Well-Rounded Fighters vs. Intelligently Specialized Fighters

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Street/Reality Fighting
1

The way most of the responses on the “drawbacks of your style” thread got me thinking… The common consensus seems to be that a responsable fighter should be aiming to develop skills in all areas of martial ability. Not that every good fighter is going to be a carbon-copy of each other, but only that they should share the same general skill set: good kicking ability, good striking ability, good bridging ability, good clinching ability, good wrestling ability, good submission ability, etc. Where they get each of those abilites is open to some interpretation.

There has been, not just here, but everywhere in the martial community, a dramatically popular trend towards “mixed martial artists.” The motto of the breed seems to be: you’d better be ready for EVERY situation! Sound advice, surely. For better or worse, their influence has resulted in the conclusions outlined above: to be ready for every situation you have to develop skill in every component of martial ability.

But I was wondering… is this really true?

Surely you have to be prepared for every situation. But to do this, do you have to be well-rounded in the way that most people define the term? To deal with “every situation” do I really need to become skilled at every “kind” of technique?

Personally, I believe the answer to this question is NO. I have always been an advocate of a strategy/principle-based approach rather than a technique-based one, and this manifests itself again here. Furthermore, I’m a minimalist, in martial outlook and otherwise. This is definitely biasing my outlook. Nonetheless, I think you can be prepared for every situation not by mastering kinds of techniques, but rather - kinds of strategies.

To illustrate, let me take the example of what is actually a growing combination: an aikido and BJJ practitioner. Now, if you have problems with either of these arts, let’s just put those aside for now, for the sake of theoretical discussion. Imagine a really skilled fighter trained extensively but only in aikido and BJJ. From a technique-based outlook, this fighter would be extremely deficient - he would have essentially no striking, kicking, or bridging skills. But is he prepared for every situation? I think he is. Because I don’t think there is such a situation as “Ok, you have to box now.” There is only the situation “Ok, you have to deal with someone boxing you now.” In other words, you don’t have to be prepared to box, you have to prepared to DEAL WITH boxing.

Our theoretical practitioner can do this. He is extremely skilled at entering methods, blending energy, controlling energy, and bridging (not in the conventional sense, but) from any range to the takedown. His skills in BJJ prepare him not only for an unlucky ground encounter, but also for flowing smoothly from his takedowns into a submission.

Now if you don’t like my specific example, that’s fine. But think about my general thesis. What is a well-rounded fighter?

2

Ok lets look at your example.
The BJJ guy comes up against a boxer,but not any boxer,this boxer also does wrestling.So now everytime that the BJJ guy tries to take the Boxer/Wrestler to the ground the B/W sprawles to avoid the take down and then effectively strikes the BJJ guy.
Take the same approach and put a Kick Boxer with good strategy against a BJJ guy who trains also in Boxing.The BJJ guy knows how to defend strikes and so diffuses the Kickboxers strikes and then when the time is right takes him to the ground and finnishes him.
What my examples are trying to tell you is that the fighter with more weapons or more well rounded has the better fighting advantage.

3

Very good question.

I train in kung fu and have ideas how to deal with certain fighting types. For instance, we always get told that boxers are used to getting punched in the head, and have a lot of conditioning on their upper half. So, we are taught to attack the legs, try and go for locks, and also takedowns.

Now if I was defending myself against a guy outside a pub or something and he took me to the ground, he would be taking away a lot of my weapons- as I train mostly from standing up. I would be my lack of technique ie ground fighting that would increase his chances of beating me.

I know the obvious way to avoid this is to control the situation and not get taken to the ground, but it’s easy for someone to come up from behind and take you down before you know it.

Nothing is to be feared, only understood…

4

>>To deal with “every situation” do I really need to become skilled at every “kind” of technique?<<

No, you just have to become skilled in all ranges.

>>I have always been an advocate of a strategy/principle-based approach rather than a technique-based one<<

As I said earlier this week, strategy takes a back seat to tactics.

>>To illustrate, let me take the example of what is actually a growing combination: an aikido and BJJ practitioner. Now, if you have problems with either of these arts, let’s just put those aside for now, for the sake of theoretical discussion. Imagine a really skilled fighter trained extensively but only in aikido and BJJ. From a technique-based outlook, this fighter would be extremely deficient - he would have essentially no striking, kicking, or bridging skills. But is he prepared for every situation? I think he is. Because I don’t think there is such a situation as “Ok, you have to box now.” There is only the situation “Ok, you have to deal with someone boxing you now.” In other words, you don’t have to be prepared to box, you have to prepared to DEAL WITH boxing.<<

Most cases require fighting fire with fire, like fighting BJJ requires that you learn BJJ (enogh to survive anyway). Or you have to be able to box a boxer long enough to set up your takedown if you are a grappler. No way around it.

It’s simple really, if you are unfamiliar or unskilled in a fighting range and you find yourself in it, and you are unable to transition to another range then its bad news for you. A well rounded fighter is prepared for any range.

I feel sorry for people who don’t drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that’s as good as they’re going to feel all day.
–Frank Sinatra

5

Real good topic.

To use Knightsabres example, the A/BJJ guy may not be able to use a wrestling takedown but he could switch to using a lock or an irimi from Aikido against the b/w. The boxer can then counter with jabs to keep the a/bjj from closing, to which the a/bjj could counter by pivoting behind the boxer and go for a head control, the b/w could counter with… Get the point? It could go on and on.

IMO many of the well rounded fighters do specialize in certain areas, I think they’re effectivness comes from training against people from outside of those areas. It’s like a Wing Chun guy practicing kick defenses against another pure wing Chun guy instead of a Savate or TKD person, or a TKD person practicing takedown counters against another pure TKD person instead someone with BJJ experience. It’s ok, but just not the best way.

6

actually just because a bjj guy fights a man who doesnt know wrestling doesnt mean he is gonna win there is no guarantee in anything.. and i know alot of kungfu systems that have techqiues to help defend against ground fighting, i mean if you truly wanna beat a grappler one of the easyest things to do is oil down your body or fight with out a shirt on so they have nothing to grab… there is nothing wrong with being a well rounded fighter but we must also remmeber the most important thing is to MASTER ONE art first.. once you have mastered one system or style.. then if you want to learn more thats ok.. but it doesnt make sence you learning a bunch of systems or styles and you havent mastered anyone of them.. because if your up against a person who mastered there style you will have a huge disadvantage.. no matter how many differnt arts you do..

7

“Oiling your body” - hmmm can’t argue with that one.

8

Oiling your body makes it tha much easier for me to slide my arm around your throat and choke you out. :smiley:

Anyhow I do not the see the point of “mastering” one art first. What is the point?

I feel sorry for people who don’t drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that’s as good as they’re going to feel all day.
–Frank Sinatra

9

First, let me say that the most dangerous technique is the one that I’ve never seen.

Second, Jedi is on the right track, but I’d say it’s POSITION above range.

No matter what art we are talking about, can you fight standing? What about from your back? What about on your back? Kneeling, clinched, on one leg, mounted, mounting, cross mounted, with a knee in your stomach, on your knees, running, etc? Now what about an opponent to the front, flanks, etc? A combination of opponent’s in these positions?

NEVER assume that you will be able to stay out of one of these positions. I know that the human body can only move in so many ways, but stick a few of them together and the specific scenarios of any attack are practically infinite.

If you want to “specialize”, make sure that you specialize in fighting from every single position imaginable.
JWT

If you pr!ck us, do we not bleed? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that the villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. MOV

10

jjj its hard to rap your arm around some ones throat when they know what there doin.. :slight_smile:

well for one thing if you master one art first it would make it easyer to learn others.. another thing is if you learn alot of differnt stuff with out mastering anyone of them your fight wont be clean and you will be a poor fighter.. And thats why they call masters masters because thats what they are, people who mastered an art or arts.. now im not saying you cant try to master more then one at the same time or one after another (the latter is better).. but if you do try to master arts at the same time.. for one thing it will take longer and second more then likely you would confuse yourself..

[This message was edited by ope on 04-05-01 at 08:16 AM.]

11

Range encompasses positions, grappling range includes knee on chest back etc.

>>jjj its hard to rap your arm around some ones throat when they know what there doin..<<

Defending the rnc is primarially a BJJ technique, thanks for helping me make my point.

>>well for one thing if you master one art first it would make it easyer to learn others.. another thing is if you learn alot of differnt stuff with out mastering anyone of them your fight wont be clean and you will be a poor fighter..<<

MMA typically try to become proficient at fundamentals. Practicioners who have them are very efficient and effective so your argument is weak.

I feel sorry for people who don’t drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that’s as good as they’re going to feel all day.
–Frank Sinatra

12

im not trying to make an arguement im just giving my opinion on what i have seen with students… and i think part of mastering a system or style also includes mastery of proficient at fundamentals, the whole part of mastering a system is to master the principals behind it.. if you cant do that then you cant master it..

“Defending the rnc is primarially a BJJ technique”

what book did you read this from?

13

Oh I don’t know, I am on your back with the hooks in trying to apply a rear naked choke, we do this in BJJ all the time, how to apply it and how to defend against it, so how am I far off base for saying it is primarially a BJJ tech? Who uses it more than us?

I feel sorry for people who don’t drink.
When they wake up in the morning,
that’s as good as they’re going to feel all day.
–Frank Sinatra

14

I have seen variations of the rare naked choke used by burmese naban guys, by japenese jujitsu guys, by judo guys, even by some silat guys.

In some format or another the rnc seems to be a global tech, maybe not the exact same way a BJJ player does it but in some fashion or another.

John Wayne and others answered the question so well I can not realy think of anything to add except for the important inclusion of practical weapon training methods to cover all of your bases.

This would include knife, stick and firearm work and the incorporation of this training in different positions and ranges like training to use the knife when one is trapped on the ground or on one knee.

Regards

15

Would someone mind defining “mastery” of a style.

Thanks.

Stuart

16

>>>> have seen variations of the rare naked choke used by burmese naban guys, by japenese jujitsu guys, by judo guys, even by some silat guys.<<<<

Yeah, but the point was that BJJ guys would find themselves in that position a lot more than most other arts, and therefor would be the most familiar (ie the most practiced) at defending, applying, countering, countering-counters, etc.

Sure the hip throw might be in a lot of systems, but somebody who primarily studies Judo, Greco, or SJ would be much more familiar with applying it and countering it. Get it?

Back to the topic…

I think specialists can be successful, but they still must cross-train and become familiar with all ranges of combat. No matter what your strategy is, you can be taken out of that strategy. If you are then in an unfamiliar postion, you’ll be hurting. Just take the Aikidoka/BJJ example. If he fights a boxer familiar with takedowns and aikido-like blending and throwing, then chances are the Aikido/BJJ guys will be out of luck, and he’ll be eating through a straw for the next few weeks. Now-a-days it is pretty much about who can effectively take the other fighter out of familiar ranges and into one that he is more familiar with.

“Who’s house?”
“I said RUN’s house.”

17

my perception of it

I feel the answer is really in the middle. The way I see it is that you should train heavily in an art that fits you. And just “dabble” in other arts that fight in other ranges. This will give you some tools and some ideas of what those types of fighters will use. Now you can build those things into your main art. Am I making sense?
Ok if I’m not here is an example.
I train AKKI Kenpo. Its weak in kicking and has a little ground work but not much. So I might decide to take traditional TKD for say 4-6 months to help my leggwork a a little and expose me to kicking fighters so I can learn what to expect. Now I might train BJJ for maybe 3 months to strengthen my already existing ground curriculum.
I’m not going to go out and train for years in all of these other styles…its just not nessisary. I can use what I am already strong with and mesh it with the new stuff and strengthen everything.
Now obviously in the future i would retrain in those other arts to brush up on them and any possible new deveolpments but thats besides the point.
Just my 2 cents

Assumption is the mother of tragedy. Just keep and open mind and be ready

18

Mastery…

Stuart,

I will try to give my understanding and my beliefs as well as to what constitutes a “master” of a martial art.

I believe that Mastery can be traditionally conferred from father to son as “head of a system” or also from a teacher to thier desciples who will carry on the traditions.

As a title, Master is overused.

A buddy of mine is a Grandmaster marksman with rifles, shotguns and pistols, qualified as master with thrown and missile weapons. He gained those certifications by being able to meet a set of criteria repeatedly for a number of years. Mastery of a skill to him is understanding the principles and repeatability of the application of that skill.

In the martial arts, the term gets bogged down with spiritual and social connotations and expectations. Master is often represented as meaning many more things than it really does. A master is not “undefeatable” or “invulnerable”. A master can die in a car accident or from a cold, just like anyone else. A master can get beaten in a fight and is not less a master of thier art. If they are, then the BJJ guys must have no master level practitioners…kidding!

Being a master is often a position within an organization. My understanding is that they are “teachers to teachers” within that organization. The skills and time that they have put in have a value above what other practitioners may currently hold. They also are able to “reproduce” themselves with desciples, by instructing them to a level that will allow for the next generation of practitioners to continue in the traditions and practices within their art as well as expanding the art.

It is nice to get recognition as such from others in the field, but not necessary. Often a master practitioner will be too busy living the tenets of thier art to focus on announcing thier skill or standing. Many go unrecognized.

My buddy doesnt go around saying, “hi…Im grandmaster BOB and I am an olympic grade marksman with firearms and certified to teach in lethal force institutes and also teach police and military special forces.”

That would be crass.

It doesnt remove his mastery if he misses a shot, he would just apply the principles he has learned to correct his error and improve his technique.

I think that is what a master is. Someone who knows technique such that they can succesfully repeat a skill and instruct others to that level in the given skill.

Just my humble opinion…

just a few pennies from a pig…

IronPig

19

Ford, I would not consider that a total truth as you did not take into consideration the personal and prefered fighting methods of the individual fighter.

The person who would have the best shot at executing a certain technique is the one who personaly favors and works that tech the most.

A bjj player who realy like the triangle choke as his signature card move would seem to be at a disadvantage to another player who works the rnc to a great degree as his favorite submission.

To say that bjj is the owner of the rear naked choke in terms of always being in that position the most would be a big call as there are a lot of esotric and rare grappling arts that are out there who work a large variety of submission holds and positions.

Naban for example is not a commonplace grappling art that one could just go down and find at there local dojo but it is a extremely comprehensive grappling and groundfighting system that includes the use of the rear naked choke as well as many other submission and non-sport groundfighting tactics that would make it hard to say who has the up on what move.

The move belongs to the person who practices it the most.

Regards

20

Ironpig,

I think that’s an excellent definition of a master. I know there was a separate thread on this recently too. Some good answers there as well.

Here’s my point. (Let’s remain optimistic that I have one [grin])

Ope suggests that we first “master” one art before going on to learn another. My feeling is that, if the word denotes a place within an organization or a recognition from others regarding your level of skill, then it doesn’t really serve as a guidepost for when it’s okay to study something else.

Nothing is going to occur in the life of a practitioner that makes them “know” that they have mastered their art, in my opinion. As you said, your friend doesn’t go around calling himself Master. It’s a recognition by others.

So how do we, as individuals, deem ourselves ready to study something else? How do we gauge our own mastery?

Personally, I have trained in several different styles. Not bragging. In truth, I initially made the switch from taekwondo to eskrima out of (among other factors) cowardice. I was no longer the best guy in the class, so rather than stay and persevere, I decided to go and learn something else.

Hardly a decision based on mastery.

But a decade later, I’m not sure that my initial reasoning matters much. I don’t feel that I’ve suffered any for not having mastered taekwondo. There are certainly things in taekwondo that I envy. The guy that originally drove me from the style is a very good friend of mine now. And I envy what he can do.

But I’m also glad for the training opportunities I’ve had. And for the view of martial arts that it’s given me.

No master, though.

Stuart