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?
2014-01-28T16:53:32Z
Kokoro, I'm not an engineer, but my understanding is that you build a foundation differently for one type of ground than another.
Maybe I was long-winded in my "but what if" bit in the original post. The foundations of some martial arts don't have much (or anything) to do with the foundation of others. Would studying Aikido for [X many years] really be necessary before taking up Choy Lay Fut, with the idea that you need an Aikido "foundation", for example?
2014-02-03T13:42:06Z
I want to thank everyone who answered. I was just looking for opinions from the community at large, so there is no "best answer" in my eyes. As such, I'm going to let it go to a vote.
DrLee2014-01-31T14:41:37Z
Favorite Answer
It is reasonable to say that people could be better off gaining a foundation in a style but not reasonable to treat it as law (“should”, “must”). Some people can get good in the foundations before trying something else after 1-2yrs. Others are told “try as many schools first” on the one hand, and yet also told to “stick to one” by the same people. The hypocrisy! It doesn’t matter if someone does two different stand up styles, or gains a solid foundation in one before another. What matters is individual differences in capability & understanding which affects performance There are sophistic arguments for the made-up rule that some in this Y.A section like to shove down people’s throats. Whenever a new person dares to ask “should I try x-ju or y-do or both?” they are ridiculed. Many who peddle this idea also tend to abuse or scold anyone who innocently asks about, or mentions, their decision dilemma. Just “do it because I say so because I am an old codger with 25 years as a martial artist” is not reasonable. Building and education-career analogies for martial arts are deceptive to the average person who won’t be able to think of alternatives. It’s comparing apples to oranges, or human movement to institutional systems and objects.
Except for windows which all buildings need, tall buildings have the same few materials: the concrete used underground is the same for every floor, and the metal beams that are sunk into the ground continues sky high. In fact, the things that do the bulk of the work in supporting the building are the beams. The beams are both part of the foundation and the building – they’re neither the foundation nor the fluff. So it’s shaky logic when you use “foundations” to mean only the underground concrete. (Now before someone here copies my description to justify their future answers, I say that you would explain yourself better if you say the beams are like the brains, read below). One could use the building analogy to sort of justify why a beginner should stick with one style; most people can’t see why not. But a house with a shallower foundation made of concrete can be more durable and resistant to ground movements and the weather if the house is made of wood. There are houses much older than the Empire State Building. Just because any house is smaller and can be made of a different material to its foundations doesn’t mean it is inferior to a skyscraper.
Long years of education analogy: rubbish, absolute self-serving rubbish, copied from ancient Chinese monks, that plays into the hands of greedy profiteering schools. Again, it’s shaky. I’ve met shop assistants, cleaners, and cooks with way more than a grade 12 education! The reason why all degrees are forced to major in one area is because the status quo academia says so. It’s somewhat effective in getting some students to come back for higher belts, oops I mean degrees, and thus keep the funds rolling in. Why does a B.A need to specialise, really? Why should someone who wants to work in a crime scene lab specialise in microbiology when they would actually be more useful to solving many cases if they had a much broader science background. Before the 20th century, students could study whatever they wanted; even medicine once included a lot more science strands than they do now. Today it’s all about diseases in modern MBBS programs. The reason some disciplines need specialisation is the huge accumulation of knowledge, tech changes, and debate. Martial Arts hardly compares to any academic body of knowledge. Some arts are very old, yes, and many have been altered or “added to” but the status quo is that they are practiced as hand-me-down static and non-adaptive arts, except for Krav Maga. 99% of established styles can’t give a decent answer on any self-defence question.
Macho martial artists will cringe at this truth: martial arts are comparable to dance styles (classes even look like dance classes). There are differences and similarities between some dance styles, like classical ballet and jazz ballet or ballroom and latin ballroom. But there are also no similar moves between tap dancing, ballroom dancing, and hip hop. So, if someone takes ballet and jazz ballet at the same time they won’t be confused if they accurately copy the movements shown and practise (but not to the religious extent some of you tell others). They also find it easier if the moves are done in a meaningful sequence – the ‘application’ equivalent of a martial art (except many good teachers probably don’t know why because a move or technique is too old). Some people have a natural kinaesthetic talent or greater movement ability than others so that they don’t easily confuse a technique from one style with another. (If a person confuses his/her martial arts in a street fight or defending against a violent husband, why should it be wrong if it saves his/her life?). Those who were good at a variety of sports in school, or only in gymnastics or acrobatics because of similarity between gymnastics and arts like hapkido or a Sth American standing art, can also learn other physical sports easily. Just watch “So you think you can dance?”: e.g a break dancer on the ground looks like he’s never danced a day in his life when he has to ballroom dance. He’s practiced it since he was 6 years old, excellent in his “foundations” which are no help whatsoever in learning another style. Then there are dancers of similar styles who have an advantage, while others find no advantage at all.
Some can learn quickly, most at an average pace, and some learn slowly regardless of whether it’s mixed or not. Yes, many can confuse similar movements. It all has to do with natural ability, understanding, the brain and its connections to the limbs, and too much or too little of a “foundation”. Ultimately it’s the structure and content of the brain. So lying to people that it must take at least 8-10 years to grasp the basics is nonsense when that has more to do with the deliberate withholding of knowledge, as many past Chinese kung fu masters tended to do, and/or the lack of skill or k'ledge in the teacher.
As to the argument of "lengthiness =mastery" idea which people confuse with this question's topic, a clue comes from ancient China. There the 1st martial arts started which influenced Koreans & Japs, then filtered out in time & location. It was an awful economic exchange where poor parents traded 5-10y.o boys- not girls, who were married off from 12 - to the not so peaceful monks for free board, servanthood, & a full edu in academics & k.fu. Techniques were watered down & limited until 13-15 when their co-ordination, height, and bones have nearly developed. Those things affect stances & balance in k.fu. The boys could leave after an age or stay and be human shields for the older monks dodging cross bows & spears of armies at the fittest ages of 25-31. Those that survived would continue the religion. The monks always had an endless supply of peak kung fu young men, because of the boys that grew up, to defend their rights & property. The boys who left at 15 or 16 had to find another trade or teach a more limited kung fu, which they added to, because of their unfinished edu in the guarded secrets of Shaolin k.fu. So, that is why kung fu "must" take at least 20-21 years to complete. (Other arts do have a shorter syllabus due to the less number of moves). On the related topic of 'kung fu is useless' idea, much of it was lost because of Communism
On this topic, it’s about both differences in learning-styles and capabilities. I hope this socio-cultural, historical, and physiological-psychology lesson improves "masters' " understanding of the context of their art, their us vs them small mindedness, and the quality of some future answers
*P.S: if the goal of the beginner is expertise, tell them to stick to one. (Many people in this section haven’t even finished one program, yet use addition of years to imply expertise) If the goal is competition points or a junior belt(s) then tell them to spend 1-7yrs depending on the ‘say so’ duration and syllabus. It's all arbitrary& unstandardised anyway. If the goal is MMA then suggest whatever typical path professionals take. But if they want to do 2 different arts tell them ‘no’ only if they are similar. Research on retroactive interference show that learning & memory/recall will be confused if 2 similar things are learnt at the same time, like muay thai and another type of boxing. (If the goal is self defense, then that is another issue related to this but beyond this question). There is no justification or research to support “master the foundations of one before doing another”. By advocating that, you are begging the futile debate “which martial art serves as the best broad base for other arts?” Telling a 35 or 55year old beginner that they must spend 21yrs before they can defend themselves is just ignorant of physiology and your own art, plus inconsiderate of the fact that no adult after 25 has all the time in the world like an 8 or 17y.o. And, "foundations" doesn't mean expertise or a "black belt"; just as mastery doesn't mean being a master or expert. (The lack of English vocabulary understanding by native speakers is ridiculous!) Unless you all agree on definitions, issues, and learn some sports psych or edu psych, you're just going in circles. The brute sport of martial arts does not have an objective common theory like maths & music that makes intermediate & advanced contents easier to learn. But those who support the "study 1 before moving on in M.A" don't even know why they say that
I follow your line of thinking and its not faulty in some ways but often times the people are is what I have found. A lot of times when individuals do this they only learn basic aspects and applications of things then and develop their skill and ability to use them only to that level and not beyond that. Kicking is a good example and many go and learn that to some extent. However there is much more to using and applying the aspects of that than what people learn especially if they then go onto something else rather than instead sticking with training and further learning about kicking and developing their ability and skill with it. After all a foundation not only has to be strong enough for something to stand or be based on but also broad enough as well usually.
I see and work with a lot of amateurs and pros even that fall victim to this in some ways and there was a question a week or so ago about Benson Henderson and front kicks and why they seem to get caught allot by his opponent. While he is a tremendous fighter he throws too many with his rear leg which takes extra time because it has to travel further giving his opponent time to see it coming. They also are always straight on or straight in and if I was his coach I would have him move at an angle and throw it sometimes or throw more with the front leg, using it like a jab and that would help make doing that kick with the back leg more effective then. This is an example of what I am saying here and how sometimes a person or fighter has learned something but maybe not as much as they fully could if they stuck with learning and training with something longer.
The other thing about this is many people training today think and want it now and expect it to be that way. They think six weeks of learning and training on something is sufficient and then go onto something else. Some skills and aspects really take much longer than that to learn and develop fully and too often they forgo doing that and move onto something else thinking they have learned everything about something.
As both a Martial artist and University professor I will use both. In College you specialize in one subject and will take other classes to help you become a more well rounded person. In Martial arts, you should also specialize in one style and look at others to make you a better rounded person. That said, even in places where people train for over 50 years, it is rare to find someone who really specializes in more than one art. If you go to Okinawa, you might find people who teach karate and bo but at the school, there is always one person who is the authority in Karate and another who is the authority in Bo. I like to view Martial arts (TMA) the same as school system. with a Black Belt you have a high school degree, you can read, write, do math but have just enough skills to be a fry cook. At 2nd degree you have an associates or basic level apprentice. 3rd would be like a BA/BS, 4th basic teaching credential and so on. Every time you get a new level, you are expected to continue to observe other styles. This is very different from hoping styles after a black belt. This would be like getting a high school diploma and going for a second high school diploma under another school.
Some say "studied" - past tense - as if they're somehow "finished". That's a horrible mindset, no style is finite. That is a problem with styles that have black belt ranks: too many people see this as a milestone to reach and then quit and move on.
But I might have given up on Taekwondo, because I can't find a school that teaches self-defense - it's all sport and competition. They don't have divisions for people like me - it's always the kids and 20-somethings. For me, I am done with the style - it's not that I can't learn more, it's that all that I'm going to learn with the local instructors is how to compete. And I no longer want to compete.
So I took up Aikido - no competition, no forms, no breaking. Just... self-defense. And I still practice Taekwondo, just to keep moving, know the forms, help others learn. But I no longer work toward advancement, I no longer compete (sometimes, I'll compete in forms or breaking, but that's just if I'm in the mood - I have a very casual attitude about all this). I do study my forms much more intensely than ever before - especially as I see what I do in Aikido as it relates to something I do in Taekwondo. But I can't find anyone to point out these similarities - I have to go it alone, a very slow process.
So you could say I've moved on. My motivations were that I didn't want to compete, I wanted to learn more self-defense, and that I wanted to learn a different philosophy on martial arts. Japanese culture is very different than Korean when it comes to martial arts. Very different. That is why I didn't take up Hapkido - I took up Aikido instead. Similar styles, but very different culture.
If you are putting up a building. When you creat the foundation, do you use concrete for one corner, cinder block in another, and red brick in another. That would only serve to creat a week foundation.
The same goes for martial arts, you need to creat a solid foundation for your training. Hopping from one style to another is no different then creating a week foundation for a building.
People are always in such a rush, to learn every thing they can. But neglect to create a solid foundation for there training.
edit:> you may build different foundations for different ground types but in general you are building the same foundation for an entire building. if you create another building next to it you can use a different type of foundation.
once you have your style foundation, your not creating a second are foundation with the next stye you are adding it to your existing style. at least this is the why i train. once you have a foundation in one style, you can more easily merge the two styles together. and if you train long enough you can see the commonality between them
as for the time frame, im sure most people wont agree with me but i usually suggest about 8 to 9 years. this is about the time you have learned come out of a basic understanding of the style and are moving into a more general understanding or it. as one of my teaches use to drill our heads, if your building the empire state building, you will spend years creating the foundation. going down 6 story's, if your building an outhouse the foundation will only take a few hours. you can put an outhouse on top of the foundation for the empire state building. but you cant put the empire state building on top of the outhouse foundation.