Poll: Master or Jack?

[AndrewGreen]

Again I repeat: The point of this poll is which would you chooce, not which one is the best. Would the people here rather be a well known master and always-sold-out instructor of a single range, or an average joe of a mixed art.

 

and again I repeat: It is not a mixture of styles, it is ONE STYLE which incorporates all ranges.

 

It is no more complex then any one-dimensional art.

 

So your question doesn't make sense. If someone is naturally gifted enough that they could reach a high level in a one-dimensional art, they could reach a high level in one that incorporates all ranges.

 

That DOES NOT mean studyind boxing & Kickboxing & Wrestling & submission.

 

That means studying one thing that incorporates elements which are also found in all of those, but it is still ONE THING.

[Kirves]

and again I repeat: It is not a mixture of styles, it is ONE STYLE which incorporates all ranges.

 

It is no more complex then any one-dimensional art.

 

...

 

That DOES NOT mean studyind boxing & Kickboxing & Wrestling & submission.

 

But it does mean studying the techniques of boxing & kickboxing & wrestling & submission! Again I refer to my earlier post (did you see it after I edited it, you posted around the same time?), if it takes you one unit of time to learn one technique. And boxing has 10 tech, kickboxing adds another 10 or 15 in addition to the boxing tech, wrestling ads 200 tech, submission 100 tech and so on. If it remains that in one unit of time you can learn one technique, there is no way you can claim that it takes the exact same amount of time to either learn the 10 boxing tech, or learn all the 10+15+200+100 tech. You need more time to learn the larger set of techniques, even if you learn them as "one unit" instead of stydying the respective arts separately. There's only so much you can do in a minute, or in an hour. And add to that the fact that it takes thousands of repetitions for a tech to become a subconscious reflex. Repeating hundreds or thousands of different techniques for thousands of repetitions takes a lot more time than repeating a couple of dozen techniques for the same amount of reps.

[AndrewGreen]

But the level you need to learn them to is different.

 

And it is not just about learning techniques, it is about learning how and when to use them.

 

Boxing has very few techniques, but it is also very complicated because you need to be able to use them really really well in order to compete.

 

I might know all the basic techniques of boxing, but I am nowhere near a top level boxer.

 

Chess is simple right? Only a handful of pieces and only wo many ways to move them. So one could master chess in a few hours right?

 

NO!!

 

It's complicated, its not just about learning so many moves, it is about being able to use those moves.

[Kirves]

I might know all the basic techniques of boxing, but I am nowhere near a top level boxer.

 

Exactly. So you are a jack as opposed to master. You know boxing techniques, but not as well as a boxer. You know kicks and stuff but aren't as good woth them as a kickboxer. You know wrestling techniques, but aren't as good with them as a wrestler and so on. So the guestion are you a master of one art or a jack of all, you're the latter. Some of us prefer your approach, some of us prefer to master one art. That is the point of this poll. Now let's just wait which approach the different people on this forum prefer.

[AndrewGreen]

No, just knowing boxing is not a master of one from my perspective, it is partial knowledge, it is incomplete.

 

I'm a master carpenter but I only know how to use a hammer.

 

If you can only use a hammer you are only good at hammering and any low level carpenter will be able to build more things then you.

 

Like boxing, you cannot be a top level boxer with only a jab. Doesn't matter how good your jab is you'll loose. You are not a good boxer, you are a good jabber. Someone with half your skill and all the punches will mow you down.

 

Same for martial arts, if all you can do is box, fine, but that is incomplete. Anyone with a basic understanding of clinching and shooting will take you down and remove your ability to box.

 

Not a master, partial knowledge from my perspective.

 

And even without as good of boxing skills you can out box a boxer. Watch Randy Couture out strike superior strikers. How can he do that? Because he can clinch and he can takedown and he can sprawl. Those other skills come into play when boxing outside of a boxing environment.

 

Your stand up skills are only as good as your ability to stay on your feet. Your ground skills are only as good as your ability to stay on the ground.

 

Doesn't matter which skills you want to use, you have to be able to get and stay somewhere you can use them. And you can't do that without knowing those other ranges.

 

The skills all work together as one. Focusing on one aspect will teach you that aspect in isolation. A good boxer in boxing might not be a good boxer in MMA.

[Kirves]

Same for martial arts, if all you can do is box, fine, but that is incomplete.

 

Notice how I used the term "incomplete" myself in the very first post in this thread. You aren't getting the point here. Sure, a guy who only knows boxing, can be taken down. But for the zillionth of a time, I'm not interested in which one will beat which one up. Understand? Capishe? How many repetitions does it take for you to get the point?

 

My point, once again, for the gazillionth time is this: even though boxing is an incomplete art, it would be cool to be the current international boxing champ. And even though kickboxing, or kyokushin karate, or tae kwon do, or judo, all these are incomplete arts, it would still be great to be a recognized champ in any of these. Now contrast this with MMA, a more balanced, more "complete" art. And the point of this poll is this: which one would you be if you had to choose: a champ in one of the "incomplete" arts, or a "joe-average" in some MMA club in your town.

 

And, I repeat again, please don't start by saying a MMA guy would beat the boxer by this and that technique that the boxer hasn't trained for. That is not the point. Not in this thread. The point is, which one you'd be if you had to choose one: a champ of one-range-art, or an average student of an all-rangest-art.

[granmasterchen]

ummmmm kirves... .if i can but in between you two i will answer your question, ....i would be the jack, that way i could have alittle of everything and be comfortable, i may not be the best yet i can adapt and change the battle to a more favorable environment that my opponent is unfamiliar at, therefore i think that i would be a better fighter.....again sorry to interupt .....am i the only one that understands the point of this question???/

[Kirves]

Thanx granmasterchen for interrupting. I was getting winded with the arguing, as I felt it was a bit off-topic all the while. I don't want to judge which way is better, just to know which way people do it. I know there are lots of people on this board who are content with their single art approach, and other people who want it to be as balanced a mix as possible. I was just wondering what the ratio here is.

[ninjanurse]

You're not alone Grandmaster and Kirves. I understand the question also.

 

Since I am not into glory and fame (no need fo trophies and medals here!) I will have to say that I am more comfortable being a "jack". I have no experience the other way because I have willingly studied other arts.

 

[Treebranch]

The Master of All is the goal. Trade school or University? Hmm. What fits you?