The Multi-Style Problem...

[arcelt]

I've done cross-training, though only out of necessity. I spent the better part of a decade studying Goju-Ryu before taking a long layoff. While I am now studying Aikido, which blends well with just about any striking style, IMO, I briefly studied TKD and Kenpo during my layoff. While I could hold my own with the advanced students in basic punching, kicking, and kumite, I had a HELL of a time adjusting to the different blocks. I guess years of doing blocking drills have ingrained a certain muscle memory that is not easily modified. Conditioned to the sweeping, circular blocks of Goju, I found it terribly difficult to implement the more linear blocks of the other 2 styles.

[bushido_man96]

Likewise, I would probably struggle with the more circular blocks that you mention. But, with time, one can adjust, and perhaps take the best of both worlds.

At any rate, what is important in my mind is if you can take what you know, and make it work efficiently for you. That is the essence, I think.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Likewise, I would probably struggle with the more circular blocks that you mention. But, with time, one can adjust, and perhaps take the best of both worlds.

At any rate, what is important in my mind is if you can take what you know, and make it work efficiently for you. That is the essence, I think.

How would you test that?

[Fu Man]

For non-martial sport athletes, such as those training for civilian self-defense, I would recommend fully exploring the potential of one martial art system, and becoming somewhat proficient at it before cross training seriously in another martial art.

For instance, in my own personal experience, the more I learn about Okinawan Karate, especially the tuite-jutsu and kyusho-jutsu aspects, the less I feel a need to seriously cross train in another martial art at the present time. I still dabble in Judo and Jujutsu every now and then, but it is not a primary focus.

[bushido_man96]

Likewise, I would probably struggle with the more circular blocks that you mention. But, with time, one can adjust, and perhaps take the best of both worlds.

At any rate, what is important in my mind is if you can take what you know, and make it work efficiently for you. That is the essence, I think.

How would you test that?

I would probably use some Reality Based approaches to scenario based training to see how things worked.

How would you test it?

[Wa-No-Michi]

Likewise, I would probably struggle with the more circular blocks that you mention. But, with time, one can adjust, and perhaps take the best of both worlds.

At any rate, what is important in my mind is if you can take what you know, and make it work efficiently for you. That is the essence, I think.

How would you test that?

I would probably use some Reality Based approaches to scenario based training to see how things worked.

How would you test it?

Kumite.

Although your "Reality Based approaches to scenario based training" thingy sounds quite cool as well.

[bushido_man96]

Aye.

In Kumite for this purpose, how would you arrange the rules, or scenarios, or any other aspect that you would be looking at for testing a technique?

[tallgeese]

Sparring is a great way to test things. Open the rules of engagement up and work those targets that are often kept off limits. Let guys counter you while attempting things, this will bring you up to speed much more quickly than dry simulation runs alone.

Set up limited engagment situations, where you work a specific movement patter against only certain attacks. But do it against a full speed attacker, one who can counter you. This will show you how to make things work as well.

Lastly, bushido man is right, simulation training is one of the most valuable toos we have. Set up a situation, then have an opponant really attack. Not spar with you, attack. Do it realitically and once comfortable, let him counter, and you'll be suprised at the testing of movements you get out of it.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Are you guys married or something. All you do is agree with one and other.

Kumite is a perfectly acceptable way to establish whether a circular block technique is going to work for you. If it dont you will get hit. Simple as.

[joesteph]

[W]hat is important in my mind is if you can take what you know, and make it work efficiently for you. That is the essence, I think. . . .

I would probably use some Reality Based approaches to scenario based training to see how things worked.

How would you test it?

Kumite.

Although your "Reality Based approaches to scenario based training" thingy sounds quite cool as well.

In Kumite for this purpose, how would you arrange the rules, or scenarios, or any other aspect that you would be looking at for testing a technique?

Sparring is a great way to test things. Open the rules of engagement up and work those targets that are often kept off limits. . . .

Set up limited engagment situations . . .

imulation training is one of the most valuable toos we have. Set up a situation, then have an opponant really attack.

Kumite is a perfectly acceptable way to establish whether a circular block technique is going to work for you.

 

This thread on the Multi-Style Problem may have run into a Multi-Approach snag. I see solid assessments presented, and it may be that we're examining how each person's testing is different in terms of extent, of what degree to go to, in order to be considered satisfactory. It should be remembered that this remains theoretical; I suggest that most persons would not want to go beyond kumite, for a variety of personal reasons, while others will be champing at the bit to get to the third level Tallgeese presents.