Poll: Master or Jack?

[Treebranch]

All MA's have holes, if you can't see them you are lost. It is up to you the individual to fill the holes, if you can see them. If you can't see them, others will. I kinda took offense to the JACK OF ALL TRADES THING, because Budo Taijutsu is basically a MMA if you think about it.

[AndrewGreen]

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.

 

Name one olympic level TKD practitioner that picked it up in a few years doing it 3 x a week.

 

What good is being the champion of a group that lacks any high level talent.

 

A MMA group could start up and crown a world champion at a low level, that doesn't put him at the level of UFC or Pride champions.

 

 

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?

 

No, it isn't.

 

But shootfighting can take you to a much higher level in the long run.

 

Shootfighting has simple and straight forward basics too, and if you have a decent instructor those are what you learn first. But it has the option of going into much greater depth if you want to, but not everyone will want to.

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.

 

You can't learn boxing in a week, if you think that you should drop into a boxing gym. It is a very complex sport.

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.

 

Very Stupid in my opinion if your description is accurate.

 

All of those can be trained safely.

 

Perhaps what I should have said was that it doesn't need to be dangerous.

[Kirves]

Well yeah, there are local tournaments for those things you mentioned.

 

I don't mean just local tournaments. For example, where I live, TKD is a quite a small sport, very low profile. Every man on the street here knows who's the current national boxing title holder. Every martial artist I know, knows who are the current national kickboxing, thai boxing or BJJ title holders. It is common for people to know who won the last UFC. But, TKD being quite small here, I have never heard of anyone knowing who is the current national champ. They aren't told in the news, papers or shown on television. Nobody hears about them, except those who do TKD themselves. That is what I meant about being the big fish in the small pond. I don't mean local tournaments, I mean national or even international tournaments in arts that are so small there are no professional fighters there. Lets face it, if you want to be a pro fighter, do you choose Hoi Jeon Moo Sool as your art? I'm not talking about pro as in career martial arts instructor, but a pro ring fighter. I would bet no, you would choose some other art. So, if you start competing in Hoi Jeon Moo Sool tournaments, you are going to be fighting other hobbyists, even at the national and international levels!

You can bet the world champs of TKD spend a lot more time than I ever could.

 

Do you need to be a world champ to be good/excellent?

Every TKD instructor in my town spends more time than I could at it, are they world champs, no...local champs, maybe.

 

Yeah, TKD is much bigger in the States than here, agreed on that. But what about arts like Hoi Jeon Moo Sool I just mentioned? There are lots of arts where even the biggest champs are not professionals.

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.

 

No, he is just national champ, and something like thrird or fourth in the Scandinavian tournament. Agreed on your latter statement, I chose TKD as an example because it is so small here. I didn't mean TKD as the one-only art anyway, I meant any small scale art without professional fighters, so substitute TKD here with something non-olympic. Like Hoi Jeon Moo Sool, or Han Moo Do, or Gensei-ryu karate, or Drunken Monkey Kungfu or whatever who aren't that big but have national and international championships nonetheless. The point was choosing between being the big fish in the small pond (that no-one outside the pond hasn't heard about) or being a small fish in the ocean (who everyone knows about, but never heard about you).

So maybe TKD is not the best example

 

Agreed. I forgot TKD was an olympic sport.

[AndrewGreen]

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.

 

Yep, its all about training methods and teaching methods.

 

 

2. Your art is complete.

 

For my goals it is as complete as I can make it.

3. Other arts are incomplete.

 

Not at all, what your goals are define what is complete for them. Doing what I do with the goal of competing in Olympic TKD is not good training, what I do is incomplete for that goal.

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

 

Sure, force them to do what I do.

 

Works the other way around too. Subject to TKD rules I would get beat by a low level practitioner because he could take advantage of my arts incompleteness for that goal.

 

There are things I don't do for what ever reason that would work in "real" fighting. Someone how did them in training could use that against me. Doesn't bother me, thats not why I train.

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".

 

Actually that seems to be what you are arguing. Our style is simple and incomplete so that you can master it quickly.

 

No style can be mastered quickly. But what I do can be learnt well training 2-3 times a week within a year or two. Not UFC level, but well enough to have fun and be able to beat new people without training fairly easily.

[Kirves]

Name one olympic level TKD practitioner that picked it up in a few years doing it 3 x a week.

 

As I pointed out, TKD was not a good example. I forgot how big a sport it is on the other side of the ocean. Where I come from, most people have never heard that it is an olympic sport (I had, but kinda forgot), we never even see it on TV even during the olympics (the tv-stations feel not enough people would watch it and nobody would advertize during it).

What good is being the champion of a group that lacks any high level talent.

 

Again, we have different goals, not everyone is like you. I might be on the national soccer team, who cares if it doesn't help me in a fight? Believe it or not, some of us do these things for sport, instead of fighting ability. Some people just love to box. Others love to kickbox. Some love to do capoeira and others love to play tennis. Not everyone takes martial arts in order to become the best fighter in the world.

But shootfighting can take you to a much higher level in the long run.

 

No argument about that, but now you just proved my point. It takes "the long run", instead of being learnable in as short period of time.

You can't learn boxing in a week, if you think that you should drop into a boxing gym. It is a very complex sport.

 

I was talking about the number of the techniques. Of course it takes time to master any art. But some of us like to take the ten boxing techniques and then focus on honing them, instead of wanting to master all of MMA stuff. What I don't understand is how come you can't understand that? We have different goals. Someone's biggest dream is to learn boxing, even if it is not the most complete fighting art on the planet. I just wanted to know with this poll, how many of us here take that approach and how many take the other road.

Very Stupid in my opinion if your description is accurate.

 

Well, I have gathered so far that anything not done your way is stupid.

All of those can be trained safely.

 

That (being safe) is not their goal. They prefer to have the danger edge involved. There are lots of sports in this world that are plain dangerous and you should only partake in them if you accept the risks. If you wouldn't do such a sport, doesn't mean they are stupid. It just isn't your thing.

 

And from the other post:

Actually that seems to be what you are arguing. Our style is simple and incomplete so that you can master it quickly.

 

But I don't say it makes one a better fighter than the other. You on the other hand had the argument why would anyone study the incomplete art because it would loose to yuor art.

Edited June 26, 2003 by Kirves

[AndrewGreen]

Andrew, MMA stands for Multiple Martial Arts.

 

Actually its MIXED martial arts, and it is just a name.

 

Came about from the first UFC's, where it was a mixed martial arts competition. There where karate guys, wrestlers, BJJers, Sumo guys, boxers, etc.

 

While no longer really accurate, it stuck, oh well. Don't make a big fuss over it, its just a name.

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.

 

No, it is one art which contains elements which are found in many others.

 

Is karate boxing + TKD + Jujistu?

 

It contains punches, kicks and grappling doesn't it?

 

 

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.

 

No it wasn't.

 

He asked if you'd rather be a master of one style, or a jack of all styles.

 

I said MMA is one style, it just has a misleading name.

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.

 

Just an analogy, don't read into it too much.

 

You can divide any of those into different pieces as well.

 

Long Jump

 

Approach - Pawns

 

Takeoff - Knights

 

In flight - Bishops

 

landing - Queen

 

Learning one piece won't make you a good Long jumper, you need all.

 

Lets go triathalon though.

 

Do you need to be a top runner and a top cyclist and a top swimmer to win? No, you have to do all, but you wouldn't have to be able to win each race against people that train just for that element.

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.

 

But you would need a basic understanding of what the other pieces do. I never said specialization is bad in what I do, I just said that for what I do you need all of it.

 

Look at MMA fighters, they all have specialties, but they all have a good grasp of the other aspects.

 

Take TKD, you can specialise in round house kicks, thats fine. But if you have no experience with any of the other kicks you will get beat, even if your round kick is a lot better then the other guys, he has more tools to use.

[Kirves]

No, it is one art which contains elements which are found in many others.

 

Is karate boxing + TKD + Jujistu?

 

It contains punches, kicks and grappling doesn't it?

 

Oh really? Who founded MMA then if it is a single art that isn't just a mix of other arts? Then it must have a curriculum of it's own instead of just training techniques from other arts, right? Where can we see this curriculum? I had never heard before that MMA is a one art. I was always told it is when you Mix Martial Arts.

[AndrewGreen]

What good is being the champion of a group that lacks any high level talent.

 

Again, we have different goals, not everyone is like you. I might be on the national soccer team, who cares if it doesn't help me in a fight? Believe it or not, some of us do these things for sport, instead of fighting ability. Some people just love to box. Others love to kickbox. Some love to do capoeira and others love to play tennis. Not everyone takes martial arts in order to become the best fighter in the world.

 

I agree, and adressed that.

 

But the point is that if the talent pool sucks, being champion doesn't mean you are any good, or as you put it a "master"

 

Which makes your Jack of all trades vs master of one question meaningless.

No argument about that, but now you just proved my point. It takes "the long run", instead of being learnable in as short period of time.

Nope, I said nothing about a short period of time. Truthfully I think shootfighting (depending on how it is taught) is a better short term option for that goal as well.

 

 

I was talking about the number of the techniques. Of course it takes time to master any art. But some of us like to take the ten boxing techniques and then focus on honing them, instead of wanting to master all of MMA stuff. What I don't understand is how come you can't understand that? We have different goals. Someone's biggest dream is to learn boxing, even if it is not the most complete fighting art on the planet. I just wanted to know with this poll, how many of us here take that approach and how many take the other road.

 

Boxing has far more then 10 techniques. Thats like saying you know how to play Chess because you know how all the pieces move. It is a very complex sport.

 

One of its main draws as a spectator sport is that anyone can easily understad enough to be able to understand who is winning and who is loosing. If you understand the sport at all you will be able to see that it is not just 10 techniques.

 

 

Well, I have gathered so far that anything not done your way is stupid.

 

If you have my goals and are not doing something similar to what I am doing, I believe you are missing something.

 

Safety is always important, what you described is not safe. And therefore stupid, even if only from an insurance/liability point of view.

 

 

All of those can be trained safely.

 

That (being safe) is not their goal. They prefer to have the danger edge involved. There are lots of sports in this world that are plain dangerous and you should only partake in them if you accept the risks. If you wouldn't do such a sport, doesn't mean they are stupid. It just isn't your thing.

 

And they are made as safe as possible within the confines of that sport.

And from the other post:

Actually that seems to be what you are arguing. Our style is simple and incomplete so that you can master it quickly.

 

But I don't say it makes one a better fighter than the other. You on the other hand had the argument why would anyone study the incomplete art because it would loose to yuor art.

 

Nope, reread everything.

 

I will say that you should study a complete art or you will loose.

 

Of course completeness is dependant on what you're goal is.

 

TKD is complete for TKD competition, what I do is not complete by TKD standards, but it has a lot of useless stuff.

 

Boxing is complete for Boxing competition, what I do is not complete by Boxing standards, but it has a lot of useless stuff.

 

Neither are complete for what I do, both have a lot of extra stuff.

 

You keep trying to argue against something that no one is saying.

 

My claim:

 

You question is misleading at best as MMA is one thing, not more then one thing, and does not take any less time to get to a high level then any of the styles that focus on less ranges. The number of hours needed is not really less.

 

For that reason your question of master one range or train all ranges to a lesser degree is meaningless. It is not about training 3 different things, it is training one thing which utilizes all ranges.

 

They are different skill sets, not better or worse (except for towards different goals), not more or less complicated, not harder or easier, just different.

 

I don't know how much simpler I can make that for you, but you seem to have a hard time with the concept.

[Kirves]

But the point is that if the talent pool sucks, being champion doesn't mean you are any good, or as you put it a "master"

 

I already explained what I meant with "master", I did not mean a MASTER of the art, I meant a "master" as in a sought after instructor in your art/field. If you are the national Hanmoodo champion, only the Hanmoodo population is interested in you. But to them you are a "master" and whenever you hold a seminar or training camp, it is going to be full of Hanmoodo enthusiasts and fans. No matter if other people from other martial arts think you suck in MMA fighting. Again the big fish in the little pond vs. little fish in the ocean -metaphor comes in handy.

 

 

If you have my goals and are not doing something similar to what I am doing, I believe you are missing something.

 

Yes - here it is! We don't all share your goals! And the whole point behind this poll is to find out what goals people here have! Not which one is doing the best training for your particular goals. Just what goals the people have. Period.

Safety is always important, what you described is not safe. And therefore stupid, even if only from an insurance/liability point of view.

 

Most of circus stunts aren't safe. A lot of what Jackass does on tv isn't safe. Becoming a bodyguard isn't safe. Jumping from an airplane with a paraglider isn't safe. At least from "insurance/liablility" point of view. But if that's what they love to do, who are we to judge. We might not emulate them, but that doesn't mean we're somehow better than them.

I will say that you should study a complete art or you will loose.

 

Of course completeness is dependant on what you're goal is.

 

Exactly. If someone's goal is to win the national Hoi Jeon Moo Sool championship, then training HJMS is the complete way to do it. Depends on the goal. And again: the point here is to know what people's goals are! Not whose goal is better.

TKD is complete for TKD competition, what I do is not complete by TKD standards, but it has a lot of useless stuff.

 

Good, now we're on the same page. Your goal is MMA and you train for that goal, fine. Someone's goal is TKD and he trains for that goal, again fine. Now let's have people tell us what their respective goals are, some "incomplete" single range art, or an "all-ranges" MMA. Let's stop this useless arguing.

You question is misleading at best as MMA is one thing, not more then one thing, and does not take any less time to get to a high level then any of the styles that focus on less ranges. The number of hours needed is not really less.

 

You really think it takes as long to become the world champ of Hoijeonmoosool than it takes to win a similar title in MMA? I don't think so, all the contestants in the top HJMS tournaments are just hobbyists. All the contestants in the top MMA events are professionals. Big difference. But this horse died long ago, let's stop beating it, okay? Let's agree to disagree on some issues and leave it at that.

[ninjanurse]

Geez you guys!!! I thought I read too much into stuff!!! Quit splitting hairs and get on with it !!!

 

You both have a lot of good things to say and generally I enjoyed reading the posts but some are a bit sarcastic and nit-picky to say the least. Kirves is right, the poll is just about your goals as a Martial Artist-not about what is better. Maybe you could start another thread about this -as it is an interesting subject-or better yet post an article explaining your viewpoint. Which ever you do I am sure it will be interesting and lively-just keep the temperature down!

 

One last thing Andrew, you made a point that I think would make and interesting subject for a thread about TKD fighters proficient in only one kick getting wooped by others with more techniques. Keep your eyes open for it...probably under Strategies & Tactics .