Curious about the differences in judo\jjj and bjj.

[MetalBoar]

Hey there Steve, I know you addressed this to Gerry but I thought I'd jump in and give my thoughts if that's OK.

Doesn't it depend on the competition formats? I mean, how are we defining success here? Is it relative to the individual, as in Person A's progress independent of anyone else's?

My reading of the thread that related to cross training gave me the impression that the goal in question was getting really good at a particular art. So, if BJJ was the main thing you were interested in, then the claim has been made that your BJJ will benefit from taking other, non grappling arts, like say boxing, and that even completely unrelated activities like break dancing will make you a better grappler.

I'm a little late to this discussion, and I apologize if I'm rehashing anything previously covered. I think, though, that the idea of complimentary training is pretty mainstream and not all that controversial. Does yoga make you better at Jiu Jitsu? Well, it might not help you learn the timing of a technique, but some would argue that it's made all the difference in their performance, and that the better they get at Yoga (or breakdancing), the better they get at BJJ. I don't think it's too controversial to suggest that flexibility and strength gained from Yoga will help people become better at BJJ than if they just did BJJ alone.

So, doing yoga may improve your BJJ if it provides superior flexibility or strength training that your BJJ program is lacking, but the last time I looked at the scientific literature there was no evidence that learning the asanas themselves will do anything for your BJJ unless you are a relatively rare type of learner. If you need flexibility or strength training beyond what your BJJ class provides, yoga might be great, but a really scientific stretching program and a really scientific strength training program are likely to be more efficient.

there is a point of diminishing return on time. If the hangup here is that you have a finite amount of time, a few things come into play. First is the very idea of a learning curve. There's a reason it's referred to as a curve and not a learning slope. Generally speaking, the higher your skill level, the less steep the learning curve becomes. I don't think this is controversial, either. Right?

Getting to Tony's question, if someone does just BJJ for 8 years, is his BJJ going to be better than if he did 8 years splitting time between BJJ and Breakdancing? The answer is, I really don't know. It's impossible to say, but based on my experience, I would guess that, all other things being equal, if person A trained 15 hrs per week in Breakdancing and 15 hrs per week in BJJ, and person B trained 30 hrs in BJJ alone, after 8 years the difference in BJJ skill would be negligible, while Person A's breakdancing skill would be demonstrably better than Person B's. To be clear, this might not be true if you change Person A's ration to say, 4 hours of BJJ per week and 26 hours of breakdancing.

There is a point of diminishing return. That's what I'm getting at. It may not actually be 15 hours.. maybe 20/10 BJJ to breakdancing would be optimal. The key is that there would be a point where training more is not going to produce tangible results, and that engaging in a complimentary activity will actually improve performance in both activities.

I think you and I agree that for the most part break dancing isn't going to improve the average person's BJJ performance, or at least not significantly, unless their BJJ program is lacking in conditioning or something else that the break dancing might supplement. I would also argue that boxing will not improve your (tournament) BJJ performance, unless it's for similar (conditioning or the like) reasons, again unless you are a relatively rare type of learner, and even then I doubt it will do much for your ground work.

Now the next part is where it gets tricky. It was also claimed that taking boxing would improve your kickboxing. That's likely to be true for the large minority of people who are "natural athletes" and it might even be true for the average kickboxer if boxing has better hand work than the kickboxing they are studying. The tricky part is that there is good research to show that if someone is trying to be really good at a specialized thing (kickboxing) and they learn motor skills the way most people (not "natural athletes") learn them, and then they train in a similar physical activity (boxing) their performance in the original skill will degrade. This probably isn't the case if everything they are taught in boxing is allowed under kickboxing rules, they are taught by someone who knows how to apply boxing skills to kickboxing, and they don't actually spend any time boxing under boxing rules.

As to the different question of how many hours per week represent a diminishing return, I have no idea, but I agree that it probably happens. If being a world champion boxer was the most important thing in my life, I wouldn't spend any time on break dancing or even on BJJ because I'm pretty sure that I'd run out of recovery before I ran out of things to learn by boxing, boxing drills, strength training or doing conditioning that was targeted at boxing. I'm interested in a lot of things and am passed the point where I'm likely to ever be a world champion at anything so I'd much rather spread my time about and do more things, but it will come at a greater or lessor cost depending on what the minimum threshold for good progress is and whether I have to short that or not.

Cheers!

 

[MetalBoar]

Exept that a lot of very successful combat sports people do it?

I mean almost no MMA combat sportsmen do MMA exclusively. They all jits, box, wrestle, whatever.

I suspect that most successful combat sports people fall in the category that I was labeling "natural athletes" above, they are people who are able to transfer skills that they learn in one activity to other, related activities. Most people don't do this well and can't learn to do it well. Even for the natural athlete the research shows that they'd probably be better at MMA if they just trained MMA - but I agree that's complicated. I also suspect that most successful combat sports people that you're talking about really enjoy competing in more than one format or receive some other reward for doing so and that if it degrades their skill in MMA somewhat they're compensated in other ways. If most everyone in MMA is competing in other arts then they're all operating under the same handicap so it doesn't tell us much.

 

[drop bear]

I suspect that most successful combat sports people fall in the category that I was labeling "natural athletes" above, they are people who are able to transfer skills that they learn in one activity to other, related activities. Most people don't do this well and can't learn to do it well. Even for the natural athlete the research shows that they'd probably be better at MMA if they just trained MMA - but I agree that's complicated. I also suspect that most successful combat sports people that you're talking about really enjoy competing in more than one format or receive some other reward for doing so and that if it degrades their skill in MMA somewhat they're compensated in other ways. If most everyone in MMA is competing in other arts then they're all operating under the same handicap so it doesn't tell us much.

So we are back to the idea that some people are just magical.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So you could compete in multiple formats to improve your core skill if it was well rounded enough to accommodate that.

Thus reducing the issue of training for too specific a purpose. If that is something you want to overcome.

Yup. Specifically if the goal is to be more well-rounded. If the goal is to become the best BJJer or best boxer, then no. Your best bet is to train for that comp. It depends on what you want to achieve.

 

[MetalBoar]

So we are back to the idea that some people are just magical.

No, scientific research shows that some people are good at applying skills that they learn in one activity to other activities and that most people are not. When people who are able to transfer skills across disciplines easily try to teach or advise people who don't it goes poorly. When people who don't transfer skills easily train for their learning style they can perform at the same kind of high levels as the "natural athletes". Unfortunately, "natural athletes" do have an advantage from the outset, and tend to excel at and enjoy athletics and frequently end up as coaches and then do a poor job of teaching those who don't learn in the same way.

Edit: Looking back at your post I think I see where you are coming from. You do not have to be a "natural athlete" to get good at multiple arts, but it's going to be a long road if you try to train the same way they do. Reading the claim in your post that pretty much all successful MMA people also compete in other formats does make me think that a lot of them probably are good at skill transfer but it's not necessary.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Doesn't it depend on the competition formats? I mean, how are we defining success here? Is it relative to the individual, as in Person A's progress independent of anyone else's?

I'm a little late to this discussion, and I apologize if I'm rehashing anything previously covered. I think, though, that the idea of complimentary training is pretty mainstream and not all that controversial. Does yoga make you better at Jiu Jitsu? Well, it might not help you learn the timing of a technique, but some would argue that it's made all the difference in their performance, and that the better they get at Yoga (or breakdancing), the better they get at BJJ. I don't think it's too controversial to suggest that flexibility and strength gained from Yoga will help people become better at BJJ than if they just did BJJ alone.

there is a point of diminishing return on time. If the hangup here is that you have a finite amount of time, a few things come into play. First is the very idea of a learning curve. There's a reason it's referred to as a curve and not a learning slope. Generally speaking, the higher your skill level, the less steep the learning curve becomes. I don't think this is controversial, either. Right?

Getting to Tony's question, if someone does just BJJ for 8 years, is his BJJ going to be better than if he did 8 years splitting time between BJJ and Breakdancing? The answer is, I really don't know. It's impossible to say, but based on my experience, I would guess that, all other things being equal, if person A trained 15 hrs per week in Breakdancing and 15 hrs per week in BJJ, and person B trained 30 hrs in BJJ alone, after 8 years the difference in BJJ skill would be negligible, while Person A's breakdancing skill would be demonstrably better than Person B's. To be clear, this might not be true if you change Person A's ration to say, 4 hours of BJJ per week and 26 hours of breakdancing.

There is a point of diminishing return. That's what I'm getting at. It may not actually be 15 hours.. maybe 20/10 BJJ to breakdancing would be optimal. The key is that there would be a point where training more is not going to produce tangible results, and that engaging in a complimentary activity will actually improve performance in both activities.

The concept was being discussed in terms of the “average” competitor. Those folks certainly aren’t spending 30 hours a week. So, yes, the point was about taking training time from one activity to spend it on another - specifically whether an average competitor would be more competitive in one competition or two (assuming the same moderate total training time in both cases).

I’m an advocate of training outside your primary discipline. Thought you were aware of that by this point.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exept that a lot of very successful combat sports people do it?

I mean almost no MMA combat sportsmen do MMA exclusively. They all jits, box, wrestle, whatever.

Those are components of MMA. Do most of them compete in multiple? And are those the more successful folks?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you could compete in multiple formats to improve your core skill if it was well rounded enough to accommodate that.

Thus reducing the issue of training for too specific a purpose. If that is something you want to overcome.

That was never the argument. This all started from Jobo saying that would lead to being less competitive. You just decided to argue with me about it, instead of him.

 

[drop bear]

That was never the argument. This all started from Jobo saying that would lead to being less competitive. You just decided to argue with me about it, instead of him.

JOBO.
"what is it you want to achieve?

training for comps is generaly better than training for belts, if you want to be more than averagely proficient

but as soon as you do that you are limiting yourself to the rule set your training, youl get very good at what you train, and not at all at " good "techniques that are not applicable

you can send your self mad trying to fill all the holes that appear as soon as you say " but what if"

ME.
"Do multiple competitions with different rule sets."

 

[Steve]

If this were true, then NBA coaches would be encouraging their athletes to practice parkour during practice. But they don't even though I'm sure they practice enough to reach that point of diminishing return. And I would also be very surprised if they don't have people either researching, or looking into the research on that. They can definitely afford to have people research it, and they're looking for any edge they can get over their competition. Same is true for the other major sports.

is parkour a complimentary activity to basketball? I really don't know.

Talking about BJJ and Yoga, I am pretty sure some elite level competitors believe the two are very compatible.

But so I'm clear, are we just talking about elite athletes? I didn't have that impression.

 

[Steve]

Yup. Specifically if the goal is to be more well-rounded. If the goal is to become the best BJJer or best boxer, then no. Your best bet is to train for that comp. It depends on what you want to achieve.

What does "training for that comp" look like to you? It really seems like you have an overly rigid definition.

 

[Steve]

Those are components of MMA. Do most of them compete in multiple? And are those the more successful folks?

I think a lot of folks compete in a lot of different things. I can think of several BJJ world champions who were very successful in professional MMA. Same with elite boxers, wrestlers and other sports.

But that said, I asked others and I'll ask you too. Does success mean elite level success? I mean, if you don't compete in the UFC are you unsuccessful in MMA? Because I think that that skews the discussion.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

What does "training for that comp" look like to you? It really seems like you have an overly rigid definition.

Training the style. Practicing techs that can be used in it, doing conditioning focused around it, and sparring other people within that ruleset, mainly.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

is parkour a complimentary activity to basketball? I really don't know.

Talking about BJJ and Yoga, I am pretty sure some elite level competitors believe the two are very compatible.

But so I'm clear, are we just talking about elite athletes? I didn't have that impression.

At that point, I wouldn't say it's that yoga is a secondary complimentary activity, so much as yoga in itself is a tool to develop flexibility, so that would be part of the conditioning. The same way jump rope is a tool to develop cardio for boxers.

As for parkour+basketball, it was an example I used since they both require similar base focus for athleticism, but the specific tools used for each are different.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

is parkour a complimentary activity to basketball? I really don't know.

Talking about BJJ and Yoga, I am pretty sure some elite level competitors believe the two are very compatible.

But so I'm clear, are we just talking about elite athletes? I didn't have that impression.

As for the second half, I was under the impression this was specifically about elite athletes. Outside of those, not enough difference is really made for this discussion to have any tangible meaning.

 

[drop bear]

Those are components of MMA. Do most of them compete in multiple? And are those the more successful folks?

A lot of them do. And a lot of them do at their development stage.

 

[Steve]

Training the style. Practicing techs that can be used in it, doing conditioning focused around it, and sparring other people within that ruleset, mainly.

Okay, let's back up. Is the question about elite athletes? Are we talking two UFC athletes or their equivalent in another sport, looking for an edge? While they do still look for any advantage and often that involves unconventional training, that's not what I have in mind. I'm worried that we're talking about different things.

I have in mind two guys starting from scratch with approximately 30 hours in a week in which to train. Would a guy who only does BJJ for 30 hours each week progress substantially faster than a guy who splits the time in some way between BJJ and, say, breakdancing, or yoga, or long distance running... or how about capoeria? Over their lifetime of training, who will have a performance edge? The guy who only does BJJ or the guy who supplements with other activities? I think the difference would be closer than you seem to think, but depending on the ratio, I actually think that the guy who splits his time will perform better.

Do you think that there is a point where adding more hours to a single activity in a day is unproductive? And how do you distinguish between "conditioning focused around it" and "conditioning not focused around it"? If you compete in 10k's or half marathons, or perhaps triathlons, is that stunting your progress in BJJ or MMA? What about yoga? I mentioned that earlier. Would you consider that to not be focused enough?

How many techniques can you learn in a day? And how much time focusing on a single technique is optimal? Can we agree that the number is somewhere less than "all of it"? If we can agree on that, then it makes a lot of sense that there is room for some other activities.

I think/hope we can agree that some activities that support training and can actually lead to gains in ability level. What I don't understand is where you draw the line and why. It seems entirely arbitrary to me. Jogging - yes. Floor drills for BJJ - sure! Of course.

 

[Steve]

Hey there Steve, I know you addressed this to Gerry but I thought I'd jump in and give my thoughts if that's OK.

My reading of the thread that related to cross training gave me the impression that the goal in question was getting really good at a particular art. So, if BJJ was the main thing you were interested in, then the claim has been made that your BJJ will benefit from taking other, non grappling arts, like say boxing, and that even completely unrelated activities like break dancing will make you a better grappler.


So, doing yoga may improve your BJJ if it provides superior flexibility or strength training that your BJJ program is lacking, but the last time I looked at the scientific literature there was no evidence that learning the asanas themselves will do anything for your BJJ unless you are a relatively rare type of learner. If you need flexibility or strength training beyond what your BJJ class provides, yoga might be great, but a really scientific stretching program and a really scientific strength training program are likely to be more efficient.

I'm with you up to a point here. The salient question here is not whether every element of one activity translates to gain in another. It's whether pursuing excellence in one activity can actually benefit the pursuit of excellence in another activity, whether it hinders that effort, or whether it is a net wash. The answer is, of course, that it depends on the person and the activities. If we can agree that the strength and flexibility of Yoga are beneficial, and you also get some kind of spiritual benefit from the activity, centering your chakras or whatever (I don't know much about yoga ), I could see where your BJJ training could help you become really good at yoga very quickly, and vice versa.

I think you and I agree that for the most part break dancing isn't going to improve the average person's BJJ performance, or at least not significantly, unless their BJJ program is lacking in conditioning or something else that the break dancing might supplement.

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.

And you use the term "rare type of learner." To be clear, I disagree that the person who would benefit from both is rare. I think what is rare is someone who actually DOES both, which is more a function of breakdancing and BJJ are both niche activities that most people don't do. So, in the venn diagram of human population, where these two niche activities intersect is small.

I would also argue that boxing will not improve your (tournament) BJJ performance, unless it's for similar (conditioning or the like) reasons, again unless you are a relatively rare type of learner, and even then I doubt it will do much for your ground work.

There is a point where the skills have to be compatible, but your boxing and your BJJ would definitely help your MMA skill level.

Now the next part is where it gets tricky. It was also claimed that taking boxing would improve your kickboxing. That's likely to be true for the large minority of people who are "natural athletes" and it might even be true for the average kickboxer if boxing has better hand work than the kickboxing they are studying. The tricky part is that there is good research to show that if someone is trying to be really good at a specialized thing (kickboxing) and they learn motor skills the way most people (not "natural athletes") learn them, and then they train in a similar physical activity (boxing) their performance in the original skill will degrade. This probably isn't the case if everything they are taught in boxing is allowed under kickboxing rules, they are taught by someone who knows how to apply boxing skills to kickboxing, and they don't actually spend any time boxing under boxing rules.

Truly, every activity is different, but some are compatible and some are not. What you're describing here is training in two activities that aren't synergistic; rather, they are antagonistic. They are just different enough to create confusion. If your point is that some activities are incompatible, I do agree. If your point is that this is always the case, I disagree, because there are clearly some activities that are very compatible. I've mentioned several.

As to the different question of how many hours per week represent a diminishing return, I have no idea, but I agree that it probably happens. If being a world champion boxer was the most important thing in my life, I wouldn't spend any time on break dancing or even on BJJ because I'm pretty sure that I'd run out of recovery before I ran out of things to learn by boxing, boxing drills, strength training or doing conditioning that was targeted at boxing.

@monkey turned wolf said this, and it confused me there, as well. If you are engaging in any activity because you think it helps your boxing, is that activity not then, by definition, targeted at boxing?

Let me try to be clear about something, though. If we're talking about someone pursuing a profession, it stands to reason this person will specialize and focus on pursuing excellence in a single sport. So, this person will not also be focused on pursuing excellence in another sport, even though he or she may participate in another sport to supplement their training. But this doesn't mean that excellence in that second sport is a) unachievable or b) unhelpful.

I'm also a little confused at the back and forth between discussion about elite athletes but with the caveat that we're not talking about "natural athletes." I guess I don't know what a "natural athlete" is, then. I generally believe that just about anyone can learn to be really good at just about anything. But not everyone has the raw physical talent that may, if combined with training, focus, and discipline, to be an elite athlete.

I'm interested in a lot of things and am passed the point where I'm likely to ever be a world champion at anything so I'd much rather spread my time about and do more things,

Real quick, to the point above... do you really think you were ever in the running to be an actual world champion at anything, or is this just a throwaway comment about how getting old sucks (which I agree does suck. )

but it will come at a greater or lessor cost depending on what the minimum threshold for good progress is and whether I have to short that or not.

For me, the real impediment is a 40+ hour job every week. Like you, I have too many interests, but that's a genuine matter of time and we're talking about far more than 2 activities. Though even here, my fabric art and batik helps my baking, and my baking helps my soap making, and my cooking helps my baking, and all of those things help me be a good dad (because I can do them all with kids, even the one's who have moved out. Point being that even with very limited time and a less than ideal rationing of the hours available, pursuit of excellence in one can benefit another.

At that point, I wouldn't say it's that yoga is a secondary complimentary activity, so much as yoga in itself is a tool to develop flexibility, so that would be part of the conditioning. The same way jump rope is a tool to develop cardio for boxers.

So, you're saying being so good at jumping rope you can do tricks is unworthwhile? You're spending so much time jumping rope, anyway, and there are competitions.... https://www.usajumprope.org/events

As for parkour+basketball, it was an example I used since they both require similar base focus for athleticism, but the specific tools used for each are different.

Well, I don't know enough about either sport to say one way or the other. So, maybe?

As for the second half, I was under the impression this was specifically about elite athletes. Outside of those, not enough difference is really made for this discussion to have any tangible meaning.

I think you give amateurs short shrift. In my mind, the difference in performance level between two elite level athletes is relatively small. In some sports, it's 10's or even 100's of a second. If we want to see whether this idea of complimentary activities works, it would start at the bottom of the learning curve, with rank beginners, and then go from there.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Okay, let's back up. Is the question about elite athletes? Are we talking two UFC athletes or their equivalent in another sport, looking for an edge? While they do still look for any advantage and often that involves unconventional training, that's not what I have in mind. I'm worried that we're talking about different things.

I have in mind two guys starting from scratch with approximately 30 hours in a week in which to train. Would a guy who only does BJJ for 30 hours each week progress substantially faster than a guy who splits the time in some way between BJJ and, say, breakdancing, or yoga, or long distance running... or how about capoeria? Over their lifetime of training, who will have a performance edge? The guy who only does BJJ or the guy who supplements with other activities? I think the difference would be closer than you seem to think, but depending on the ratio, I actually think that the guy who splits his time will perform better.

Do you think that there is a point where adding more hours to a single activity in a day is unproductive? And how do you distinguish between "conditioning focused around it" and "conditioning not focused around it"? If you compete in 10k's or half marathons, or perhaps triathlons, is that stunting your progress in BJJ or MMA? What about yoga? I mentioned that earlier. Would you consider that to not be focused enough?

How many techniques can you learn in a day? And how much time focusing on a single technique is optimal? Can we agree that the number is somewhere less than "all of it"? If we can agree on that, then it makes a lot of sense that there is room for some other activities.

I think/hope we can agree that some activities that support training and can actually lead to gains in ability level. What I don't understand is where you draw the line and why. It seems entirely arbitrary to me. Jogging - yes. Floor drills for BJJ - sure! Of course.

So I think our views are pretty similar, but not quite the same. If we're focusing on the average guy, not Demetrius Johnson or similar;

I agree that there wouldn't be too much of a difference if you had someone who trained BJJ 20 hours a week, and 10 hours of breakdancing or yoga, vs. a guy that trained BJJ 30 hours a week. The first guy would start off stronger, but eventually they'd even out and other factors (talent, effort at the gym, etc.), will have a bigger impact. Largely because of the diminishing returns idea.

As for if marathons, etc. would stunt progress-no. It wouldn't stunt the progress, since it's still something that's helping growth. The only way it would stunt is if time spent improving your BJJ is lost in favor of training for that marathon.

And the spot where I draw the line, and largely conditioning focused around it/conditioning not focused around it, is how much time you spend conditioning vs. learning. I'm going to put that in a separate post to break it up since it's longer than I initially thought. And that will also hopefully help explain my view on whether or not training a complimentary style/sport/activity/whatever is more or less helpful than training the activity.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

So I think our views are pretty similar, but not quite the same. If we're focusing on the average guy, not Demetrius Johnson or similar;

I agree that there wouldn't be too much of a difference if you had someone who trained BJJ 20 hours a week, and 10 hours of breakdancing or yoga, vs. a guy that trained BJJ 30 hours a week. The first guy would start off stronger, but eventually they'd even out and other factors (talent, effort at the gym, etc.), will have a bigger impact. Largely because of the diminishing returns idea.

As for if marathons, etc. would stunt progress-no. It wouldn't stunt the progress, since it's still something that's helping growth. The only way it would stunt is if time spent improving your BJJ is lost in favor of training for that marathon.

And the spot where I draw the line, and largely conditioning focused around it/conditioning not focused around it, is how much time you spend conditioning vs. learning. I'm going to put that in a separate post to break it up since it's longer than I initially thought. And that will also hopefully help explain my view on whether or not training a complimentary style/sport/activity/whatever is more or less helpful than training the activity.

So for instance, let's assume (completely made up %'s; replace them with what you feel is accurate, IMO it depends on the person and their base athleticism/talent, along with where they are in the training), that the ideal way to become better at BJJ is to spend 50% conditioning, 50% learning technique/drilling/sparring. For the sake of even numbers, you train BJJ like a full time job-40 hours per week. Now let's assume you supplement that time with yoga. If you're using it as a conditioning tool, it becomes part of the conditioning aspect. Now a small portion of time for any conditioning is learning how to do that conditioning. Let's say that, after a few months of doing yoga, 90% of yoga is improving flexibility, core stabilization, whatever else, and the other 10% is learning new positions/improving how you do position. And over time that will decrease. So you spend half your conditioning time doing yoga-that's 10 hours a week, but 9/10 hours are directly improving your athleticism in a way that helps your BJJ. That would be using yoga as conditioning.

Let's take the same activities, BJJ and yoga. Now you're treating yoga and BJJ as two separate activities you enjoy. So you spend an equal time doing both of them. Or even, let's assume you like BJJ more so you spend 25 hours BJJ and 15 hours yoga. Now, instead of taking specifically from the conditioning time, which for BJJ should involve core and flexibility as well, you are taking away 7.5 hours from that, and 7.5 hours from technique/drilling/sparring. So your ratio is slightly off (from 20-20 to 27.5-12.5), making you less efficient-you'll be more athletic than you otherwise would be, but you'll learn/develop BJJ skills less quickly.

Now let's take a different activity-basketball. I'm using that simply because I know very little about breakdancing so can't really use it as an example. For basketball you need to have good hand-eye coordination, cardio, quick movements, and be able to use short bursts of energy while also recovering your energy/stamina at different points while still remaining active. Pretty similar, sans flexibility (which is also important but much less so), to the conditioning that you need for BJJ. There's also a mental part where you have to be focusing and thinking on a larger picture while you're engaged physically, also similar to BJJ. But to me it would only fit as a complementary activity.

For basketball you have specific skills that you need to learn - how to shoot, how to pass, pick and roles, observing your teammates and finding holes in the floor, and feints. No matter how good your conditioning is, you won't be good if you can't shoot, or spend the entire time ignoring your teammates and staying guarded. So let's say you decide to replace 10 hours of your conditioning with basketball, instead of with yoga. Now you've got to spend a decent amount of that time doing partner drills, or even if you're just training for one-on-one b-ball, you have to spend a lot of that time working on your shot. Which still does condition your cardio and footwork a bit, but less so. So instead of wasting 1 hour a week, you're now wasting 5.

Not the biggest thing, but let's say that you do the same split from earlier where you're training them both as complementary rather than one as a tool for the other, with the same 25/15 split. So the split is now listed as: 12.5 hours BJJ conditioning, 12.5 hours BJJ tech, 7.5 hours basketball conditioning, and 7.5 hours basketball tech. Some of the conditioning for basketball might not be fully relevant, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it's so complementary that all of it fits. That's now 20 hours BJJ conditioning, and 12.5 hours BJJ tech. So now you're still learning less in the skills/tech department, with no change to your conditioning.

And again, those numbers and ratio are subject to change, the ones I used was mostly for ease of illustrating the concept.