What do you consider "style hopping"?

"Style hopping" is different in my mind than cross-training.

I had a green belt student once, that had about 6 green belts from as many styles. When he left my dojo, he had a Shotokan green belt as well. He had nearly as many years training as I had, yet he was a green belt and I was his instructor. When he left, I could say he had good green belt skills, but not brown-belt skills. That is style hopping, and it holds you back really bad.

I actually recommend cross training once you have that "foundation" in a single art, so you have perspective. And I suggest you do not abandon your original art. I have trained with many from many styles, and learned much from that. Yet what I do is still pure Shotokan.

I hope I expressed that clearly.

A strong house is built on a solid foundation.

I consider style hopping as being someone who studies a few months in one style and then jumps to another style and so on. They seem to be the people acquiring the products to build the house but have no foundation

If you have a person who studied 15 years in one style and then goes and trains 6 months in one style and then 6 months in another and so one then this is not so much style hopping because they already have their base style. so they have a strong foundation to begin with.

To me the difference is a person having a strong foundation in one style means they can later go and style hop and pick up new techniques because they have that foundation to fall back on. a person without the strong foundation is building a house on the sand.

I studied an built a solid foundation in 3 styles but 1 more so than the others but along the way i have had a dabble in a few other styles and i dont consider this style hopping because i have always got my foundation that i never stop pursuing. Many martial artists like to do this to in the pursuit of further knowledge and a well rounded skill set. Sometimes something little you learn in another style can trigger the information to unlock a whole new world within your own foundation style that you just couldnt grasp or see before.

EDIT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My foundations are different - I have a Foundation in GJJ, Muay Thai and Judo.

I chose Muay Thai when i was about 16 to further understand the art of striking. For me i stayed with this for more than 10 years to establish a solid foundation in striking. If i hopped from Muay thai to boxing to karate to TKD etc then of course it is style hopping but i always have that GJJ foundation. When i began Muay Thai it was to create the foundation of striking.

Also if you study one style even if that is a grappling style they still focus on striking as well and vise versa even if its not a strong focus.

Style hopping is when someone jumps from one style to the other and then to the other and then to the other, after lets say 1-2 months of training in each. Lest say in 2 years someone have changed 8 styles like that..That is style hopping...

Training in two styles at the same time, is cross training.

We can analyze a lot about both of course, people will be in favor or against or somewhere in the middle, but the above is more like a definition of those two, for anyone reading this.

So training in two styles at the same time is not style hopping but cross training.

Style hopping is different depending on who you are talking about. Beginners send to watch a few techniques and then move on. They have no foundation. They choose what looks good to them. Someone that studies a few months and then moves on to another style is no better. They convince themselves and their buddies that they see the flaws in what they see others doing. Then they set about creating their ideal fighting style. But they have neither the experience no understanding to do such a thing effectively. They certainly have never fought any real threats or they would quickly get over their silly superior ideas.

Someone that has years of background in a dedicated realistic background of self-defense training can learn a lot form other styles. To look to other styles for new techniques is simply telling me that they do not have a broad background. The greater value of studying another style is not to seek more technique. It is to learn a different perspective on things that are similar between styles. It is this new perspective that often leads to a deeper understanding of not only the technique but related things in general. I have used the algebra expression of if A = B and B = C what conclusion can we draw from that...? Those that have had algebra learned that A must also be = to C. While learning anything we may learn something from someone similar to the A = B. We may if lucky later learn that B = C. Yet first hand I have experienced and seen others not relate that A = C. Sometimes study of other styles gives us the new perspective needed for us to make that leap on our own.

An example that come to mind has to do with a technique done twice in Heian Yondan. The version I had learned originally had some hand movements that made no sense to me. The bunkai i was given by my early instructors did not work for me and I believed them to be wrong. One day 20 or more years later I was viewing a video of a seminar given by Shogo Kuniba. Kuniba was teaching some of the softer Aiki-like technique. He did not say where the technique came from. In the process of watching the seminar I suddenly made the mental connection between the application Kuniba Soke was doing and the movement in Heian-Yondan I had been pondering for so long. The application fit like a fist in a glove. I have shared this application many times with many people of both high and low level. It works for everyone that tries it. This it a clear example of the value of looking into other styles. But, a beginner would totally miss something so valuable. They have neither the training nor the experience to see what is right in front of them.

The worst mindset I see that is common is that more is better. What happens is they learn more and more and can do less and less of what the know. Better to master a few things than to dabble in many and master nothing.

...

You can define style hopping however you want. Consider it dating for the martial arts. You'll eventually find one or more that you like. :)

The study then drop a definition makes sense. It's hard to learn anything if you cant follow through.

This master (i'm using that term loosely) one thing before picking up another is just plain silly. Imagine telling your teacher that you wanted to master art before you started learning English or math. They'd laugh at you and send you on your way with your homework.

I consider it style hopping when you switch from style to style without really learning anything from a style. However, I don't believe you need to get a black belt (or the equivalent) in every style you study just to avoid being called a "style hopper".

I think it is good to get grounded in some art, this way you can have the martial arts maturity to know what it is you need to become well-rounded. For example, someone who studies karate for a month isn't ready to move onto another art, because he is too green to know what it is he lacks. However, if someone is already proficient at an art like karate and has the maturity and knowledge to know what he would need to become well rounded, then I see nothing wrong with him seeking other arts to gain that knowledge.

MMA has largely proven that you don't need to become a master in each individual art to become a well-rounded fighter.

I do think that everyone should become proficient in at least one stand up art and one grappling art. From there, they can "fine tune" their skill-set. I also think that it is important to cross train in arts that will fill the largest gaps in your skill-set. For example, if someone was a very good BJJ fighter, then that person studying Judo or wrestling may be beneficial, but the benefits would be minimal compared to him studying something like Muay Thai, or boxing. Likewise, someone who studies Muay Thai will get little out of studying karate relative to him studying a dedicated grappling system.

If you go from style to style just to collect techniques and discard the mainstay of everything else - you're a style hopper.

If you go from style to style just to collect rank (black belt) then you're a belt collector.

If you go from style to style to learn and retain all that you learn - whether it is for sport or self-defense or both - then you are a cross-trainer.

If you go from style to style because you travel too much, your finances change, the schools keep closing down, then, you are a persistent multi-style trainer.

Style-hopper and belt-collector are both pejoratives; to me, nothing noble about this at all. But cross-trainers do not arrogantly discard everything they're taught; they seek to fill in the gaps of their training. Very noble to me.

I train in Taekwondo (sport variety) and Aikido. Around me, TKD is never taught with real self-defense in mind - only sport. I wanted more real-life self-defense, so, I took up Aikido. As some wouldn't even consider sport fighting (TKD, in my case) as "martial arts" they wouldn't even consider me a cross-trainer - just a "practicer of two things..." But I do consider it a martial art; I therefore label myself as a cross-trainer. I do not discard all that I learn in Taekwondo or Aikido, and I'm not there just to get a collection black belt (such people avoid Aikido at all costs - it takes so long to get ranked here!)

I also think that there is a noble reason for style hopping. If you want to devote a significant part of your life to martial arts, spending time - a few months - at several schools just to see if you like the style, the instruction, or whatever about the training, then to me there is nothing wrong with that. This is a different mindset than quitting because you want to find more techniques somewhere else.

Style-hoppers have always amazed me: they quit before even becoming an advanced student. They therefore never learn more complicated techniques - everything they've learned as a beginner seems to me is taught everywhere.