Unless a specific study is done, it's hard to say whether it's more or less efficient. I mean, if someone wants to be an elite level MMA fighter, is it more efficient for him or her to train in an MMA gym out of the gate, splitting time between grappling and striking, or to start with wrestling, then add BJJ, then add striking, and then synthesize the discrete skillsets? Is one clearly better than the other? Both methods produce elite level competitors.
Yup. That's why I was saying the difference is negligible. And doesn't really have much of an effect on us amateurs.
I think that’s a fair claim. I’m not sure where the diminishing return is (and it probably varies by person, but I’d bet most of the benefit past 10 hours is just physical/athletic development, so breakdancing would provide about as much as more BJJ.
I think this is a good example @Steve. In focusing for competition, there’s going to be more stopping to work on tricks and technique, developing routines, rather than keeping the pace up for the fitness benefit.
I don’t see a path to quantifying, either, but I think I can help clarify MTW’s point. If you took up breakdancing specifically to improve your BJJ, you’d likely choose to focus on movements and routines that you feel fit that purpose. If you do it for fun, you’d likely learn it more broadly (including moves you don’t see as beneficial to BJJ) and also spend more of the time on developing fun and/or impressive routines.
Hold on. I'm confused again. This is why I keep asking the same question over. What's your actual opinion here? Is it that doing things contiguously impedes skill development, or not? I mean, if you want to be good at MMA, is it better to focus your attention (as was suggested by several folks earlier in the thread) on one thing (e.g., boxing), get really at it then move onto the second thing (e.g., BJJ), get really good at that, then move onto the third thing (e.g., wrestling), get really good at that, and then put it all together? Or is it better to do all three things at the same time? I would say the latter.
Why would you limit yourself like that, though? I don't understand why you guys think that doing one activity with the intended outcome being to realize a benefit in another activity means you have to half *** that second activity.
What if, and I know this might be crazy, that doesn't actually matter? You presume that working on tricks and technique in jumping rope is negatively impacting your boxing training, but why is that necessarily so? I think it MAY, but that it's not a given. I also think it MAY have a tangential, net positive impact. How would this be materially different than doing interval training?
You could. That’d be the second group: doing it for fun.
This is back to the original concept of limited time. If you add more moves to work on in the same time, you spend less time on the group most beneficial. And as in my previous post, you likely spend time working on developing routines that look good, that being time taken from the more athletic pursuits most likely to benefit BJJ.
What I’m saying is that 10 minutes spent planning out (not practicing) a series of jumprope tricks is less beneficial to boxing than exercising with the jumprope for 10 minutes.
No. Both groups... at the same time. Doing it for fun AND doing it because it benefits another activity.
Given reasonable amounts of time, I think this just doesn't bear out. in fact, I think half-assing the second activity is more likely (if anything) to inhibit any benefits you might see than otherwise.
What if those 10 minutes spent planning out your tricks leads you to a more intense (and AWESOME) routine? What if those 10 minutes were when you were sitting in the hot tub, relaxing and recovering from your rope jumping and BJJ classes that day? Or having a cup of coffee with your rope jumping friends?
Gets to that comment about parkour and basketball. I don't know whether it would help with basketball, but a lot of TKD guys do parkour and you see a lot of parkour tricks in TKD and XMA, as well. Seems to be pretty synergistic, even if jumping off a roof doesn't translate directly to a 1080 cyclone whirl kick (or whatever they're doing now).
agreed. My point is just the time taken away from beneficial training. The hard part is figuring how much that matters at any given point. If it’s 5 hours a week less spent in beneficial training out of 10, that pretty clearly matters. If it’s 30 minutes out of those 10 hours...maybe?
You’re changing the argument. It started as a comment about training time taken from a primary activity. If you take the time from elsewhere, you change the variables (like total training time). You seem determined to make this an argument of details rather than a discussion of concepts.
