callsignfuzzy

I'm not talking about interrupting class, but rather pointing out that someone with senior experience is or may be wrong about something. The prime example for me is Dan Inosanto. I think, given his broad, high-level skill and overall influence, he may be the greatest living martial artist, but I can find no evidence of his claim that FMA influenced Western boxing. I don't FEEL any disrespect towards him, but have been called out as being disrespectful by some on the 'net.

I've heard this sometimes, and to a degree, it makes sense. While I personally studied a single system for years before formally training techniques from outside of it, it was more a matter of not having any alternatives than anything else. My personal experience is that having a grasp of what I was being taught allowed me to compare and contrast when I encountered different techniques outside of my "home" system. With that said, why is this such common advice? What's the logic behind it? Comparing it to other forms of education, math is necessary to read music, but it's not necessary to have a degree in Statistics in order to be proficient at playing violin. I was a radar operator in my military days, and while an understanding of particle physics helped, I didn't have an education on the subject beyond High School, and it certainly wasn't necessary in order for me to track the video of a contact. So why, with martial arts, do we (myself included) advise people to study something for five years/to a black belt level/etc before moving on to even LOOKING at another one? Like I said, studying one helped me to grasp some differences, but I'm not sure it made me inherently "better" in any functional way.

Follow-up: the go-to seems to be, "study until BB level"- what length of time would YOU find suitable?

It's something I see a lot in questions on studying multiple martial arts. Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea from the folks asking the question, but for me and many, many others, studying two or more martial arts can be done concurrently. Does this constitute "style hopping"? I was always under the impression that "style hopping" was studying something for a few months, then dropping it and moving on to something else. Does anyone here consider studying two or more styles at once the same thing as "style hopping"?

They're not, for me, as I don't live in circumstances that make firearms a necessity. But for those who train to use firearms along with your classical martial art skills, how do you incorporate that training? How often do you train? What weapon(s) do you own/use? How do you see the role of firearms in your self-defense preparation?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/121007439/Open-Letter-to...

Though he's addressing a specific environment, the author touches on points that can be applied to the martial arts as a whole. So, what do you think about the points the author raised? Have you seen cult-like behavior in the martial arts community?

Martial artists who've practiced for a time will realize that they're stronger in some areas than others. Since nobody can be great at everything, we naturally have to allocate our training hours wisely. So my question is, would you rather work on improving the areas you're not so great in, or build on/"perfect" the skills you're already good at? A few examples:

If I've got a really sharp lead round kick, but a weak rear round kick, do I work on improving my rear kick, or work on better setting up the lead kick?

If I'm better at clinch throws than leg dives, do I devote time on improving my single and double legs from the outside, or spend training time learning how to control the clinch to set up my throws?

If I feel natural with a sword in my hands but feel uncomfortable with pole arms, should I train more with a sword or with a staff/spear?

"Are you really an expert at [MMA]?

If you can answer these simple questions then you are qualified to speak about it...if not then you should not talk..."

1) What is the purpose of "pummeling" in the clinch?

2) Your opponent is standing with his left leg forward. Do you circle to his right or left side? Why?

3) What are the significance of the following fights: Varelans vs. Ruas, Maurice Smith vs. "Conan" Silveira 1, Sakuraba vs. Royler Gracie, Henderson vs. Jackson, Griffin vs. Bonnar 1, Herring vs. Nogueira 1, Shamrock vs Severn 1, and Machida vs. Evans

4) Which organization came first: Shooto, Pancrase, Pride, or UFC?

5) What is a gogoplata? Which heavyweight fighter is notorious for earning multiple wins with this technique?

6) What is an omoplata? How many UFC and Pride FC fights have been won with this maneuver?

7) What does "Vale Tudo" mean and which country originated the practice of Vale Tudo?

8) How many current or former UFC champs have Masters degrees or above?

9) Who is the only man to concurrently hold titles in two weight classes in a major MMA organization?

Just to find out who can really speak intelligently about MMA and who needs to do more research...

"Students who stick with just one teacher are sitting on the corner of a table unable to comprehend that there are three other corners"

One of the criticisms I hear about MMA is that the practitioners are "Jacks of all Trades". However, often this criticism comes from someone who claims to train in a "complete system", that is a martial art without a singular skill focus, but one that trains striking and grappling skills, and perhaps some weapons work. So what's the real difference? Here's my hypothetical situaion:

Person A trains, per week, two hours of strict striking (boxing, Le Savate, many TKD schools, etc), two hours of strict grappling (most Judo or BJJ, Western wrestling, etc.), plus one hour of strict weapons work (Kendo, jojutsu, Medieval dagger play, etc) and an hour of open mat/MMA sparring, where they use their striking and grappling skills in conjunction.

Person B also trains six hours per week, but in a "complete system": most Hapkido or classic Jujitsu, many Kung Fu schools, etc. In this hypothetical situation, the time they spend striking tends to average two hours per week; ditto with grappling; blending the two elements takes up roughly one hour a week; weapons work takes up roughly an hour a week. I realize this tends to throw off the preferences for many systems under the "complete style" label, but please bear with me for the sake of the example.

So who is the "jack of all trades" in this situation, if they are both spending roughly the same amount of time refining the same skills? Is the real difference simply the training of all skill sets under one label?