As GSP (or someone else) was quoted as saying "fighters train for fights, martial artists train all year round".... Or words to that effect. Sort of got me thinking about MMA fighters. MMA is such a wide rule set that most fighters specialise in a few aspects. So do they become efficient martial artists? Some guys like that could maybe not teach as much as someone who hasn't fought for instance. Like Chuck Liddell. Retired and got his purple belt in BJJ. He could probably teach a lot about striking but his skI'll set is obviously very limited. Then I think about boxing and how most good pros can probably teach every aspect of boxing if they wanted. What do you guys reckon? Also, is it better to be a highly specialised fighter or a good well rounded fighter?
Is an expert swordsman not an efficient martial artist because he can't shoot a longbow? And I'd argue that Jacks of all Trades tend to get smashed by the masters of one - see Liddell, Rousey etc etc.
I agree that dedicated style trumps a mash up. But what about thoes that are taught by pro strikers, pro grapplers, black belts in their art? At my gym a pro boxer/pro mma fighter. Teaches boxing. A wrester of 18 years and pro mma fighter teaches wrestling, a 5th degree bb teaches kicking, a purple belt teaches bjj. On Fridays one of the two pro mma fighters brings it all together for sparring. After several years wouldn't some of thoes student be competent martial artists in at least one style?
I'd ask do you want to be a big fish in a small pond, or vice versa. I'd also say that both are of equal value. You may be the head or an organisation / business, the big cheese, the big fish, and there's obviously nothing wrong with that. You may also be more comfortable being a smaller fish in that business, be that a manager, cleaner, engineer, labourer, etc. All hold different values, but I'd say no one person is more important than the other. Some will be able to teach and promote others, some will only excel in their given role. Continued learning and progression is what's important. Choose your path because martial arts can be a life long journey. I have chosen the route of the year round martial artist, but I may find that in 10 years time I move onto Tai Chi, or move onto archery for example. The fighter may at the end of his / her career look back on what they have and choose to delve deeper into those aspects.
I guess it depends on what your goals are. From a strictly 'competitive' viewpoint, you focus on what wins matches. In a wide open forum like MMA, can you win more matches by being awesome at one area or decent at several? I would almost guess the best answer would be to be great in at least one disciple and quite good at several. You have to assume that your opponent will try to negate your strengths. And I think that makes for a difference in the self defense realm...I think self defense people tend to try to train for a broad area of skills in the hopes that you don't come across an expert in any one in a self defense situation and that your skills in a broad spectrum will be enough to get you out of there with as little damage done as possible. I think they really do make for different mindsets, even though the training for each may be complementary
I think that logic holds for the master of a single style. I disagree that self defence should necessarily be based on a broader curriculum. Being able to execute on a couple of things well is going to trump being average at many things.
Good point. I don't know. For my own personal practice, I find more value in having a broad spectrum of skills... especially the soft skills like awareness, avoidance, and communication as well hard hard skills revolving around being able to fall, strike, throw/control, and use basic weapons more than being focused in just a narrow range. I want to be prepared if I get put into a situation that I might not have expected (for example, no matter how great a striker you are, for a self defense situation, you may very well need to know some ground skills) That's not to say that if I practiced one punch, one kick, and sprawling everyday that I wouldn't do just fine in a self defense situation. The biggest hope for me is that I will train year after year and never have to use it for real. As a competitor, I would train year after year with the goal of using it as often as possible.
Great thread! I think it depends on your goals. If you want to be great at fighting, then you build on your strengths and plug gaps just as much as needed. The window of opportunity for being great at fighting is limited to being relatively young and healthy, so you don't have the spare time to become a jack of all trades, not least because you have to change your game plan and get used to using different styles of moving under extreme pressure. If your goal is to win, and you're onto a winning formula, why change it? If you have a greater interest in technique and movement for its own sake, as I think most people who enjoy teaching do, then you will want to spend a lot of time on things that do not come as naturally for you. This could well put you at a disadvantage if your goal is to smash as many people as quickly as possible in competition.
Yes, I think so. It's all relative though isn't it. Limited compared to who or what. I think he could teach most people a hell of a lot. High level MMA fighting experience must be one hell of a teacher if you ask me. Indeed specialisation is really something, I assume you mean boxing pros'. It really depends where you are with things, how you see yourself and where you want to take your style and skills. I'm not sure specialisation is the right description for MMA anymore. I don't think you can get away with not being well rounded, but having a strong background and or affinity/ natural for one area might be fairly 'standard'.. In a MMA context I have seen a talented boxer get taken apart. The days have gone where someone with only a high level BJJ game will really get far, same goes for wrestling I think. I can't see beyond well rounded, but things are never black and white. being well rounded doesn't really exclude being or becoming very good at one of those. I think there's truth in the GSP quote, but also a martial artist can turn into the fighter and vice versa.
His skill set is obviously very limited? A division 1 wrestler, a balckbelt in mulitpul striking arts and a purple belt in gi and a trained no gi grappler? Chuck got his purple belt several years before retiring then I think moved to no gi work, so really who knows what level his BJJ is? Liddell could probably teach you MMA to a very high level, he couldn’t teach BJJ to a high level, but then id argue he ouldnt teach solely wrestling or just kick boxing to a world class level either, but MMA.. that’s a different sport and grappling for MMA is different than strict BJJ Chuck could teach every aspect of MMA, he just couldn’t teach BJJ or just boxing and he would probably be cool with that because they are separate arts to MMA
