complete". When the creater develop the style, he did not stop in the middle of the creation he completed it. It is like wrighting a paper and fininshing it to the conclusion, that is what I mean. I truly don't believe their are gaps in Martial Arts, and if it sounds like I did or if I did by accident then I appologize. The creators did not want to do certain things and I believe in not messing with something that seems to work fine.

Now, personnally I do not consider styles like Hapkido to be a blend anymore because they have been created so that it doesn't look like what it came from but to be its own entity just like JKD.

I am not trying to convince and convert just want to understand the everyday Martial Artist.

Thanks for your inputs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Superhumank:
It is like wearing a winter jacket over another winter jacket that just looks different, uncomfortable isn't it.[/QUOTE]

worst analogy ever.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rideonlythelabel:
worst analogy ever.[/QUOTE]

Well sorry, that is all I could think of at the time. Don't have to be that critical!

No ne art has ever got it completely right. Thats why people study multiple arts.

It can become complicated if your learn sixty different katas and 1000s of different techniques. However, isnt the goal to be better? To do this you use what works for you. Take what you can do well from each style. Things that will be easy to perform and will save your life some day. Once you've done this then you find that the list isnt that big at all. From each different style you may only take a few techniques. you might take two or you might take twenty. (doubt it) So if you only have a handful of techniques you can train them more effectively and become even better at what you are already good at. This is how you must defend yourself. Get the opponent to fall into your game, or take him out of his.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JoelM:
I know I don't konw everything, but I've never seen a karateka grapple before...
Joel[/QUOTE]

Well, you haven't seen me!

All American Goju Karate
Guess what? We grapple! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]
It has been done for many years, taking one style mixing with what works from another.
Take Goju for example:Shaolin King Fu with emphasis on the whitecrane style/Kempo/Okinawan Te=Goju
That's how it works.We have incorporated groundfighting/grappling into our class because it works.Don't just be a striker or grappler be both. And yeah,we're better for it [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

Cross training is necessary these days, because like others have said, not all the arts cover everything.

Well, kinda. Let me explain what I mean.

Statement: I do Karate, so have striking skills, but want to grapple.

Now, if you stick to Karate for 40 years, or have the handful of teachers that know grappling bunkai, fine. However, most of us cannot wait that long just to recieve a skill, and why should we? If you want to learn how to grapple, start a BJJ class and you'll learn it right away.

The same applies for every skill one wishes to learn. I posted a thread because I was tird of my art, and wanted to find a combination of a few that would cover everything I need, but couldn't really do it. Weapons (alone this will need at least 2 arts, given that some weapons are not taught in some systems), Grappling, Striking, Pressure Points, Chi Sao, Covering every fighting range, etc.

One art just won't cover it all. The problem is when people start training in lots of arts and become a jack of no trades.

I think the ideal is to combine 2 (3 maximum) arts that should cover everything you as an individual wish to train in.


Mark.

So I believe everyone here believes that a person should practice like two or three MAs so that they can get the skills they want faster, right? That is fine, my problem was that some people thought their were gaps in MA styles, and they wanted to fill them.

Superhumank,

are you reading any of the posts being made?
there are numerous posts all puting together similar, coherent points but you seem unwilling to even consider them

"my problem was that some people thought their were gaps in MA styles, and they wanted to fill them."


wait for this shocking revelation but,
yes there are gaps in martial arts styles, it may not be just a matter of learning them faster with another school - certain things may not exist in certain arts. some arts emphasise weaponry, some dont. some styles grapple, or may have exceptionally good (or bad) footwork and ranges in their system, studying another art to gain these extra points may be the only way to ever experience certain methods and techniques.

say for instance that you wanted to learn how to use and/or defend from a knife attack, my previous system (hapkido) had unrealistic defences that i knew would result in getting cut up quite easily.

after i started practising arnis i found some much more effective methods of defending against knives - because that art specialised in them. in the case of hapkido knife work was underemphasised because it was more concentrating on unarmed vs unarmed defence.

there are many techniques that are complimentary between arts, to use my hapkido/arnis again, i found the unarmed component on arnis to be similar to the joint manipulations of hapkido, and it helped my understanding of both arts

you seem to have this idea that every single art is absolutely perfect and contains every possible technique (if this was so there would be only one martial art with no variance between diferent teachers or schools)

this is also flawed by the simple fact that it is impossible to know and be profficient in every possible technique.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Meanstreak:
Superhumank,

are you reading any of the posts being made?
there are numerous posts all puting together similar, coherent points but you seem unwilling to even consider them

"my problem was that some people thought their were gaps in MA styles, and they wanted to fill them."


wait for this shocking revelation but,
yes there are gaps in martial arts styles, it may not be just a matter of learning them faster with another school - certain things may not exist in certain arts. some arts emphasise weaponry, some dont. some styles grapple, or may have exceptionally good (or bad) footwork and ranges in their system, studying another art to gain these extra points may be the only way to ever experience certain methods and techniques.

say for instance that you wanted to learn how to use and/or defend from a knife attack, my previous system (hapkido) had unrealistic defences that i knew would result in getting cut up quite easily.

after i started practising arnis i found some much more effective methods of defending against knives - because that art specialised in them. in the case of hapkido knife work was underemphasised because it was more concentrating on unarmed vs unarmed defence.

there are many techniques that are complimentary between arts, to use my hapkido/arnis again, i found the unarmed component on arnis to be similar to the joint manipulations of hapkido, and it helped my understanding of both arts

you seem to have this idea that every single art is absolutely perfect and contains every possible technique (if this was so there would be only one martial art with no variance between diferent teachers or schools)

this is also flawed by the simple fact that it is impossible to know and be profficient in every possible technique.

[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to read all the posts but it is hard when you've only been for a few weeks. And what I mean by a gap is an incompletion from the creator, a point when creator says, "Well I'll stop there finish later" and something happens, they die and the style is incomplete. Those are gaps, have you ever thought that maybe Karate is a grapple heavy style or BJJ is not a striking heavy style, of course you have, everyone I have read says so. It is just that you want to learn another style because YOU feel incomplete in the style, and that is fine. Every style has its pros and cons, but that is not a gap. And another thing just because something is impractical, it doesn't mean it is a gap.

Superhumank -

????????????????????????

Incompletion by the creator? What does that mean?

Impractical is not a gap? What exactly would you call it?

If you approach the same problem from different angles you'll get a different view of it and often a different solution too.

In Tae Kwon Do they teach me to strike in certain ways and also how to respond to those. In Bujinkan it is different yet and likewise also the responses. Same again for Aiki-no-jutsu.

It's very like computer programming in a way. I can solve the same general sorts of problems via either Perl or Python. And while those are good, would that I also knew Ruby, Smalltalk and C. Each is fine, in its own way. But they are all different ways. And you simply can't know too many ways to solve a problem it seems to me.

One way to solve a problem might be better than others in a given situation. Be it martial arts or any other kind of system whatever, no one single approach is going to be omnipotent.

Most of all, though, is that MA is just more fun that way. Of the three styles I study at present, one is favorite. But the other two are still rewarding.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Superhumank:
I'm trying to read all the posts but it is hard when you've only been for a few weeks. And what I mean by a gap is an incompletion from the creator, a point when creator says, "Well I'll stop there finish later" and something happens, they die and the style is incomplete. Those are gaps, have you ever thought that maybe Karate is a grapple heavy style or BJJ is not a striking heavy style, of course you have, everyone I have read says so. It is just that you want to learn another style because YOU feel incomplete in the style, and that is fine. Every style has its pros and cons, but that is not a gap. And another thing just because something is impractical, it doesn't mean it is a gap.[/QUOTE]

If a style doesnt include certain ranges that are required for self defense, then yes there are gaps. Not because of the student but because of the style. Thats why cross training is important.

Superhumank,

when i asked if you were reading the posts, i meant were you reading the points put forward by the other members in response to the topic you posted.

to clarify (finally i hope) we aren't saying that these gaps exist because the person who invented the art was malicious and wanted to confuse everyone, we say that because there is no art that covers every single possibility/range/defence/attack/philosophy

its impossible

maybe everyone except you has a different understanding of the use of the term gap?

If there are things that are impractical being taught as part of your curriculum, I think that qualifies as a "gap", at least in a practical sense.

Superhmank,

By your definition of a "complete style", if i were to create my own style and decided that there were only 3 effective techniques and included all three in my system then it would be complete.

Unfortunately what everyone else thinks of as a "complete" system is quite a bit different. What we think of as a complete system really has nothing to do with the creator vision of his art. It has to do with how the system covers ALL ranges of fighting.


A lot of times, especially today, many systems do cover several ranges of fighting even if it wasn't originally part of the system. In many striking arts grappling is covered but very minimally compared to say jujutsu. This is part of the reason some cross train. They see a need to learn all ranges of fighting and instead of settling for the minimal amount of say grappling or striking they may receive in their current system they branch out to other systems that FOCUSES on that particular range of fighting.

This is the "gap" in the systems. It's not there because the founder gave up half way through. With a lot of Japanese systems there is a focus on a particular range for a reason. A lot of the arts came about as a means of perfecting a certain portion of fighting as a whole. If you look at the samurai their range of fighting on a broader scale included several weapons not just the standard grappling, striking, etc. In order to be more efficient each weapon or range was eventually broken down into it's own art in order to be perfected. When each portion or range was perfected they would be a more effective fighter as a whole.

Many people today are just doing the same thing using existing styles. They are going to styles that focus on specific ranges of fighting in order to become more proficient in that area and become a more effective fighter as a whole.

many people learn new words they think it helps them read better

I think thier is a misunderstanding in what we call gaps and complete. My opinion is that if something doesn't work for you, calling it a gap is incorrect. If you do multiple MAs that is great, but just because a style doesn't cover all aspects of fighting doesn't mean it is gapped. No MA can cover everything and they're people who want to focus on just certain fighting aspects such as strikes, grapples, kicks, punches, etc. Don't you guys think that makes sense.

I think that I understand your definitions, but I don't think that anybody else uses them the way that you do.

If an art does not cover a certain area, then there is a gap in it being a complete art for self defense, which I believe others use as their base for definition as well as me.

Yes, there are people who want to only cover certain aspects of fighting (grapples, kicks, punches, etc), but those of us who want a complete, well-rounded training will study more than one art.

Joel

[This message has been edited by JoelM (edited 01-18-2005).]

Agree with JoelM.

However, I do think that EVERY art (not including newer formed arts e.g. Sport Karate) covers EVERY range, however, we never usually get to see as it's only taught to 7th Dans after 40 years of training. (generality)

For instance, if I stayed at my Shotokan class for 20 more years, Sensei Kanazawa would probably pass down some advanced Bunkai, but nowadays people don't want to wait that long.

And neither do I. If I was living the disciple's life in China, one style was my entire way of life, fine. But I'm not....doing that.


Mark.

Different Arts offer different benefits. Chinese footwork, Korean kicks, Japanese & Western hand techniques, brazilian groundfighting, Jun Fan trapping, grappling, and entering techniques. When you feed your body, do you eat one food? No, you get a blanaced diet of varied things. Martial Arts is the same way. Over specialize in one area and you breed in weakness. Balance in training gives you balance in defence.

Lets try this Analogy ...

Your writing an essay in high school. It's about, Hell I dunno, Calculus. You know calculus like the back of your hand. If someone asked you about a calculus problem, you could show them the proper way to do it in 3 seconds flat. But, nobodys asking you to make a speech, or a presentation about it. You have to *Write* an essay. Sadly ...Your grammar sucks. You don't know where to place punctuation, and your dog spells better then you. Therein lies that all important "GAP".

So, what do you do? Well, you either go to after school tutorials, or stop skipping english. The point being, you take alternate classes to fill that gap.

When whoever invented, or discovered calculus did so, he didn't think to himself "Man, I better add a How To on Essay Writing." Because it has nothing to do with Calculus. Same goes for TKD, or whathaveyou ...They didn't think to add a bunch of ground-fighting techniques in there, for probably various reasons. Maybe the japanese of chinese didn't do much ground fighting? Wars generally aren't fought with thousands of people on top of each other, doing choke-holds and arm-bars.

Nor is there anything wrong with being well-rounded ...with anything! whether it be Martial Arts, Academics, whatever. For some people its merely the pursuit of expanding ones horizons.

There are gaps ..But that doesn't make something incomplete. It only makes it incomplete depending on what you choose to incorporate it in (i.e. UFC where ground-fighting is commonplace).

uuuuuuuuh .... I lost my train of thought.

-Ket

[This message has been edited by Ket (edited 01-19-2005).]