Bollocks.
The perils of cross training
- Thread starter RTKDCMB
- Start date
Bollocks.
Recognise these quotes .... out of the same post?
If what you are saying is that a MA should include training in all areas, such as different distance, stand up grappling, ground fighting etc. then I doubt you will find a lot of disagreement.
If you say that any particular form of MA is so complete that there is no need for additional training, then I think many would disagree.
We tend to look at it, the more you know, the less you know ... and just when you think you have it all, something else shows up to prove you don't. You can have a complete syllabus, but there it always the option for someone to further their knowledge in the direction they see as a need or indeed as an interest. Either way it doesn't reflect badly on their instructor.
You used the analogy of the brain surgeon. His first 'art' was general medicine and that was 'complete' as it included a level of general surgery. But fortunately for you, he left his first teachers and went elsewhere to further his skills in his area of interest. Now, who are you going to choose to do your brain surgery? The guy who stayed true to his initial training, the GP, or the guy who 'cross trained'? :asian:
Uncle
Blue Belt
You're not married to your system and it is not a person.
If you are involved in the 100m sprint in the Olympic games and "complete" the event but then decide to keep running for another 50m does that mean that the race was not long enough, or did you complete the race and just add to it?
You have such a way with words!
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
There are perils to cross training, depending on what you are doing and why you are doing it.
It is also possible to cross train or train in multiple systems without experiencing any problems. Again, it depends on what you are doing and why you are doing it.
Make your own decisions for yourself. Make sure you find some enjoyment in what you are doing.
It is also possible to cross train or train in multiple systems without experiencing any problems. Again, it depends on what you are doing and why you are doing it.
Make your own decisions for yourself. Make sure you find some enjoyment in what you are doing.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
In a maraige I would consider it betrayal, but ...
So I don't see them as the same.
There is very little to be gained by the above, and even so, you are sort of in the same race. But regardless, I have to agree that your OP sounded biased against cross training, except for you.
Ridiculous analogy. If my instructor asked for anything resembling the marriage vows, I'd run for the door.
If he were asking for sex, I'd run backwards...
I'd say it meant I was something of a moron, really, especially since MA training doesn't have a finish line. At least, not as I see it.
A more accurate analogy would be running the same 100m again, but with different shoes. Or a different breakfast. Or after a Red Bull (tm). You know. Trying different things to see if they're helpful. Sort of like crosstraining in martial arts...
You're not really good at analogies, perhaps some other method of supporting your position would be a better choice?
You have such a way with words!
Ta!
ballen0351
Sr. Grandmaster
And to go further Cross Training can improve your 1st or Main style. Goju Pairs wonderfully with Aikido or Judo for example.
Ive pulled more meaning and understanding out of my Goju by learing other arts
I think the issue may revolve around how an art is taught, in regards to how complete it is...or isn't. I'll use TKD, again, as an example. The majority perception of the art of TKD is that it is a striking art...predominately a kicking art. Also that it is in large part a sport martial art. And in many venues this would be a spot on description of the art. Nothing wrong with that at all if this is what is desired for the student. I think we could all readily agree that it isn't a complete art in regards to what other arts offer i.e. grappling, ground etc.
However
TKD, just like its Karate uncle can also be taught as a grappling art, a ground defense art, and edged weapon art, a baton art, a locking art, a throwing art etc. I do it all the time, I just use the term Kong Soo Do instead of TKD. I'm one of those instructors who believe that kata (forms) contain a wealth of information in regards to practical fighting (read self-defense) that cover all of the above in addition to striking and kicking. Now not everyone wants this in their training and certainly many practice the arts for different reasons than self-defense. But for those that wish a fighting art (again read self-defense) TKD or Karate or a plethora of other arts can be taught as a very complete art. It depends upon the knowledge base of the instructor(s) and the goals of the school/student base.
However
TKD, just like its Karate uncle can also be taught as a grappling art, a ground defense art, and edged weapon art, a baton art, a locking art, a throwing art etc. I do it all the time, I just use the term Kong Soo Do instead of TKD. I'm one of those instructors who believe that kata (forms) contain a wealth of information in regards to practical fighting (read self-defense) that cover all of the above in addition to striking and kicking. Now not everyone wants this in their training and certainly many practice the arts for different reasons than self-defense. But for those that wish a fighting art (again read self-defense) TKD or Karate or a plethora of other arts can be taught as a very complete art. It depends upon the knowledge base of the instructor(s) and the goals of the school/student base.
Uncle
Blue Belt
And complete is also a bit of a misnomer. It's a bit easier to talk about specialization (as in who is better at what). For example tkd may have punches but nowhere near the level of boxing. It may have elbows and knees but nowhere near Muay Thai. It may do some grappling but its clinch is not as specialized as muay Thai or wrestling, its takedowns as specialized as judo or wrestling, its ground game as specialized as judo or bjj.
Every art has their speciality and really if you actually want to learn to cover grapple you're better off going to a grappling art than half assing it in another art.
Every art has their speciality and really if you actually want to learn to cover grapple you're better off going to a grappling art than half assing it in another art.
Here is a simple test to see whether your style is "complete" or not.
- Your opponent gets behind you.
- Both of his hands surround your waist.
- He pulls you back down with his body weight.
- His back is on the ground. Your back is on his chest.
- His legs are wrapping around your waist.
- His arms are choking on your neck.
What will you do at that moment? How do you prevent that from happening?
- Your opponent gets behind you.
- Both of his hands surround your waist.
- He pulls you back down with his body weight.
- His back is on the ground. Your back is on his chest.
- His legs are wrapping around your waist.
- His arms are choking on your neck.
What will you do at that moment? How do you prevent that from happening?
Last edited:
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I think there are different definitions of "complete".
This doesn't really test "completeness". Now, if you had a set of these scenarios designed to test you from every style of attack (each range, each side, faster/slower opponent, bigger/smaller opponent, etc.) that MAY be a good test of it, depending on how you define complete.
Was going to come on after practice to respond again, only to see the entire thread had blown up, and people had already said what I meant to say. So..."What they said :idunno:"
My definition of "complete" is to be able to handle all situations. That's just one of many valid tests. It just proves that "complete" system does not exist on this planet.
If you can drag your opponent down but you can't handle a punch to the head, your style is not complete either.
Ditto!
