Curious about the differences in judo\jjj and bjj.

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

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'll respond to the rest separately. But not sure if the miscommunication here is on my end on yours, so figured a separate post detailing my opinion here is worth it. As bare bones as I can make it without all the exceptions/iffy definitions of what's a tool vs. a separate activity.

• Learning A makes you better at A.
• Learning B, if related to A, can also improve your skill at A. Most likely (there are some odd exceptions but not worth mentioning), it at the very least won't impede your skill development in A.
• Taking time to learn B, which you would have otherwise spent on A, can impede your skill development for A. I think. And I'm open to the idea that that's wrong.
• However, if B is similar to A in base skill/athletic focus, the amount that it impedes is likely marginal, as long as it's taking away from the conditioning aspect, not skill/tactics training. Similarly, if my 3rd point is wrong, the amount that it improves it over just more training in A is also most likely marginal.
• For someone who is a professional at a specific skill, this is important to figure out, since any edge is important. For someone who isn't it's probably better after a certain point to learn a similar, well-rounded skill due to the learning plateau's, but ultimately that's personal choice.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

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.

Then the question becomes, if you do all three things at the same time, can you get really good at any one of those three things at the same time you're also getting really good at MMA? I think, 100% yes. We see it all the time.

Then the question become, can you get really good at all three things while training them all contiguously, and also get really good at MMA? And I think... I don't know. Maybe? It depends?

So to address the rest of this, is the end goal MMA/fighting? In that case, my guess is learning them all at the same time is the best option. And will also still improve your baseline ability at wrestling, boxing and BJJ at the same time. But if your goal is boxing, you'd be better off just boxing, rather than splitting some of your time going to MMA class.

That said, again, people have done both ways to compete in MMA so I don't think it really makes that much of a difference.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you are trying to work out your training that way rather than putting in extra time on development. Then you probably have bigger issues anyway.

That is the old. What do I teach in a two week self defence course? Conundrum.

Yet most people do have a limited amount of te they’re willing to commit, so it’s a reality for them.

 

[Steve]

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.

I'm having a discussion, not determined to do anything. I don't have an agenda here. I have an opinion. Very different things.

 

[drop bear]

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).

Interestingly acro translates to MMA a fair bit. Because the fighting dynamics change. Jumping knees work well against takedowns And other bibs and bobs.

So while XMA may or may not be the greatest base for TKD success. It might be better than TKD for MMA.

 

[Steve]

So to address the rest of this, is the end goal MMA/fighting? In that case, my guess is learning them all at the same time is the best option. And will also still improve your baseline ability at wrestling, boxing and BJJ at the same time. But if your goal is boxing, you'd be better off just boxing, rather than splitting some of your time going to MMA class.

That said, again, people have done both ways to compete in MMA so I don't think it really makes that much of a difference.

What if the goal is to be good at BJJ AND MMA? What if the goal is to be GREAT at both? Or what if your goal is to be great at just BJJ? Is training in wrestling going to make you less good at BJJ? What about Judo? Or Yoga, or Parkour?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm having a discussion, not determined to do anything. I don't have an agenda here. I have an opinion. Very different things.

Yet you keep trying to push specific usage and argue against claims I haven’t seen people made. And you seem to be taking a confrontational approach to it, asking rhetorical and leading questions, rather than seeking to understand the view you’re arguing with.

 

[drop bear]

Yet most people do have a limited amount of te they’re willing to commit, so it’s a reality for them.

That is a concept called rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. And is a very common solution.

It mostly doesn't work. But it is very common.

 

[Steve]

Yet you keep trying to push specific usage and argue against claims I haven’t seen people made. And you seem to be taking a confrontational approach to it, asking rhetorical and leading questions, rather than seeking to understand the view you’re arguing with.

Why are you taking a fun discussion and making it personal? This is fun for me... mental exercise. If it's not fun for you, I don't know what to say. But I don't appreciate your insinuations.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

What if the goal is to be good at BJJ AND MMA?

Then do both.

What if the goal is to be GREAT at both? Or what if your goal is to be great at just BJJ? Is training in wrestling going to make you less good at BJJ? What about Judo? Or Yoga, or Parkour?

Nope. It's not going to make you less good at any of those. It just might not help you as much as training the actual thing. Or after a point-Dropbear brought up a good point, that you might learn things in wrestling for instance that translate to boxing, but you wouldn't learn from a boxing coach. With that in mind, I'm changing my opinion slightly. I think that learning to an intermediate level the other thing might be worth taking away time from your main goal, if it has one of those effects (not everything does). I think once you understand the concepts it has to teach you, that you wouldn't otherwise learn, we go back to my initial stance.

 

[drop bear]

So to address the rest of this, is the end goal MMA/fighting? In that case, my guess is learning them all at the same time is the best option. And will also still improve your baseline ability at wrestling, boxing and BJJ at the same time. But if your goal is boxing, you'd be better off just boxing, rather than splitting some of your time going to MMA class.

That said, again, people have done both ways to compete in MMA so I don't think it really makes that much of a difference.

The end goal as per the original argument is to develop mental elasticity. That enables you to operate outside a rule set.

So that your martial arts has depth.

 

[Steve]

That is a concept called rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. And is a very common solution.

It mostly doesn't work. But it is very common.

Not directly related, but this reminds me of a business management practice that comes from a study done in the 50s. The idea is that change of any kind promotes a spike in productivity that, over time, will normalize and result in a decline back to the baseline. The interesting thing is, it's really any change that isn't directly counterproductive. So, raising the temperature in the office by a few degrees... spike in productivity. After a time, productivity declines to the baseline. Lower the temperature in the office by a few degrees... spike in productivity. I'm grossly oversimplifying this, but the point is that things don't always have to directly impact performance to improve performance.

If you guys have ever seen a show called Better Off Ted (short lived, but hilarious) they did an episode on this, where management introduced a red lab coat. "Better Off Ted" It's Nothing Business, It's Just Personal (TV Episode 2009) - IMDb

 

[drop bear]

Why are you taking a fun discussion and making it personal? This is fun for me... mental exercise. If it's not fun for you, I don't know what to say. But I don't appreciate your insinuations.

The personal attack angle is a form of argument.

I am going to call it the I find that offensive red herring.

So part of exactly the same mental exercise.

 

[drop bear]

Not directly related, but this reminds me of a business management practice that comes from a study done in the 50s. The idea is that change of any kind promotes a spike in productivity that, over time, will normalize and result in a decline back to the baseline. The interesting thing is, it's really any change that isn't directly counterproductive. So, raising the temperature in the office by a few degrees... spike in productivity. After a time, productivity declines to the baseline. Lower the temperature in the office by a few degrees... spike in productivity. I'm grossly oversimplifying this, but the point is that things don't always have to directly impact performance to improve performance.

If you guys have ever seen a show called Better Off Ted (short lived, but hilarious) they did an episode on this, where management introduced a red lab coat. "Better Off Ted" It's Nothing Business, It's Just Personal (TV Episode 2009) - IMDb

We anthropomorphise these issues so that they can be reasoned with. And forget that results just don't care.

So I can come up with the most heart rendingly poignant tale as to why I only have 5 hours to train.

But I will still only get 5 hours of development out of it. And that is that.

Diet is a really common place for this to happen. I had a really bad day so I ate chocolate.

Those bad day chocolate calories don't go down because you had a hella cool excuse.

 

[Steve]

We anthropomorphise these issues so that they can be reasoned with. And forget that results just don't care.

So I can come up with the most heart rendingly poignant tale as to why I only have 5 hours to train.

But I will still only get 5 hours of development out of it. And that is that.

Diet is a really common place for this to happen. I had a really bad day so I ate chocolate.

Those bad day chocolate calories don't go down because you had a hella cool excuse.

I had typed an elaborate analogy to coffee, the idea being that there's a lot of science and a lot of voodoo in coffee and espresso, but the bottom line is can you taste it in the cup?

 

[drop bear]

I had typed an elaborate analogy to coffee, the idea being that there's a lot of science and a lot of voodoo in coffee and espresso, but the bottom line is can you taste it in the cup?

As a side note.

The guys who are successful at our gym are the guys who are constantly adding to their development. They are the ones putting in the extra time.

Like my boxer mate Chris who was smashing out hill sprints every Sunday morning.

And this is easier to do than it looks. Because you don't have to do it all at once. You can chip away at this. Any extra development helps and it leads to people finding more time to develop.

You come in five minutes early and instead (or as well) as chatting. You practice that submission.

In six months that submission will be bullet proof.

 

[Steve]

I'll respond to the rest separately. But not sure if the miscommunication here is on my end on yours, so figured a separate post detailing my opinion here is worth it. As bare bones as I can make it without all the exceptions/iffy definitions of what's a tool vs. a separate activity.

• Learning A makes you better at A.

Not to pick nits, but this depends a little on how you're applying A. Doesn't it? Not to beat a dead horse, but the horse carcass is relevant. Say you're goal is to learn to fight. Can we agree that some training does NOT help you become a better fighter, even though you are being told that it does?

[*]Learning B, if related to A, can also improve your skill at A. Most likely (there are some odd exceptions but not worth mentioning), it at the very least won't impede your skill development in A.

Sure.

[*]Taking time to learn B, which you would have otherwise spent on A, can impede your skill development for A. I think. And I'm open to the idea that that's wrong.

Can being the operative word here. Can impede. Can also stimulate skill development. Devil is in the details here, but it is entirely possible that carving time out of activity A may end up being a net gain in A.

[*]However, if B is similar to A in base skill/athletic focus, the amount that it impedes is likely marginal, as long as it's taking away from the conditioning aspect, not skill/tactics training. Similarly, if my 3rd point is wrong, the amount that it improves it over just more training in A is also most likely marginal.

I think this gets super speculative and only really works if we discount the operative word from the previous bullet: "can". In other words, this only works if we accept as a given that there is some impediment. I think the only definitive statement we can make here is that, if B is entirely incompatible with A, there will be confusion.

[*]For someone who is a professional at a specific skill, this is important to figure out, since any edge is important. For someone who isn't it's probably better after a certain point to learn a similar, well-rounded skill due to the learning plateau's, but ultimately that's personal choice.

The first part is true, though I think it's a lot less concrete than you seem to, and that "an edge" at that level may come from some seemingly unrelated activities. And this applies equally, and perhaps in a more pronounced and visible way, to amateurs.

 

[MetalBoar]

I don't agree with this at all. I think someone who is good at breakdancing would have a significant advantage even as a beginner in BJJ. It would seem to me that the strength, coordination, body awareness, and rhythm a break dancer develops would be very complimentary to BJJ. And conversely, training in BJJ could help a person become a better breakdancer.

Some things are general and universal or nearly so: muscular strength is applicable to almost all physical activity, this is also true of flexibility with the exception that more strength is almost always beneficial where more flexibility than the max needed is not always beneficial. Conditioning and metabolic adaptations are more specific, there is good research to show that there is very little shared benefit to doing conditioning work for two wildly different activities. The easy and extreme example is that doing ultra marathons will have essentially no benefit to your endurance for 3 minute rounds of a combat sport, but this is still true, to a lesser extent, if you use hiking in the mountains and sport fencing as your example activities. The hiking might improve your leg strength, which would benefit the fencing, but is unlikely to improve your metabolic, or "cardio" fitness for fencing.

Then there is skill transfer and this is complicated. I used the term "natural athlete" to describe those people who are able to easily learn one physical skill and then apply the lessons learned to other physical skills. Using that term was apparently a poor choice as it has caused a lot of confusion. These people may have terrible coordination, asthma, poor genetics for developing strength, etc., etc., that make them terrible at athletics, they're just able to apply lessons learned in one physical activity to another easily. The research shows that these people represent a sizable minority of the general populace. I don't remember the details, I'm guessing something like 1/3-ish of the population is able to do this and frequently those people we think of as natural athletes, who can pick up all sports well without seeming to need much training, do have this ability along with other physical gifts, but there are many pro athletes who do not learn this way.

Most (small majority) people don't transfer skills well between different activities beyond fairly basic levels and if the activities are very similar without being the same they will tend to confuse each other at a high level of performance or competition. Even those for whom skill transfer between different activities comes easily may suffer some skill confusion when performing similar but not identical activities at a high level.

If someone learns to play the trumpet they will be able to pick up and play the french horn at a basic level because the basics are just about the same, regardless of which type of learner they are. If they are a very skilled trumpet player and someone who is able to transfer skills between activities easily they will probably be able to pick up the french horn and play it at a pretty high level almost immediately. If they were auditioning for first chair trumpet with the London Symphony and they spend their time playing the french horn in preparation their performance is unlikely to be as good as it could have been if they'd spent the time playing the trumpet and possibly worse than if they hadn't played anything at all. If they did not transfer skills well between different activities then they are guaranteed to do worse by practicing the french horn than if they had spent the time practicing the trumpet and likely worse than if they'd done no practice at all.

So, to talk about break dancing and BJJ, if someone who regularly practiced break dancing took up BJJ, I would agree that they'd be much better off than the couch potato doing the same thing. To the extent that their break dancing had developed muscular strength that would be entirely or almost entirely transferable to BJJ. I've never done break dancing, but to the degree that the intensity, duration, etc., of break dancing is similar to BJJ some measure of metabolic adaptions/conditioning would also likely transfer. If there is overlap in the kinds of flexibility needed for both activities those would also apply. If there are skills that overlap, like say learning to fall, then those would transfer to some extent but the differences (being taken down rather than throwing yourself down for example) would likely cause some initial confusion for the student that does not transfer skills well and might continue to do so if they switch back and forth between the activities. If this person was the type that transfers skills easily between different activities then they might gain some other insights that they could apply as well. Since these are pretty different activities they are unlikely to be overly detrimental to each other. The student is unlikely to inadvertently try a break dancing move in the middle of a BJJ tournament by mistake, but their falls might not be as safe or theatrical as they would have been if they specialized.

MMA is also tricky because it's got a lot of components that need to be mastered or at least addressed. Is someone's MMA hurt by doing a lot of BJJ tournaments? To some extent, maybe? How much do they get used to relying on techniques that are safe within the BJJ rule set and will get you knocked out or injured in MMA? Do they have enough training time to get maximum benefit for their non-grappling MMA skills? Will learning boxing hurt their MMA? Again, probably only to the degree that the difference in rules could lead to some unconscious mistakes and to the extent that it limits their time for training kicks and grappling. Will learning boxing and BJJ improve their MMA? Almost certainly because those skills, or similar skills, are integral to MMA.

Now, would boxing help your tournament BJJ? Well, the conditioning and strength requirements have a fair amount of overlap, so that would transfer for everyone. To whatever extent the boxing clinch work was applicable it might transfer to a greater or lesser degree depending on your learning style. I have no idea how things like resistance to fear or pain might or might not transfer, but that might be a benefit regardless of what kind of learner you are. But if you are in the majority of people who do not transfer skills well between different activities you are unlikely to get much of any kind of insight into how to apply groundwork skills better because you box.

An example of the confusion I'm talking about: I had a friend in college who had done a lot of Muay Thai and after his MT school closed he decided to take up TKD. He had a really hard time in competitions because he would unconsciously sweep his opponent's legs and punch them in the face, neither of which was allowed within the rule set of the TKD competitions he was doing. He gave up on TKD because he felt that for the way he learned things he would have to develop things he considered to be bad habits to be able to compete.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't train in whatever you want or that interests you. And this goes triple if your goal isn't to be a professional athlete or something like that. I think that if you've got 2 hours/week you can spend on martial arts training and you want to be competent at BJJ you should probably spend 2 hours/week on BJJ and not 1 hour on BJJ and 1 on boxing unless they're both equally important to you and you don't care how long it takes to become competent. Outside of time restrictions, I don't see any reason for the non-professional to limit their activities. I think it's much more important to enjoy what you do than to over optimize all the fun out of it. I just think it's a waste of time to take up water polo because you think it'll make you a better cellist.

 

[Steve]

Some things are general and universal or nearly so: muscular strength is applicable to almost all physical activity, this is also true of flexibility with the exception that more strength is almost always beneficial where more flexibility than the max needed is not always beneficial. Conditioning and metabolic adaptations are more specific, there is good research to show that there is very little shared benefit to doing conditioning work for two wildly different activities. The easy and extreme example is that doing ultra marathons will have essentially no benefit to your endurance for 3 minute rounds of a combat sport, but this is still true, to a lesser extent, if you use hiking in the mountains and sport fencing as your example activities. The hiking might improve your leg strength, which would benefit the fencing, but is unlikely to improve your metabolic, or "cardio" fitness for fencing.

Then there is skill transfer and this is complicated. I used the term "natural athlete" to describe those people who are able to easily learn one physical skill and then apply the lessons learned to other physical skills. Using that term was apparently a poor choice as it has caused a lot of confusion. These people may have terrible coordination, asthma, poor genetics for developing strength, etc., etc., that make them terrible at athletics, they're just able to apply lessons learned in one physical activity to another easily. The research shows that these people represent a sizable minority of the general populace. I don't remember the details, I'm guessing something like 1/3-ish of the population is able to do this and frequently those people we think of as natural athletes, who can pick up all sports well without seeming to need much training, do have this ability along with other physical gifts, but there are many pro athletes who do not learn this way.

Most (small majority) people don't transfer skills well between different activities beyond fairly basic levels and if the activities are very similar without being the same they will tend to confuse each other at a high level of performance or competition. Even those for whom skill transfer between different activities comes easily may suffer some skill confusion when performing similar but not identical activities at a high level.

If someone learns to play the trumpet they will be able to pick up and play the french horn at a basic level because the basics are just about the same, regardless of which type of learner they are. If they are a very skilled trumpet player and someone who is able to transfer skills between activities easily they will probably be able to pick up the french horn and play it at a pretty high level almost immediately. If they were auditioning for first chair trumpet with the London Symphony and they spend their time playing the french horn in preparation their performance is unlikely to be as good as it could have been if they'd spent the time playing the trumpet and possibly worse than if they hadn't played anything at all. If they did not transfer skills well between different activities then they are guaranteed to do worse by practicing the french horn than if they had spent the time practicing the trumpet and likely worse than if they'd done no practice at all.

So, to talk about break dancing and BJJ, if someone who regularly practiced break dancing took up BJJ, I would agree that they'd be much better off than the couch potato doing the same thing. To the extent that their break dancing had developed muscular strength that would be entirely or almost entirely transferable to BJJ. I've never done break dancing, but to the degree that the intensity, duration, etc., of break dancing is similar to BJJ some measure of metabolic adaptions/conditioning would also likely transfer. If there is overlap in the kinds of flexibility needed for both activities those would also apply. If there are skills that overlap, like say learning to fall, then those would transfer to some extent but the differences (being taken down rather than throwing yourself down for example) would likely cause some initial confusion for the student that does not transfer skills well and might continue to do so if they switch back and forth between the activities. If this person was the type that transfers skills easily between different activities then they might gain some other insights that they could apply as well. Since these are pretty different activities they are unlikely to be overly detrimental to each other. The student is unlikely to inadvertently try a break dancing move in the middle of a BJJ tournament by mistake, but their falls might not be as safe or theatrical as they would have been if they specialized.

MMA is also tricky because it's got a lot of components that need to be mastered or at least addressed. Is someone's MMA hurt by doing a lot of BJJ tournaments? To some extent, maybe? How much do they get used to relying on techniques that are safe within the BJJ rule set and will get you knocked out or injured in MMA? Do they have enough training time to get maximum benefit for their non-grappling MMA skills? Will learning boxing hurt their MMA? Again, probably only to the degree that the difference in rules could lead to some unconscious mistakes and to the extent that it limits their time for training kicks and grappling. Will learning boxing and BJJ improve their MMA? Almost certainly because those skills, or similar skills, are integral to MMA.

Now, would boxing help your tournament BJJ? Well, the conditioning and strength requirements have a fair amount of overlap, so that would transfer for everyone. To whatever extent the boxing clinch work was applicable it might transfer to a greater or lesser degree depending on your learning style. I have no idea how things like resistance to fear or pain might or might not transfer, but that might be a benefit regardless of what kind of learner you are. But if you are in the majority of people who do not transfer skills well between different activities you are unlikely to get much of any kind of insight into how to apply groundwork skills better because you box.

An example of the confusion I'm talking about: I had a friend in college who had done a lot of Muay Thai and after his MT school closed he decided to take up TKD. He had a really hard time in competitions because he would unconsciously sweep his opponent's legs and punch them in the face, neither of which was allowed within the rule set of the TKD competitions he was doing. He gave up on TKD because he felt that for the way he learned things he would have to develop things he considered to be bad habits to be able to compete.

None of this is to say that you shouldn't train in whatever you want or that interests you. And this goes triple if your goal isn't to be a professional athlete or something like that. I think that if you've got 2 hours/week you can spend on martial arts training and you want to be competent at BJJ you should probably spend 2 hours/week on BJJ and not 1 hour on BJJ and 1 on boxing unless they're both equally important to you and you don't care how long it takes to become competent. Outside of time restrictions, I don't see any reason for the non-professional to limit their activities. I think it's much more important to enjoy what you do than to over optimize all the fun out of it. I just think it's a waste of time to take up water polo because you think it'll make you a better cellist.

I've been thinking about this, and I guess I'll just distill this to one simple question. How can guys like @gpseymour say he sees a lot of application training with guys like @Tony Dismukes, or guys like @Tony Dismukes say he sees a lot of benefit from his training in things like ninjutsu or wing chun, or wing chun guys like @yak sao say he sees a lot of benefit from other styles.... and at the same time, be so rigid and inflexible about what can or cannot benefit training? Seems pretty inconsistent to me. To be clear, I'm not suggesting @yak sao or @Tony Dismukes have taken a rigid stance. More, I'm suggesting that you guys are already open to the idea of cross benefits, but seem to balk at the idea of less obvious carryover.

For what it's worth, I think when you talk about playing the trumpet and playing the french horn, I think breakdancing and BJJ are about that close. Very similar. Not quite as close as breakdancing and capoira, but close.

 

[letsplaygames]

Totally depends on the instructor.

I see BJJ... having a Sensei who loved shimewaza and kanasetsu waza which he called "Higher Judo" ... I see very little