Well rounded vs. "mastery"?

[CQC]

Hey guys, here's a question that goes out to everyone of all styles.

Would you rather have a very proficient understanding, including experience and useage of a single art (this could be either stand up fighting or grappling), as opposed to moderate understanding, experience and useage of more than one art?

As for the former, you would work very defensively against your "opposing" skill, your main focus and plan of attack being your single art.

The scenarios would be a street confrontation and a MMA fight.

Edited November 6, 2005 by CQC

[ovine king]

i've never been sure that these types of questions have any validity or bear any relevance to how one should train.

in a street fight, there are too many variables as to the result of the fight.

in a ring fight, you have no control over how good the other guy is in what they do, not to mention the luck factor.

on the other hand, if you're purely talking hypotheticals, then the seemingly logical answer would be that absolute mastery in one means you won't need the other. However, we all know that absolute mastery does not exist so this is just another unstoppable object versus immovable object.

[CQC]

It's all hypothetical, of course.

It's an opinion as to which someone would prefer. I think I made a mistake when I said "mastery" of an art. What I meant was a very proficient understanding, including experience and useage of a single art, as opposed to moderate understanding, experience and useage of more than one art.

I edited the first post to reflect this.

[Sauzin]

Who says a single art can't be well rounded?

As far as the studying one art or many thing. I'd prefer one art by far. You'll get more out of it, a deeper understanding which cannot be understated. This has very little to do with being well rounded thuogh, as once you acheive this deeper understanding you can choose to find other arts or disiplines to apply it to.

[Shorinryu Sensei]

I agree with Sauzin, one GOOD art is just fine with me....but that depends a lot on the art IMHO. My chosen art has served me well in several street encounters.

As for a MMA sport fight...beats me, as I have no interest at all, and never have had, in entering an event like that. Shorin Ryu isn't designed for playing and winning trophies and purses, it's designed to save your rear end in a street fight.

[h2whoa]

To be efficient in one style is great (well better than no style), however if your one style is not efficient in all eight ranges of fighting (e.g hapkido is efficient in all eight ranges, TKD is efficient at kicking range, not so much at punching trapping range, and is not efficient at grappkling ground fighting range, boxing is supreme at punching range, but cannot kick, ground fight or trap, Judo is good at grappling wrestling and trapping but cannot fight that well in kicking range).

So it really depends but generally and ststistics of things like UFC prove, MMA is the thing of the Now and the future.

*bows respectfully*

[Muaythaiboxer]

well honestly i would rather be well rounded, there is always a weakness in every style so by haveing more tools available to me, if they where a better striker i would go for the takedown, if they happen to be a better grappler i will attempt to strike, they they are better at both i will clinch fight, if they have everthing on me i will utillize my proficent skill at long distence running lol. i think being well rounded makes me a better martial artist than if i where only to take one art.

AMITABHA

[Bleeding Lion]

if by well rounded you mean having a decent understanding of essential aspect of fighting (grappling, ground fighting, striking...) then i would choose it over expertise. Why? because i never liked the idea of specialization which in my mind is being narrow-minded.

btw, thats my excuse for not getting a phD lol.

[shogeri]

I would say that if neither hypothetical person did anything other than:

a) practice only their system,

or

b) practice a multitude of systems

Then the person in b, would not only have a basic understanding of a, but of other systems as well.

It comes down to basics.

Once you are past a given point in your training, you are more than likely modifying, or adding to what you know, but it will always come down to how often, how well, and how much a person focuses on the basic principles of combat along with the techniques that go along with them.

Person 'b', in theory, will have more basic principles than that of 'a'. A might have more techniques, but again, so might 'b'.

There are too many variables no matter how one slices it. It comes down to the person, and not necessarily only what they know.

In addition to techniques, and principes of application (combat), situations vary as well. Such as physical condition of both fighters, the environment, whether there is more than one opponent, weather, weapon availability, and so on.

In sum, if it comes down to putting technique up against principle, and I choose a vast amount of principles of combat over any specific set of techniques any day.

Those are my thoughts.

[AndrewGreen]

Who says a single art can't be well rounded?

By the simple fact that unless you have unlimited time, it isn't going to happen.

I do MMA, part of that is punching. But are we ever going to have the same punching skills as someone that only trains boxing? Of course not, they devote far more time to it then we do.

So you can probably guess from what I do that I prefer the "well rounded" approach, I like to punch, kick, tie up, take down, roll around, ground and pound a little, throughh in some submissions and then hit people with a stick.

If I where aiming at "mastering" something it would be adaptability.