Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

question about crosstraining

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    question about crosstraining

    There seems to be 2 main theories on crosstraining.
    One camp says that you need proficiency in one art, and once you have a base art you can begin to supliment with other arts. They say you need proficiency in one art first or you are wasting your time.
    The other camp says that instead of focussing on arts, we should focuss on ranges and attributes. They say that it is not necessary to be expert in any one art, but instead we should work toward proficiency in all ranges.
    What theory do you guys buy?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Originally posted by double ouch
    There seems to be 2 main theories on crosstraining.
    One camp says that you need proficiency in one art, and once you have a base art you can begin to supliment with other arts. They say you need proficiency in one art first or you are wasting your time.
    The other camp says that instead of focussing on arts, we should focuss on ranges and attributes. They say that it is not necessary to be expert in any one art, but instead we should work toward proficiency in all ranges.
    What theory do you guys buy?
    I'm somewhere in between. I believe that cross-training is vital to development of conceptual understanding of the principals which make the material work. Finding similarities between different arts helps develop this understanding. It also makes us more well-rounded. If we feel that we are lacking in a given area then we should train in something that specializes in that area to increase our understanding and ability in it.

    However, I also believe that in order to truly gain anything useful from cross-training that one must have a good understanding of the basic fundamentals of movement. The best way to achieve this is through gaining proficiency in a given art.

    So ... to use an analogy:

    I'm digging for water and I know that there is water througout a given area ... but that its depth differs. Am I better off digging one well until I hit water, or digging several wells simultaneously.

    If I dig one well, but choose my location poorly, then I might have to dig a long time before hitting water. If I dig multiple wells then my chances of hitting water closer to the surface increase ... but my progress on any single well decreases. Is one method better than another? Tough call ... and kind of up to personal preference.

    However, once I've hit water, I can dig more wells at my leisure. I might find better water. I might need more water than one well can provide. I might get lucky and find oil ... you never know.

    Now, back to martial arts. In many ways, the best bet (IMHO) is to train in one art until you have a good understanding of the basics (i.e.: be a black belt or very near it) then go out and cross-train. (Incidentally, this is not what I did ... but looking at it objectively, it's probably the best course)

    Any martial art, even sport TKD, will give you an understanding of some elements fundamental to understanding proper movement. Once you understand these fundamentals, then you can cross-train to develop other fundamentals that your first system was "weak" (this is a relative term ... all medical doctors have good anatomical knowledge ... but you don't visit a neurologist to set a broken bone :-)

    OK ... I've rambled long enough. Hopefully it made sense.

    I don't really think there's a concrete answer to this. It's going to have a lot to do with the individual and his/her situation.

    I do feel, though, that if one keeps an open mind and is always willing to learn (i.e.: maintan a "white belt" mentality) then one will, regardless of the training methodology employed, become a good martial artist over time.

    To paraphrase Guro Dan Inosanto: "We're all climbing the same mountain, just taking different paths. When we get to the top, we will all be looking at the same moon." All martial arts lead to the same place ... they just take different routes to get there :-)

    Mike

    Comment

    • #3
      the average club fighter (boxing) can whip most people on the street because he has tools that the untrained guy doesnt know. but if he is in the ring with the experience fighter, he will get his ass kicked. why is this? this because the guy with the tools have only a basic understanding of what it is he is doing and he is limited by what he can teach to himself when his training is over. the man with experience have learned all of what there is to know about his specialty, and can apply them to anything else he does, even a new situation, with more effectivenss becuase he has experience he can consult with.

      the man who has no specialty it only using tools, whan the specialty man can improvise better.

      i believe if you can teach to mike tyson muay thai and judo he will beat 99% of the guys in nhb competitions becuase he will have a better background. if you make him an expert grappler, he will beat all of them.

      i believe only a stand up fighter with experience can appreciate what i am saying because most of those guys who are only "dabble" in boxing and kickboxing have only a intermediate's understanding of it. the same way a karate man with seminar knowledge of jujitsu knows what an army recruit knows about self defense.

      the total fighter, is one who will fight by ANY rules. if you are a boxer, he can box you. if you are a judo man he will grapple with you. if you are a kicker he will olympic style with you. he will not hide behind saying "i only do streetfighting, or we dont do that we play for real" that is bullsh_t. the complete fighter is not afraid to fight by any rules, because if he lost, it is a good training experience.

      Comment

      • #4
        Very well said and put, Kuntaw Man.

        Comment

        #5
        Kuntaw always kicks my replies asses..

        I say concentrate on 'fighting' and forget about style or attributes for that matter. Forget the concept of cross training as well, but do it, nonetheless. just work on building your fighting arsenal. fighting is ONE art, though there are many styles. learn the one art, fighting. take from whatever resource you can to add to that art. Musicianship has helped my fighting. No kidding. Helped a lot. Gave me a strong sense of rhythmn, which gave power and speed to my punches, footwork, and sticks. It also taught me to disrupt someone else's rhythmn. Growing up splitting logs for firewood helped too. Taught me about loose energy and power, especially considering I was a runt of a kid and had to manhandle that big maul. Everything becomes your teacher if you are looking for answers. Both the yogi's and the buddhists are big on that fact.

        I mean, waht I'm really saying is i think you should concentrate on the attributes..but I don't like that wording.

        Fight a lot. Our sparring is really doing me a lot of good. Look at the fighting as the training. The "attribute training" "training drills" and "different styles" (better phrased "different perspective" "different pathways" or "differently goal oriented" in my opinion) are just the wisdom to help you after the fight. You fight, you get slugged, say everytime you throw a jab. Now you have a question. "how is it i'm getting slugged at the start of each jab, and how do I prevent it". You also get to ask "How do I do this trick this guy is doing to me? How can I hit someone everytime they start to throw a jab"..

        Now you go to your drills. you take your fighting experience with you when you do the drills. never forget you are doing drills to learn for the fight experience. otherwise, the drills are dances. you may as well learn ballet or something that is intended solely to be aesthetically pleasing, otherwise. Anyway, those drills are for answering your questions.

        Attributes are what you are really building. But don't concentrate on the attributes when you train, concentrate on the fighting. If you concentrate on the attributes, you will be a guy with great attributes, sure. But can you use them to fight with? Maybe that doesn't make sense.. but you can be faster than me, stronger than me, and smarter than me. If you haven't beat a man til he was unconscious, however..or been beaten unconscious..you aren't on the same par. I thought I knew how to do a roof block for three years. then we start sparring. all of a sudden, roof block is a worthless defense. then I find out how to close the gap with it, mostly by accident. The fight brought it out of me. I may have learned that technique even WITHOUT 3 years of boxflow sambrada under me. The fight taught me. You have to know what the questions are before you can answer them. the drills are the answers. it's not so helpful to look at the answers before anyone has shown you the questions. fighting is what shows you the questions.

        without fighting, everything is theory. there is no point forging tools if you haven't done the job, and know nothing about the job, other than what friends told you and you saw on tv.

        fight, and attributes will form of themselves..the training is merely icing. fight, and then drill, and the drills will be meaningful. it isn't meaningful til you've been beaten again and again, and you get this motivation to NOT get beaten.

        all the old masters seem to emphasize that it's the mind you are killing with. bruce even said it in tao of jkd.. that the muscles have no real control of themselves. it's the nervous system that tells the muscles when to contract, what order, what rhythmn, what strength level, and where to put the motion.. fighting will teach your brain, and make your brain pay attention. so that when you do the drills, you'll be DOING them, not just doing them.

        dig?




        [Edited by quietanswer on 10-31-2000 at 12:08 PM]

        Comment

        • #6
          Very well said and put also, quietanswer.

          Comment

          • #7
            "without fighting everything is theory" Amen. I like that you focuss everything on the fighting, technique, attribute building etc. Using fighting as your "style" or organizing principle seems to make sense. I like what kuntaw had to say also. Find a guy with extraordinary skills in one area and give him a little crosstraining and he will kick ass! That is what gracie did. But also look at guys like frand shamrock, who are more balanced. shamrock seems to do well also. I guess either approach could work for you. I would prefer a balanced aproach if I am starting from scratch. As for learning a system or style in depth, I don't think that will necessarily make you strong at any one range.

            Comment

              • #8
              I like that analogy of digging wells, Mike..I'll probably use that in the future...

              One thing about crosstraining AFTER having developed yourself with a style is that you have very little to learn, oftentimes.

              I first saw this with Highschool wrestling. I spent time boxing before I wrestled. I learne dsome basic boxing..slipping, bob and weave, footwork etc..

              then when I started wrestling, I found wrestlers were halfway to knowing how to box already..in fact, some could strike and dodge really effectively without boxing training (they were scrappers).. Wrestlers call slipping "changing levels".. they do it to drop their hips unpredictably so that you can't tell where your target is for the throw.. much like a boxer with lots of head movement.]

              they also strike to the head/face. They use the generic term Pummeling. It has to be open handed, but nonetheless, it's a pop to the head to set up a throw. they don't HAVE to follow it with a throw, as it may not set up a throw. so I've seen guys pummel the living hell out of each other. while they are striking to the face, they have to ensure that they aren't exposing themselves to a throw, or a strike themselves.. see? very much like fighting in a sense..and like boxing, in a sense, when you consider their footwork is the same (lots of angling off at 45 degrees, also seen in filipino/kung fu/aikido/etc)..they don't let their bodies bounce with the steps, rather they push-slide frequently.. they know how to use their body weight with their footwork to add power to a technique.. their techniques are throws..but once a guy knows how to do it for a throw, it doesn't take much to teach him to do it with a punch..

              So if a guy gets to a high level of skill in highschool wrestling, he already has some boxing knowledge, whether he's aware of that or not. College level wrestlers make awesome boxers. In fact, in the public schools, their was once boxing teams (about 30-40 years ago).. and you always saw the same guys on both the boxing and the wrestling team, and usually it was the same coaches too. It's because timing is timing no matter the fight. Distance is always distance, movement is movement, and sense of balance is sense of balance.

              and most importantly, fighting spirit is unchanged no matter what the contest..a man who has sweated and suffered fighting off a pin for 45 seconds after he already has been placed in an inferior position, recieving chins to his collar bones, and having his arm half ripped out of socket, while he's UTTERLY exhausted.. he is also going to be a harder man to knock out, and much less likely to 'throw in the towel' even when faced with someone far, far more technically advanced. and I'll tell you, my fighting history (mostly high school type scuffles..but sometimes bad ones) has shown me that the willingness to continue even after being clobbered can be a very decisive factor..

              So in a sense, if you are studying one fight applicable style, you are already studying them all. you may need lots of refining and rethinking of your movements..and possibly a teacher/guide to explain how the concept is the same but applied slightly differently, but it's there.

              now, my question is: I've heard people say "some styles are not intermixable.. even thought hey both work in fighting.. they are too different in philosophy to intermix well".. is this an uneducated individual spouting off a misunderstanding? I have always thought all men have 4 limbs (maximum ) and the joints work the same, and physics seldom changes..so..all fight styles (when understood to any depth, anyway) are roughly the same in the end. a pakua master looks like a boxer in a street fight.. roughly. thoughts?

              [Edited by quietanswer on 10-31-2000 at 03:24 PM]

              Comment

              • #9
                Originally posted by quietanswer
                I like that analogy of digging wells, Mike..I'll probably use that in the future...
                Feel free :-)

                One thing about crosstraining AFTER having developed yourself with a style is that you have very little to learn, oftentimes.
                Very true. But by looking at another system, you may not learn something *new* per se, but you may gain a better understanding of something you already know :-)

                So in a sense, if you are studying one fight applicable style, you are already studying them all. you may need lots of refining and rethinking of your movements..and possibly a teacher/guide to explain how the concept is the same but applied slightly differently, but it's there.
                Yup. A friend of mine, Joe Lansdale, and his crew in Texas have a saying, "There is only one art ... 'martial art'" It's a good saying :-)

                now, my question is: I've heard people say "some styles are not intermixable.. even thought hey both work in fighting.. they are too different in philosophy to intermix well".. is this an uneducated individual spouting off a misunderstanding? I have always thought all men have 4 limbs (maximum ) and the joints work the same, and physics seldom changes..so..all fight styles (when understood to any depth, anyway) are roughly the same in the end. a pakua master looks like a boxer in a street fight.. roughly. thoughts?
                Well, I don't know of any two that qualify for this (by my definition anyway). It could be a misunderstanding ... or it could be how they define the parameters.

                I mean, a lot of people would say that football and ballet don't mix ... but the principles of movement are still the same and a football player who trains in ballet will likely be more nimble, surer and fleeter of foot on and off the field than his fellow team mates :-)

                I haven't found two disciplines that don't compliment each other. Where they overlap, you increase your depth of understanding. Where they don't overlap, you increase your breadth of knowledge.

                If someone can point out two disciplines (preferably in the MA world) that don't compliment each other in any way, then I'll change my opinion ... until then, I'll continue to feel that, when done properly, there's no such thing as useless training or overtraining (outside of personal preference, that is).

                Regards, Mike

                Comment

                  • #10
                  one thing that shocked me was meeting a comative tai chi instructor. I thought it was incredible that every time I attacked him he countered, and powerfully. Now, granted, I'm not an advanced fighter.. But I'm used to at least be able to hit someone once..

                  then he showed me how movements i do in the arts i do are hidden in his form.. this is probably no surprise to anyone..but it was REALLY there and he could apply it.

                  I think it's amazing how martial arts get brutalized by poor instructors.

                  Comment

                  • #11
                    Originally posted by quietanswer
                    one thing that shocked me was meeting a comative tai chi instructor. I thought it was incredible that every time I attacked him he countered, and powerfully. Now, granted, I'm not an advanced fighter.. But I'm used to at least be able to hit someone once..

                    then he showed me how movements i do in the arts i do are hidden in his form.. this is probably no surprise to anyone..but it was REALLY there and he could apply it.

                    I think it's amazing how martial arts get brutalized by poor instructors.
                    Yup. I was talking to a friend once who had had some Tai Chi training. He hadn't gotten very advanced in it, though, and when I mentioned that it had good fighting applications in it he thought I was insane.

                    I had him show me the first few motions of the form he'd learned. I then showed him an application to it. The application was from Silat ... but it was the same movements of his form. When he got off the floor he was amazed and flabbergasted.

                    I've seen some very nasty applications from Tai Chi, Pa Qua, Hsing-I, and other "soft" systems :-)

                    Regards, Mike

                    Comment

                      • #12
                      Mike, you obviously work near a computer, as do I. Hah. We're the geeks on this forum, apparently.

                      Yes, a great study on the nasty applications of tai chi are much documented by Yang Jwing Ming. Yang Jwing Ming holds many trophies/belts/awards for full contact fighting competitions..boxing as well as grappling as well as less restricted versions. Every book I see of his is well written and intelligently laid out. I nearly bought his book on chinese fast wrestling, but the "combat throwing" book had more throwing knowledge (and fewer throws) withinit..

                      but really, Yang Jwing ming has a couple of great books on martial applications of tai chi..one is "tai chi chin na".. it's awesome.

                      Comment

                      • #13
                        i think any style can be mixed. one of my boys, is a 10 year black belter in aikido. he is a little older, not too great shape, but man he knows his aikido really well. when he came to me one year ago he told me that he was not really confident in his fighting. but last may, when he was ready for his first promotion, i was playing with him and he locks my wrist! now in kuntaw we have those same ones but i thought our application methods is better than aikido, but i saw that i am wrong. once in a while, i asked him a few things and i apply what he shows me to what i am doing already, and i know he is doing the same thing with what i am showing to him. he feels now that he can handle any young person with no problems after only one year. his movement is smooth, with no problems. i use to think that he has to choose one or the other one if he was going to learn to fight, but like i think quietanswer says, you learn the idea, not just the technique. he does his kuntaw his own way, not like anybody else in my school, and it works just fine.

                        and ballet can mix good with more manly arts. has anyone here ever looked at billy blanks fight when he was young? he is awesome, i fought him in dc in 88 or 87, he kicked my ass, and he is a dancer too. embarassing.

                        Comment

                        • #14
                          Hi,

                          Kuntawman wrote:
                          >>has anyone here ever looked at billy blanks fight when he was young? he is awesome, i fought him in dc in 88 or 87, he kicked my ass, and he is a dancer too. embarassing.<<

                          I live in Cleveland, and I used to see Billy Blanks in the early 80's... he was pretty damn impressive! Being from Erie PA, he used to point-fight here regularly. There were two guys who used to stand out... James Cook and Billy Blanks... those guys pulled off some impressive stuff! Those guys definitely had some skills.

                          ~Kev

                          Comment

                          • #15
                            Originally posted by quietanswer
                            Mike, you obviously work near a computer, as do I. Hah. We're the geeks on this forum, apparently.
                            LOL ... yeah, I work near a computer :-) I'm currently a freelance programming consultant.

                            Yup. What's really amazing is that I've met a lot of computer folks at martial arts seminars :-) It's somewhat disturbing to think of all these people sitting at their computer keyboards and thinking of ways to fight with their mouse cords and how best to use a CD ROM as a projectile weapon ... or at least, that's what I do ... maybe I'm the only weird one :-)

                            Mike

                            Comment

                              • Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X