How important is cross training? When is the best time to begin cross training? I have been taking Tae Kwon Do for about 15 months. I was looking into taking some boxing lessons, I took two lessons last year and I enjoyed them because they were so out of my element. Is it too soon to start cross training, or should I wait until I feel I have mastered the basics of Tae Kwon Do?
Importance of cross training
- Thread starter Azulx
- Start date
Jaeimseu
3rd Black Belt
It depends on your goals. If you want to be "well-rounded," you should cross train. If you just want to be really good at Taekwondo, then stick to that.
To me, 15 months doesn't really give you a solid enough base in tkd, meaning that it's likely that cross training could slow down your tkd growth.
If I were set on cross training, I'd pick another art that was totally different from my first one, so the two arts don't bleed into one another. In my case, I branched out from tkd and started training bjj. I waited over 20 years to seriously cross train, but I wouldn't think you'd need to wait nearly that long.
In the end, it's really up to you. If you have an interest in other arts and you don't mind sacrificing tkd training time, have at it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To me, 15 months doesn't really give you a solid enough base in tkd, meaning that it's likely that cross training could slow down your tkd growth.
If I were set on cross training, I'd pick another art that was totally different from my first one, so the two arts don't bleed into one another. In my case, I branched out from tkd and started training bjj. I waited over 20 years to seriously cross train, but I wouldn't think you'd need to wait nearly that long.
In the end, it's really up to you. If you have an interest in other arts and you don't mind sacrificing tkd training time, have at it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with Jaeimseu.
Ironbear24
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2015
- Messages
- 2,103
- Reaction score
- 482
Bjj is honestly kind of boring. But don't take my word for it, try it for yourself and see if you like it. I do not know that much about TKD so I am not sure what it is "missing" so to speak.
But if you want a grappling art then I would recommend Judo since bjj came from that anyway and it focuses on both stand up and ground vs only the floor.
But if you want a grappling art then I would recommend Judo since bjj came from that anyway and it focuses on both stand up and ground vs only the floor.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,419
- Reaction score
- 8,143
Martial arts is no more complicated than any other discipline. And kids can grow up speaking 7 languages. Mastering 6 dance disciplines and playing 10 sports.
If you box and tkd. You can be exposed to more elements of martial arts than if you just do one.
It is admittedly also more challenging to be good at two things rather than one.
If you box and tkd. You can be exposed to more elements of martial arts than if you just do one.
It is admittedly also more challenging to be good at two things rather than one.
To spend 3-4 years of your training time in your "major" style before you spend your training time in your "minor" styles will be about right. You can have 2 major styles, 1 striking art and 1 grappling art. But it will be hard to have 2 major styles in the same area. Many styles can have contradict principles.
- Thread Starter
- #7
I liked boxing, because it helped me work on my hands. My hands are below average at best. My school has a heavy influence on kicks, although we have some students taht are pretty good with their hands. I'm just not one of those students. Box and TKD have contradicting principles. The biggest one I saw, was that there was no switching of stance, the lead hand remained the same for the boxers. I am use to switching from left to right back and forth, this made it difficult to adapt.
You can suck at a bunch of styles or gain proficiency in one, perhaps two, in the course of a lifetime. Just 2 cents.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 14,119
- Reaction score
- 6,039
Cross Training means something totally different than what is being explained here. Cross Training for me is doing different exercises to help build up muscle strength and endurance that your normal exercise doesn't address. If I ran the 110 meter sprint competitively, then as part of my cross training I would run distance and do plyometrics to help build my cardio vascular and muscle endurance.
In martial arts, cross training for me would be that I train in kung fu, but I also include exercises that boxers use to help train them for boxing. My goal isn't to use the same techniques that boxers use. My goal would be to include some of the fitness exercises that boxers use.
You are taking TKD classes so I'm going to assume that you aren't doing stance training when you stand in one stance for a long period of time (2 minutes). If you aren't doing these type of exercises, then this type of stance training would be considered as cross training.
When you take train in 2 different fighting systems, then you aren't cross training. You are simply training in 2 different systems.
Here's a definition from runner's world "In reference to running, cross-training is when a runner trains by doing another kind of fitness workout such as cycling, swimming, a fitness class or strength training, to supplement their running. It builds strength and flexibility in muscles that running doesn't utilize"
This is an example of cross training for some football players
In martial arts, cross training for me would be that I train in kung fu, but I also include exercises that boxers use to help train them for boxing. My goal isn't to use the same techniques that boxers use. My goal would be to include some of the fitness exercises that boxers use.
You are taking TKD classes so I'm going to assume that you aren't doing stance training when you stand in one stance for a long period of time (2 minutes). If you aren't doing these type of exercises, then this type of stance training would be considered as cross training.
When you take train in 2 different fighting systems, then you aren't cross training. You are simply training in 2 different systems.
Here's a definition from runner's world "In reference to running, cross-training is when a runner trains by doing another kind of fitness workout such as cycling, swimming, a fitness class or strength training, to supplement their running. It builds strength and flexibility in muscles that running doesn't utilize"
This is an example of cross training for some football players
Jaeimseu
3rd Black Belt
Young kids can speak multiple languages because they acquire them instead of learning them, but I agree that a person can train in as many styles as they have time to train. It'll just take longer to get good at any of them.
If your major style is A and your minor style is B, Your style B will have strong style A's flavor. Some people may say this is good but others may say this is bad.
Train in? Yes. Longer to get good? Not even close to possible. To really master a single style is the work of a lifetime. An incredibly gifted individual might master two in a single lifetime. Anything more is nothing even close to mastery - it's dabbling. Jack of all trades, master of none.
Jaeimseu
3rd Black Belt
Agreed, they definitely won't master any one style. But that may not be the goal. If someone just wants to be a good well-rounded fighter, they could just train selected techniques from a variety of styles and become quite skilled.
However, now that I think about it, I've come across several martial arts school owners who had ninth degree black belts in four or five different styles. Are you suggesting that all of them weren't being entirely honest? <gasp>
Do you consider "mastery" and "dabbling" to be the only two options?
I'm not sure what exactly would constitute "mastery" of a system. I don't claim that I have or ever will "master" a system. However after almost 35 years of training and over 10,000 hours of mat time, I think I'm past the point that most people would consider "dabbling."
At this point, I think I may view "styles" a little differently than most people. To my mind, martial art training is a tool, nothing more. Depending on the goals of the individual, it may be a tool for developing fighting ability(in various contexts), self-defense ability (in various contexts), physical and/or mental self-awareness and self-control, sportive competition, social interaction, artistic expression, or some combination of those elements. Rather than worry about whether someone is "mastering" an art, I'd rather look at how well it is working as a tool for that individual in achieving their goal(s).
Someone who is training for combative purposes may find it relevant that there are a number of young professional fighters out there who are using multiple arts to fight at a higher level than most high-ranking instructors in those arts could ever muster. Admittedly, these fighters spend a lot more hours during the week training than the average hobbyist, but they haven't spent 40 years getting to that point either.
If someone is training for personal self-development ... that's a personal journey. I don't know any way that an outsider would have grounds for saying "you would have achieved that much more self-awareness and maturity if you had trained (just one art/multiple arts)."
We talk about different arts having different principles, but ultimately every art is constrained by the exact same principles - those of physics, human anatomy, and human psychology. The apparently different principles embodied in different arts are just application of those underlying principles of reality to a particular context reflecting the judgment of the art's creators on the best trade-offs regarding pedagogy, tactical requirements, and so on. Once you get past the point of "art A does it this way but art B does it that way" and understand why each art teaches what it does the way it does, then you can use either method as your current situation demands.
That said, there are good ways and bad ways to approach cross-training. This comment is long enough already, so I'll save my opinions on that subject for another post.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,419
- Reaction score
- 8,143
Renaissance man?
You can be good at more than one thing. And i think it is better to be a good at martial arts than a master at one aspect of it.
True enough. On the other hand it's tough to get really good at a lot of things. That's the difference between a renaissance man and a dilettante. Very few individuals truly accomplished enough to be considered renaissance men, even back in the Renaissance!
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,419
- Reaction score
- 8,143
See i consider martial arts one thing and the styles are elements of that.
So you. May not be as good a boxer or whatever but you will be a better martial artist.
Otherwise if you are short cutting your training to do another style then you will suffer. But if you are adding to that then the difference won't be that great.
Most of my wrestlers don't like to train striking art. In order for them to test their skill in MMA gym, they have to train the short cut - how to wrap a punching arm/arms that coming toward their face.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,419
- Reaction score
- 8,143
The will eventually come up against a wall when the other guy has a clinch game though.
If a wrestler loses his game in wrestling against a striker, his striking skill won't be able to help him much against that striker opponent either.
In order to be able to develop a good striking skill, you have to take the risk to take a full powerful punch on the head. Not every wrestler want to go through that and risk brain damage.
