Training 2 different styles

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm not talking about silly demos I'm talking about guys fighting and using their skills are you saying these professional fighters suck are you saying people like bruce lee sucked.

Everybody sucks. He would have been better if he had lived to train longer.

Me I train Muay Thai twice a week and Jiu Jitsu 3 times a week. I couldn't train more Muay Thai if I wanted to as apart from open gym that's all the classes abaliable at the moment and for gi Jiu Jitsu If I was just doing it I couldn't do much more apart from a comp session on Sundays. So in both styles I'm training just as much if not more as people who only do 1 style so how can I suck at both when I do train both styles pretty much the maximum amount of times

You can train on your own when the gym isn't open. You want me to change the math, I can't. And you can click 'dislike' all you want, it doesn't bother me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

actually it does. while the language is dissimilar and there wont be similar root words like english and spanish share, you will have the experience to know what strategies and techniques worked for you and what ones didnt. i also believe that as you exercise and strengthen those sections of the brain it gets easier.

True enough. I was speaking strictly of the knowledge of the language, but the activity of learning a language brings its own benefits.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do videos 'prove'? I mean exactly?

Let me explain it another way. You have X number of years left to you. You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training. The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same. So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left. That's how many hours you have to train.

You can spend 100% of those hours training in one style.
You can spend 50% of those hours in training in each of two styles.
And so on.

With each additional style, you decrease the amount of time you have to continue training in one style.

That's math. You can like that or not like that, you can't change it.

The assumption appears to be that one can train 'enough' in a given style that additional training would not make a significant difference.

That is where we apparently disagree. I feel that there is no end to the path, no perfection to be had, no end-of-the-road for training. You will not get to the point where you have learned all there is to learn. So any time you take away from training is time you do not have to get further down that road.

"Very good at both" means nothing to me. What is "very good at both?" It's purely subjective, as I said before. You think you can point to this guy or that guy and say their videos 'prove' they are "very good." I say that they'd be better at one style if they only training in that style than if they divided their time.

In any case, this discussion seems to come up a lot. Let me be very blunt about it. New people show up on MT all the time and ask for advice in training in X, Y, and Z, styles. Which ones should they choose? Which blend is the 'best'? And blah blah blah.

You know what? Everybody chips in with their favorite arts like it was a damned coffee shop, and who cares. What I think is that the new people who ask these questions are not going to train at all, let alone in multiple styles. They aren't serious, they're tire-kickers. They're looky-loos. They won't spend more than a week inside a real martial arts studio in their lives. The same goes for the endless supply of people asking about learning from books or videos. Not only does it not work, they won't do it anyway, so what is the point exactly? They are lazy bums who won't ever get off their fat arses and train in any case. Wannabes and never-wases.

Bottom line is this, though. OP asked for opinions. This is my opinion; train in one style or suck at two of them. You don't like that opinion, that's fine. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I am offering my opinion.

To use a math approach, you’d have to consider diminishing returns. 29 years of an art versus 40 years isn’t twice as good at the art. 20 years of two arts might yield better personal results than 40 years of a single art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Everybody sucks. He would have been better if he had lived to train longer.



You can train on your own when the gym isn't open. You want me to change the math, I can't. And you can click 'dislike' all you want, it doesn't bother me.

Training on one’s own for grappling is useful, but far less than half as useful as training with a partner, IMO.

 

[hoshin1600]

The assumption appears to be that one can train 'enough' in a given style that additional training would not make a significant difference.

i will only speak for myself ,,, that is not my assumption. not even close.

You have X number of years left to you. You have Y number of hours you can devote per week to MA training. The numbers may differ for all of us, but the math is the same. So you take Y times 52 (assuming no vacations) and multiply that times the years you have left. That's how many hours you have to train.

You can spend 100% of those hours training in one style.
You can spend 50% of those hours in training in each of two styles.
And so on.

With each additional style, you decrease the amount of time you have to continue training in one style.

your assumption is that spending 100 % of your time doing a chosen art will create a "better" result...but we would have to agree on what better is.
the assumption is also made that the chosen style is worth that kind of dedication, that there is a complete scope to the training. that , that is all you need.

this is where the divergence occurs. lets say John Doe actually does get off the couch and signs up at his nearest Dojo. and spends the next fifty years training in a style called "Takemy DO" at the end of his life he realizes that he wasted his life learning something that has no value. for 50 years his teacher taught him to defend himself against someone attacking him with a piece of fruit.
(insert Montey Python skit here)

the decision was made to stay with one style based on ignorance. he had no comparison on whether the style was effective or what he even really wanted to learn. this is a real life situation. many many people spend way too long in a crap style constantly being advised by the teacher that "they just dont understand yet,, train more and you will" they are led along like a cow by the nose being milked for every penny they got,,, until that day comes that they wake up and realize their error in judgment.

 

[MA_Student]

Everybody sucks. He would have been better if he had lived to train longer.



You can train on your own when the gym isn't open. You want me to change the math, I can't. And you can click 'dislike' all you want, it doesn't bother me.

Um yeah Well he didnt die because he trained multiple styles though...he trained in wing chun, boxing, kickboxing, judo, Jiu Jitsu, karate and pretty much every style he could and he's considered one of the best in the world and really no I couldn't because I barely have any space, I have a bag which I use every morning and every evening before bed so I wouldn't be training more anyway.

And sure will do

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Everybody sucks.

This is the part I disagree with most, Bill. I know many people who don’t suck.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

To use a math approach, you’d have to consider diminishing returns. 29 years of an art versus 40 years isn’t twice as good at the art. 20 years of two arts might yield better personal results than 40 years of a single art.

"Better personal results." Again, subjective.

However, you do make an excellent point. If one trains for 10 years, it is not correct to assume that they learned 50% by year five. It's more a situation that fits itself to the 80/20 rule, I think.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Training on one’s own for grappling is useful, but far less than half as useful as training with a partner, IMO.

No doubt, but he said MT, I believe.

 

[MA_Student]

To use a math approach, you’d have to consider diminishing returns. 29 years of an art versus 40 years isn’t twice as good at the art. 20 years of two arts might yield better personal results than 40 years of a single art.

That's absoloutely the case with me. I feel a lot fitter and stronger by doing both than I did from just one. Since both use very different muscles and have different types of strength

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This is the part I disagree with most, Bill. I know many people who don’t suck.

It depends upon the yardstick being used.

 

[MA_Student]

It depends upon the yardstick being used.

Just because your yardstick is in one place doesn't mean everyone's is in the same place. Not everyone wants to be some guru who can spend hours talking about the technical details on how to throw a jab.theres loads of extremely talented people are very good at more than one style. Just because it doesn't reach /your/ standards doesn't mean they're not good

 

[Gerry Seymour]

"Better personal results." Again, subjective.

However, you do make an excellent point. If one trains for 10 years, it is not correct to assume that they learned 50% by year five. It's more a situation that fits itself to the 80/20 rule, I think.

All “better” will be subjective here. That’s not a problem with the term, just a property of it. Whatever subjective “better” we use, my statement will usuallly fit.

Oddly, time shifts away from a sweet spot in learning MA. If that sweet spot is at Year 10 (it varies by person and art), the first 5 years don’t usually yield as much result as the second 5. The third 5 are likely as fruitful as the second, and the fourth as fruitful as the first. After 40 years, the improvements are generally slight and gradual. In my experience, progression is generally (not always) faster in the second art and beyond, assuming a foundation from the first.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No doubt, but he said MT, I believe.

I was thinking of the other half of his training. Probably a grappler’s bias. I doubt solo training for striking is as fruitful, either, though more useful than for grappling.

 

[hoshin1600]

from my experience i will say that 50 % of the people i have met in my lifetime who do martial arts have chosen a crap martial art. out of that percent maybe 10 percent stuck with it for a long time and are now psychologically "stuck" in that style ,,,possibly for the rest of their lives. why ? because they have too much invested. the emotional collapse that will happen if they admit to themselves they spent their lives "mastering" fruit defenses which are totally meaningless. to admit this error would be to admit they are a fool. instead they will double down and dig in their heels and insist that what they do has value,,, its just that others do not understand.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It depends upon the yardstick being used.

I can’t think of a reasonable yardstick that would make my statement untrue. Perfection is the only one I can come up with, and that’s wholly unreasonable, even if it were achievable.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just because your yardstick is in one place doesn't mean everyone's is in the same place. Not everyone wants to be some guru who can spend hours talking about the technical details on how to throw a jab.theres loads of extremely talented people are very good at more than one style. Just because it doesn't reach /your/ standards doesn't mean they're not good

A) The same is true of your yardstick, right? If mine is subjective, so is yours. Which was my point.
B) I never said anything about being a guru. Is there something I've said with reference to a jab which offends you? If so, please let me know.
C) There you go again with "extremely talented." Yes, that's purely subjective.
D) Yes, if they don't reach *my* standards, it does mean they are not good - by my standards. Let's say I am fed a vegetable and I don't like it. I say it tastes bad. Everyone else in the world insists that no, it is delicious. Is it therefore delicious to me and I am lying? No, it is still terrible - to me. My standards are my standards. And so are yours.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can’t think of a reasonable yardstick that would make my statement untrue. Perfection is the only one I can come up with, and that’s wholly unreasonable, even if it were achievable.

It's not achievable, you are correct. Let's say the yardstick is the potential one has in the time one has left, assuming one does not cease training in a given art to go train in something else. That's my yardstick.

 

[MA_Student]

A) The same is true of your yardstick, right? If mine is subjective, so is yours. Which was my point.
B) I never said anything about being a guru. Is there something I've said with reference to a jab which offends you? If so, please let me know.
C) There you go again with "extremely talented." Yes, that's purely subjective.
D) Yes, if they don't reach *my* standards, it does mean they are not good - by my standards. Let's say I am fed a vegetable and I don't like it. I say it tastes bad. Everyone else in the world insists that no, it is delicious. Is it therefore delicious to me and I am lying? No, it is still terrible - to me. My standards are my standards. And so are yours.

Yeah but I'm not going around saying who sucks and who doesn't. I could say if you train one style you suck because you're one dimensional but I don't because I'm not that arrogant.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yeah but I'm not going around saying who sucks and who doesn't. I could say if you train one style you suck because you're one dimensional but I don't because I'm not that arrogant.

I'm not saying anyone doesn't suck. We all suck. Is that arrogant?

But I am interested in something you brought up that you are now not addressing. You seem to have an issue with me personally. Apparently something to do with "some guru who can spend hours talking about the technical details on how to throw a jab."

Again, I ask, if you have a personal issue with something I've said regarding the use of a jab, I'd like to hear it. I am beginning to get the message that your comments and your use of the 'dislike' button has more to do with something personal than with a disagreement with the current matter at hand.

If it's personal, we can fix that. I'll simply place you on ignore; you can do likewise with me; and we can go about our merry ways. If you wish to take issue with anything I've said about a jab and how to throw it, I wish you'd come out and say it instead of making snide comments.