Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
"Complete System" vs. "Jack of all Trades"?
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?
Scandal-I understand that systems claiming to be "complete" will train most or all aspects in each class. But do you train all aspects equally each session? Your makiwa work will not improve your skill with lockflows and vice-versa. The hypothetical situation was based on that understanding. Wanna give it another shot?
4 Answers
- maelani62Lv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
well you make a good point but with an established system the ways of using these techniqus and flowing between them has already been established this can lend some ease to the process of using them. key word of course is some
- Anonymous5 years ago
I agree with judomofo's first paragraph. When I think of a "complete system" I think of a system that teaches at least a little of everything and this makes you a Jack of all Trades. While you may not be able to roll with the best Judokas or BJJ practitioners, you have other skills at your disposal. You have learned to strike where they have not. While you may not be able to stand and trade blows with a Muay Thai fighter or boxer, you can take them down and grapple. Being a Jack of all Trades (and master of none) isn't necessarily a bad thing when you look at it from that perspective. In fact it gives you a large advantage over fighters who focus on a single aspect of combat. If you want to differentiate between fighters with a "Complete System" and "Jack of all Trades" fighters then I would hazard a guess that pugpaws' answer illustrates the Complete System. A single style that covers everything, or very nearly so. A practitioner would dedicate their time to learning this single style and spend years, decades, even a life time mastering the single style. So what does that leave for a Jack of all Trades? A Jack of all Trades could be a person who moves from art to art picking up pieces and stitching them together on their own. They would be less concerned with mastering any single style, but becoming proficient is their goal. Both concepts I've suggested as possible meanings can produce a competent fighter with a large skill set. The Complete System model has the advantage of being taught as a complete system; you'll be taught how the ranges of combat inter-relate and how to use your varied skill set. It's set back is that finding such a style taught well could be difficult depending on where you live. The Jack of all Trades model works on the idea that you can find the component styles in your area. The negative side to this is that you have to tie them together through a lot of trial and error over time. That's just my two cents. As a side note, this question is getting a star or marked as interesting (whatever it is). It's the first I've actually liked answering in a long time here!
- Darth ScandalousLv 71 decade ago
Your question is based on your lack of knowledge of "complete system(s)".
You want this to be a "hypothetical question" but it can only be answered based on the hypothetical situation that YOU presented - not based on how "complete systems" are actually trained in - but under YOUR criteria, supporting YOUR agenda!
Your description of the "complete system" does NOT even come close to anything I endured in my training.
In my "complete system" we were taught grappling, throwing, striking/kyusho, kiko(qigong) and all the other aspects of the art - IN EVERY CLASS!
We exchanged hands - aka Kumite, in EVERY CLASS!
Your version of "complete systems" are the crap that passes as karate nowadays - these are the most incomplete "systems" in existence. They cannot be used as the measuring stick for all that is "karate".
You need to ask this question again so it doesn't seem so biased.
- 1 decade ago
Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do i think is the closest to a "complete system" but then again it's not really so much a system,as much as a philosiphy......What he say? Using no way as a way.....No single way.....
Absorb what is useful,Discard what is useless,and add what is essentially your own......