Poll: Master or Jack?

[Kirves]

Trade school or University? Hmm. What fits you?

 

Exactly. Somebody here had the impression that all people have same goals as he has. Someone wants to be a good boxer, now what's wrong with that? Nothing. It is a sport for god's sake. Someone else wants to be good at tennis? Would anyone say "no don't do that, any MMA fighter will kick your ass if you play tennis"? Of course not, as everyone understands that tennis is just one of the sports. And here lies the key: many of us are not serious combat sport professionals, there are many of us who are mere hobbyists, just doing it as a fun sport, good for the body, good for the mind, and so on. You can't say the other person is wrong because he isn't after the same hobbies or goals you are. So we have those who like to study one martial art only as a small-time hobby, or a serious competitive sport, and we have those who study martial arts as serious combat sports mixing everything in sight in order to become better than the rest. That is a matter of personal choice, not an "do it like I do it or be stupid" issue.

 

And my own choice? Nowadays I'm just doing one art for fun and fitness with the hope that it may also help in a possible self-defence situation, but I am not focusing on that. In the past I had other goals, I studied in four martial arts schools at the same time, eventually realizing it was ruling all my life's other activities so I dropped my idea of becoming an NHB fighter. Some of the guys I knew, who fought in the local NHB tournaments, trained three times as much as I did, as they had no jobs, no families and so on. I just couldn't do that with almost daily jobshifts of 12 hours (+commuting 1.5h) and a family with newborn baby. I made a personal decision to remain a hobbyist and as such I study whatever art I enjoy without thinking if it is the best possible mix available.

[ninjanurse]

 

I like your thinking Kirves. I was going to post again but you said it better!

 

 

 

[AndrewGreen]

I understand what you are saying perfectly Kirves, but I also think it is not a fair question.

 

It takes no more time to become a top MMA guy then a top boxer.

 

Your reasoning just doesn't hold up as there is always more and less complete arts.

 

Should a kickboxer only box because their are less skills, if his goal is fame?

 

Less techniques does not equal easier to get really good at.

 

I do agree that you should do what is fun, BUT you seem to be misrepresenting MMA.

 

Anyone can learn to do it, it is not more complicated, it is not more "hardcore", it is not more dangerous, it is not harder to learn.

 

It does have more variety though

[Kirves]

It takes no more time to become a top MMA guy then a top boxer.

 

Now this is where I disagree. But we have already covered that, so maybe we should agree to disagree? Boxer may be a bad example as it is so big a sport nowadays that there are so many quality fighters there, but as I gave another example earlier, I know people who have trained Taekwondo for two years, only going to class three times a week, and becoming a champ. I also know similar incidents in many other arts that are smaller events than boxing. But I have never heard of anyone saying they cound train that little and win an NHB tournament.

Less techniques does not equal easier to get really good at.

 

Then you are saying that Krav Maga is no easier or faster to learn than, say Shootfighting? Then all these people studying KM because it is supposedly a simple straightforward way to learn basic self defence are all wrong, because in the same amount of time they could be good Shootfighters?

Anyone can learn to do it, it is not more complicated, it is not more "hardcore"

 

It is more complicated. It has 100 times more stuff to learn than boxing. Thus it takes more time to learn. You can learn all boxing techniques in a week. Can you learn all MMA techniques in a week? No you can't, because it takes more time to learn a 1000 techniques than 10.

it is not more dangerous

 

Well that depends a lot on the school For example, in the town I live, there's only one MMA school. They do a style of freefighting, where usually use no gloves or any shields and full contact. In their sessions, it is common that you can't recognize which one is which after the session is over. They are all bloodied and bruised. To me their stuff seems very dangerous, and very "hardcore". But I know not all MMA schools are alike. That is the problem with MMA, there's no standard so who knows if we are talking about different kinds of MMA altogether. I do know some MMA schools for example don't allow punches when on the ground. Or some punches. That is a whole different game. If you are allowed to use knees, headbutts, bareknuckle fists and elbows on any part of the other guys body even on ground, it is going to be very dangerous. If you wear gloves, or prohibit punching on the ground, or whatever, the danger level decreases.

[Kirves]

AndrewGreen, from reading your posts I get this funny feeling that you are saying:

 

1. Your art can be learned as fast as any other art.

 

2. Your art is complete.

 

3. Other arts are incomplete.

 

4. Your art can beat any other art by taking advantage of their incompleteness.

 

Geesh, sounds a lot like many McDojo adds I've seen in mags and the web. "Our ultimate style makes you beat any other artist and it can be learned in x simple lessons".

[GreenDragon]

First I will answer the poll: I like mastering one aspect. At my school BJJ is offered in addition the the MT I take. But I don't have time for MT and BJJ. Sure, I could skip a night of MT and pick up a night of BJJ, but I feel like I'd be cheating myself out of getting better at MT. Just a personal opinion thing at this time in my life, maybe later when I feel more proficient at MT I will try some BJJ, who knows.

 

However, Kirves, had you kept it simple, you might not have had two pages of debate. By loading the question with your personal opinion, you made the question inflamatory to people who would choose MMA. In a minor way by calling it a jack of all trades (although I agree with this phrase, some may not) and in a major way by saying this: "a champ in one of the "incomplete" arts, or a "joe-average" in some MMA club in your town." Someone could easily spend all their available time trying to perfect one art and never become a champ. The hobbyist as you claimed this poll was referring to would almost certainly not become a champ. If this hobbyist decides to be a jack why would they have to be joe-average? If a specialist can become a champ, why couldn't the MMA artist rise to be an MMA champ or a highly sought after MMA instructor, etc.? This is where your opinion became obvious, and caused your post to go astray by becoming inflamitory. You would have been better served by simply asking if people would rather devote all their available time to one incomplete art or divide their time between multiple arts, but clearly you still would not have made Andrew happy because he insists that he is learning one complete art called MMA.

 

Andrew, MMA stands for Multiple Martial Arts. No matter how well someone tries to present it to you as one complete system it is in fact several systems blended and Kirves is right in his assessment that you will be dividing your time between learing those different aspects of your one complete system. You said it yourself, an MMA pratitioner will not be as good at boxing as a boxer. That is all there is to Kirves' question. So what if an MMAist could beat a boxer using MMA rules...a boxer would beat an MMAist using boxing rules. This post was not meant to decide which is better, just who prefers which approach.

 

Oh, and the chess analogy is interesting. Andrew, you see the whole world of martial arts as a game of chess where boxing would be like using a couple pieces. Here is a different persective. All martial arts are a different olympic sport. Maybe eskrima is shot putt, jujitsu is javelin throwing, karate is long jump, etc. Now, would you rather spend all your available time training the long jump and go for the gold in that one thing or would you rather split your time between learning to do several to become a complete olympian and potentially be an even bigger star? That is all there is to this.

 

And if you insist on seeing a fight as a game of chess, I can speak of chess from experience. Most people have no idea how to use their knights effectively, even fewer people know when the right time to castle is and as easy as it may seem, pawn movement is a very deep part of the game that almost no-one spends time thinking about or training with. My point is that even in chess most people get by without being complete chess players and if you were to learn how to use each and every piece as effectively as the next, you would not be as good at using your knights and as someone who concentrates on knights and a queen as being their main attackers. And yes, you just might still lose to this knight specialist.

[Kirves]

However, Kirves, had you kept it simple, you might not have had two pages of debate.

 

Tell me about it! I let myself get a bit heated up and all sensibility went out the window.

By loading the question with your personal opinion

 

This was news to me. It is probably due to cultural and linquistic misunderstandings. First of all, English is not my native language, just something I picked up in school. Second, where I come from, "Jack-of-all-trades" isn't loaded with any negative feel, it is just the opposite of specialization. Some people specialize, others become the jack-of-all-trades. If it has a negative meaning in some other countries, cultures or languages, then I was unaware of that.

If this hobbyist decides to be a jack why would they have to be joe-average?

 

I personally don't think you will be more than "average" at most in MMA by training so little. Most MMA clubs I know of have 2-3 hour classes every frigging day for that very purpose: to be able to train all of it. In a local club I know of, they have additional morning classes for those seriously training for tournaments.

Someone could easily spend all their available time trying to perfect one art and never become a champ. The hobbyist as you claimed this poll was referring to would almost certainly not become a champ.

 

As already mentioned many times in this post, I personally know people who have become champs with "hobby" style training. It is because the competition tactics their respective arts use are simple, and all the other competitors are also mere hobbyists. When all the competitors of a tournament have a similar history (i.e. 2-4 times a week of your average Taekwondo/Shotokan/Judo/younameit) they will do good. But add some people who are professionals and it's no longer possible, this has happened in the bigger sport events like MMA, boxing, kickboxing and so on where the hobbyist who just won the local Tangsoodo tournament full of hobbyists, would get his rear end handed to him just for the very fact that the other competitors are ten times more serious and experienced about it. I am not very interested in big pro events like UFC, K1 or Abu Dhabi, except with some curiosity. But when I am an active participant, I go to a small hobbyist tournament where everyone is basically attending to have good time, not to win half a million dollars and be shown on PPV.

[GreenDragon]

Younameit, lol. I thought about that for a second.

 

Well yeah, there are local tournaments for those things you mentioned. But not only are there local tournaments for TKD, it is an olympic sport. You can bet the world champs of TKD spend a lot more time than I ever could. Every TKD instructor in my town spends more time than I could at it, are they world champs, no...local champs, maybe. I doubt this person you know that only studied for a couple years in TKD is the world olympic champion, but that is what you are equating it to when you mention an MMA competitor winning the UFC. There are local NHB circuits and I am sure a very strong and talented quick learning person could study MMA for a couple years and do well on their local circuit. But would not have a chance at the UFC anymore than your 2 yrs experienced TKD friend could expect to win olympic gold. So maybe TKD is not the best example...true there is no champ of the world type competition for Shotokan. But that does not make the local Shotokan champ any more or less of a champ than the local MMA champ that studied for the same amount of time.

[GreenDragon]

By loading the question with your personal opinion

 

This was news to me. It is probably due to cultural and linquistic misunderstandings. First of all, English is not my native language, just something I picked up in school. Second, where I come from, "Jack-of-all-trades" isn't loaded with any negative feel, it is just the opposite of specialization. Some people specialize, others become the jack-of-all-trades. If it has a negative meaning in some other countries, cultures or languages, then I was unaware of that.

 

I don't think it is the "Jack of all trades" part that is potentially offensive, it is the second part of that phrase "master of none" that some might take offense to. Like I said, I agree with the phrase and find it to be a good description, but just wanted to point out that some others might have taken exception to it. And I think your english is much better than many for whom it is their native language. Well spoken!

[hobz]

Jack..

 

What's worth claiming you're a master if you have holes in your art