"Jack-of-all-trades, Master of none..."

[bushido_man96]

This phrase floats around a lot in MA discussion, especially when it might come to cross-training, or training for events that might demand such action, like MMA competition, or RBSD.

So, my question to the members of KarateForums.com, is how much does this really concern you? Do you worry about having too much on your plate, or that you won't be able to excell in one style because you take time for 2?

Personally, I feel that the phrase is bunk. When you get to the root of the matter, that Martial Arts primary goal is to allow you one to effectively defend oneself, then it is imperative that one be able to handle oneself in any situation that could arise in combat, be it standing, clinching, or grappling. In the end, I think it has more to do with effective time management and training programs.

What does the community think?

[cross]

I tend to agree with your thoughts bushido_man96.

Variety is the spice of life and you can pick up alot of applicable skills from studying multiple arts, perhaps a total beginner to the martial arts would struggle if they tried to learn several arts at once, but after a certain amount of time training you begin to look beyond specific techniques and find that the principles and concepts of all arts are often quiet similar, or at the very least they compliment each other.

I continue to train in my "base" art of karate and also train kickboxing/bjj and RBSD concepts, at first glance these systems seem worlds apart, but below the surface they have alot more in common than most people might think.

Its all well and good to be a master at one aspect of the arts, but you should be able to function in other areas also.

[tallgeese]

I agree, it's bunk.

The more combat effective movments that you have programmed into your arsenal, the more likely you are to survive an encounter. Remember, we're talking about situations where you may have to stirke and move to survive, defeat or escape an attempt to take you down, or a weapon could be involved. That's the basics and thats alot of ground to cover.

The trick is indeed time managment, and it's about picking the most effective movements and training them as much as possible and learing to integrate them with the skills you already have.

You should probibily have a base amount of knowledge before you start trining in multiple arts, but by no means mastery should be required before adding other skills.

[Truestar]

When I really thought about cross training I came to the conclusion that is each style truly that different? A kick is a kick, there's not many ways that a side kick can vary in delivery. Granted there are some but I wouldn't say it's such a difference that it would be difficult to learn.

I think the major part of cross-training is applying these techniques in different ways. Different forms to learn, maybe a new style of grappling that doesn't quite match your old school. But the core of everything is essentially the same is it not?

I think the hardest part about cross-training is definitely time management, rather than the "new skills" aspect. If you're mature enough mentally to know which form goes with which style and you can know this immediately, then it seems cross-training hasn't hurt you. As long as you can still donate the time necessary to each style.

[DWx]

See for me this statement does hold true to a certain extent. While I think it is good to be able to grapple, strike and throw, I personally would rather devote myself to being a good striker with the bare minimum in other areas rather than spreading myself too thinly across multiple disciplines. The way I see it, there's nothing wrong with picking up a couple of techniques from different styles if you have you base style, but to study a number of styles comphrehensively at the same time and to a good standard you are going to need to invest quite a bit of time into that including time not just to learn the techniques but time to put them together. (So maybe it is about time management?)

A lot of people talk about combat readiness and the time it takes to be able to hold your own in a fight, IMO if you try start mixing things up too early before becoming proficient in a base style, it may take you longer to develop into a good fighter able to hold your own. On the simplest level, say you have a repetoire of 4 techniques split between grappling and striking. Personally I would much rather have 3 techniques for striking and 1 grappling technique (or vice versa) than 2 techniques apiece. It just makes more sense for me to be able to fight from my preferred discipline and have a handful of techniques to keep it there rather than having limited knowledge across the board but that's just the way I like to fight.

I think a person can be "a jack of all trades" in that they have dabbled in various different styles but never really got past beginner/intermediate level in any. You can do a bit of everything but don't excel at anything. As for "master of none" personally I like to see this as not so much a master in Karate or a master of BJJ or whatever but a master of fighting, whether it's in one discipline or what you've brought together. With cross-training sometimes I think its quite easy to fall into the trap where you've gathered your knowledge from different systems but you can't put it together well and are a pretty poor fighter overall, hence "a master of none".

I would advocate a base style first before branching out into other methods of fighting. The exception to that argument though is if you have a trainer who has already developed a way to mix these styles together and is in effect teaching you a system. Then I think you could jump straight in without a base style.

[tallgeese]

Each style can be signifigantly different. Aside from the fact that some joint manipulation schools teach little in the way of offensive striking (akido for ex.), and some striking systems teach nothing in the way of ground fighting (most trad forms of karate), there are diffences in the way things are done in each.

For instace, there are better ways to punch to generate power than others. There are ways to kick that empahise penetration more than others. The perennial blocking vs. parry argument could go here as well and several schools teach several variations of each. The key is to find out which ones work better under duress and train those. I do lots of takedowns, but they are mainly sweeps and reaping movments, my body contact throws are limited, which a stint in Judo wiould help me improve upon (seminar one of these days )

So there are different facets to each system and different things to focus on in each that are pretty specilized. Again, finding a school that teaches good weapons defese can be diffucult.

So, I feel that there are real differences that one can learn from.

[tallgeese]

I just caught your post DWx.

I would caution against the idea of picking up a movement or two from different arts as a method of cross training. Although I too have pirated a thing or two from arts I haven't spent time with, it's not a good way to build a well rounded fighter. At the very least when doing this you shoudl have some familiarity with simialr tactics.

When I talk about cross training, I mean it in a wholeistic approach to whatever new dimension you're studying. That means the eintire fight strategy as well as tactics. Only this way, once you have a feel for how it's supposed to come together, can you begin to integrate it into what you are doing as a whole.

[bushido_man96]

Variety is the spice of life and you can pick up alot of applicable skills from studying multiple arts, perhaps a total beginner to the martial arts would struggle if they tried to learn several arts at once, but after a certain amount of time training you begin to look beyond specific techniques and find that the principles and concepts of all arts are often quiet similar, or at the very least they compliment each other.

Its all well and good to be a master at one aspect of the arts, but you should be able to function in other areas also.

I agree. I think that it is important to your techniques with concepts in mind. In the end, it is the applications of concepts that will help you to win out, over mere technique, I feel.

[bushido_man96]

See for me this statement does hold true to a certain extent. While I think it is good to be able to grapple, strike and throw, I personally would rather devote myself to being a good striker with the bare minimum in other areas rather than spreading myself too thinly across multiple disciplines.

A lot of people talk about combat readiness and the time it takes to be able to hold your own in a fight, IMO if you try start mixing things up too early before becoming proficient in a base style, it may take you longer to develop into a good fighter able to hold your own.

I would advocate a base style first before branching out into other methods of fighting. The exception to that argument though is if you have a trainer who has already developed a way to mix these styles together and is in effect teaching you a system. Then I think you could jump straight in without a base style.

In this scenario, I will reference the MMA fighters and practitioners out there. They are able to allocate their training time to include the various aspects of the fight game; standing, clinch, and ground. Sure, there are some with their specialties, but it is apparent that none of them could compete successfully if they didn't have the knowledge of all three. Therefore, I think it is important to consider the training methods that are entailed to help make one a more complete fighter.

[DWx]

I just caught your post DWx.

I would caution against the idea of picking up a movement or two from different arts as a method of cross training. Although I too have pirated a thing or two from arts I haven't spent time with, it's not a good way to build a well rounded fighter. At the very least when doing this you shoudl have some familiarity with simialr tactics.

When I talk about cross training, I mean it in a wholeistic approach to whatever new dimension you're studying. That means the eintire fight strategy as well as tactics. Only this way, once you have a feel for how it's supposed to come together, can you begin to integrate it into what you are doing as a whole.

I think it comes down to what you're trying to mix. Taking a style which only deals with your striking game and mixing it with another style that works on a totally different aspect then I would go study it in its entirety and use it in its entirety. But to take two styles that deal with the same aspects of a fight (say punching) but have a completely different out look on it, down to the basic principles, then I think it would take a bit more work to mould all of it, probably time spent better elsewhere. For me I would rather use a primary style then encorporate a few moves and strategies off of another. And even if you are "pirating" a couple of moves off those styles, its using the techniques that work best for you right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way against cross-training, I just think that to do it properly, from scratch, it might be better to start with a base style than to combine them all too early. Unless you have a lot of time and somebody to guide you who's already done it, a beginner might be a bit lost on how to combine them all.