The Importance of Cross Training.

[SensibleManiac]

On the other hand, isn't that exactly how GSP beat Matt Hughes?

"Now everyone knows that without experience in someone shooting on you, trying to counter them with strikes is next to impossible, but with cross training that becomes very possible."

I think my quote perfecly illustrates this point.
For someone who has no knowledge of grappling to assume they an pull off the same kick counter to a takedown would be absurd. But when someone is well versed in the timing and distance involved in the takedown then yes, they can successfully defend against it with strikes, remember though, GSP is very well versed in takedowns and can therefore counter them with kicks, punches etc..., but have someone who is ONLY a striker try the same and the result will be very different.

Having a solid base in one art before you begin to involve others is a great idea, however there are exceptions to this rule depending on your goals, who you're training with and of course how fast you absorb material.

 

[zDom]

"Now everyone knows that without experience in someone shooting on you, trying to counter them with strikes is next to impossible, but with cross training that becomes very possible."

I think my quote perfecly illustrates this point.
For someone who has no knowledge of grappling to assume they an pull off the same kick counter to a takedown would be absurd. But when someone is well versed in the timing and distance involved in the takedown then yes, they can successfully defend against it with strikes, remember though, GSP is very well versed in takedowns and can therefore counter them with kicks, punches etc..., but have someone who is ONLY a striker try the same and the result will be very different.

Having a solid base in one art before you begin to involve others is a great idea, however there are exceptions to this rule depending on your goals, who you're training with and of course how fast you absorb material.

I disagree. I think a striker who is skilled enough (and whose timing is good enough —*which is part of being a skilled striker) can defeat a shoot with striking regardless of their ability or lack of ability in their ground game.

Not saying ability and comfort in your groundwork doesn't help or isn't beneficial, because confidence and skill on the ground IS a great benefit without a doubt. But I don't think it is necessarily a prerequisite. I just think it lowers the bar on the amount of striking skill needed.

I believe that if you are good enough at YOUR game (whatever it is — be it striking, grappling or a mixture) you can force the opponent to fight on your terms.

 

[geezer]

I disagree. I think a striker who is skilled enough (and whose timing is good enough —*which is part of being a skilled striker) can defeat a shoot with striking regardless of their ability or lack of ability in their ground game...

I believe that if you are good enough at YOUR game (whatever it is — be it striking, grappling or a mixture) you can force the opponent to fight on your terms.

To be really good at your game, it really helps to know how the other guy thinks and moves. You can try to cross-train to beat him at his game...bad idea. Or you can learn his game so you can beat him with yours. Like Sun Tzu said couple of thousand years ago, "Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will be victorious in a thousand battles."

 

[geezer]

I've always enjoyed cross training for a variety of reasons but STRONGLY believe that it should start only after you've gained a reasonable proficiency in your chosen system. My rule of thumb is no cross training until after you've earned your 1st degree black belt or equivalent at a minimum. Ideally, I'd wait until 3rd degree.

OK, I do hold a third degree in my core art. In my style that takes about 12 to 15 years to achieve. If you've got the time and money. I think its pretty silly to say that you have to wait that long to investigate other arts!

Personally, I'd say anyone with a solid foundation in their core art... that is an advanced intermediate... should be able to benefit from experiencing other arts.

Another thought. Everyone has been addressing cross training just from the point of developing fighting skills. What about doing it just because you are curious, ...and because it's fun?

 

[Ironcrane]

Another thought. Everyone has been addressing cross training just from the point of developing fighting skills. What about doing it just because you are curious, ...and because it's fun?

Sounds just fine to me. I think most would agree with me, that people looking into Martial Arts for reasons other then training to be a fighter, are prefectly valid.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I have never met anyone who crosstrains in multiple arts and has said anything but positive effects on their abilities and their increase in each individual art.

Most people that advocate not doing it, have never crosstrained, and usually are denying the need based on selfish reasons... like they have no time to devote to another art and thier existing art, so instead of conceding and saying I only have so much time, they live in denial and say there is no need.

Or they cant afford it, dont have access to it, or some other reason that has nothing to do with the viability of crosstraining and increasing your skills and abilities across the board.
It all comes down to how much time, how much money, and how much desire you have to do it.

 

[SensibleManiac]

I disagree. I think a striker who is skilled enough (and whose timing is good enough —*which is part of being a skilled striker) can defeat a shoot with striking regardless of their ability or lack of ability in their ground game.

Not saying ability and comfort in your groundwork doesn't help or isn't beneficial, because confidence and skill on the ground IS a great benefit without a doubt. But I don't think it is necessarily a prerequisite. I just think it lowers the bar on the amount of striking skill needed.

I believe that if you are good enough at YOUR game (whatever it is — be it striking, grappling or a mixture) you can force the opponent to fight on your terms.

Scott, we're not talking exclusively about groundfighting for strikers.
We are talking about furthering your knowledge and skills by exploring other methods ranges to understand and be able to defeat those with your skills.
Groundfighting is not neccesary for a stand up striker to beat a shoot and takedown with a strike but it is neccessary to beat a ground grappler, by understanding his game not trying to beat him at it, but to uncover weaknesses and get comfortable there.
As for the stand up striker defeating the takedown he NEEDS to train against people trying to shoot in on him and take him down so he can properly coordinate his striking skills and strategies to counter the takedown.
Think about this logically and you will get it.
Think carefully about your quote and you will see your lack of understanding of ranges by mistaking ground fighting to have anything to do with defending against takedowns.

 

[bluekey88]

Another thought. Everyone has been addressing cross training just from the point of developing fighting skills. What about doing it just because you are curious, ...and because it's fun?

Good point. Of course, that's the primary reason I cross train now. It just so happens that my skills are improving as a side benefit. Mostly I needed an extra training night and my wife was kind enough to not have a problem with that

I think it's interesting. When I read about the history of the old Okinawan karate masters...they crosstrained. They'd study with a teacher, then go pick up something with someone else. Hell, whole kata are based on things the various mnasters picked up through training with other people and styles. The pattern seemed to be...train, train some more, synthesize, thena t some point when it all sort of made sense create a form to capture ones personal art and then teach it to others.

What has happened now is that we modern maertial artists have become a bit dogmatic and always need ot do things the "traditional way"...this leads to the occassional school that (for ego or money reasons) frowns on looking outside the confines of their chosen art. It also sometimes discourages experimentation through cross training.

From my way of thinking, cross training in MA is as traditional as striking.

Peace,
Erik

 

[seasoned]

I think it's interesting. When I read about the history of the old Okinawan karate masters...they crosstrained. They'd study with a teacher, then go pick up something with someone else. Hell, whole kata are based on things the various mnasters picked up through training with other people and styles.

Peace,
Erik

Great point. It was more about life and self defense then, rather then money and prestige. Founders of Okinawan GoJu traveled long distances to cross train with Chinese masters. I feel, every grappling art, should have kicks and strikes as well as stand up arts should work grappling techniques, or at lease know how to defend against them. It all depends on how in-depth you want to go. I feel we should focus on one art or style, as our base art, and train hole heartedly. Once that base is set, you will find that cross training will enhance that base art greatly. Lets face it, every art, on it’s own, has the ability to defend against other arts, that’s what self defense is all about. A grappler wants to get you to the ground with take downs, and stand up arts went to do it with kicks and strikes. Mix it up a bit and you have MMA. Any art or style has what is referred to as dirty fighting, where anything goes, it’s called survival, born of more hostile times. If it’s in a cage with rules, an audience, and a referee, heck you better be ready, or you will get your butt handed to you, but, someone is always there to stop the match. Street, much different. As a student, stick with one art and learn it, as a Sensei, you better cross train, or know your art very well, because you never know who will come through your DoJo door, to enhance there base art. J

 

[hkfuie]

Good point. Of course, that's the primary reason I cross train now...

What has happened now is that we modern maertial artists have become a bit dogmatic and always need ot do things the "traditional way"...this leads to the occassional school that (for ego or money reasons) frowns on looking outside the confines of their chosen art. It also sometimes discourages experimentation through cross training.

From my way of thinking, cross training in MA is as traditional as striking.

Peace,
Erik

Agreed on both points: fun and cross-training is not non-traditional.

I think one has nothing to do with the other. These are probably fighting words. I hope I can say this without the entire thread being derailed by people trying to tell me I'm wrong, but I think this is another way martial arts is like religion. Some people believe you have to follow one style without deviation and you are not allowed to think thoughts not approved by the grand poobah of your style. Fine for them.

Luckily, my lineage is very pro crosstraining. I suspect it goes all the way back to ancient times: the 70s and Bruce Lee. I know the GM's of my school were very pro BL and their philosophies were sympatico with the idea of crosstrainning. Their voices echo in my ears..."whatever you do (implying they don't care what technique I use) MAKE IT WORK!" That is all that matters.

I think it is wonderful for some people to train one tradition. That dedication is admirable and they will keep a purer form of their style. But for me my original style is my native language, but it does not have all the words I need. And I like to communicate with people from other "countries."

Maybe it's a function of living so far away from my instructor and TKD siblings, but at this point, my style has become MY style. It's about me and my skills and understanding more about anything that I can find to learn. I am walking MY path. I guess I have left the nest.

I love TKD, but I am a total idiot when it comes to grappling on the floor. I hope to learn a little and be less of an idiot! LOL.

Oh! I just realized I can reduce my post to 3 words:

Do what you want.

Yeah, ground fighting is not the only thing I suck at. LOL

 

[bluekey88]

I think one has nothing to do with the other. These are probably fighting words. I hope I can say this without the entire thread being derailed by people trying to tell me I'm wrong, but I think this is another way martial arts is like religion. Some people believe you have to follow one style without deviation and you are not allowed to think thoughts not approved by the grand poobah of your style.

I'd agree with oyu on this point. In fact, I've heard of schools/orgs that were run very much liek a cult or religion. Certainly, "cult of personality" syndrome is sadly not uncommon in the martial arts.

When this happens, insecurity at teh top can lead to strict prohibitions against questioning authority and going outside the group.

Peace,
Erik

 

[zDom]

Scott, we're not talking exclusively about groundfighting for strikers. We are talking about furthering your knowledge and skills by exploring other methods ranges to understand and be able to defeat those with your skills.

Yes, I understand that. What makes you think I didn't? It was just using a specific example to discuss a general idea.

Howabout this scenario: does someone need to crosstrain in high kicking to be able to defend against high kicks?

And what constitutes "crosstraining" exactly? A four-hour session? Or two years of twice-weekly training?

Groundfighting is not neccesary for a stand up striker to beat a shoot and takedown with a strike but it is neccessary to beat a ground grappler, by understanding his game not trying to beat him at it, but to uncover weaknesses and get comfortable there.

There is no doubt that crosstraining in a style, combat range or weapon will give you additional insight about that style, combat range or weapon.

As for the stand up striker defeating the takedown he NEEDS to train against people trying to shoot in on him and take him down so he can properly coordinate his striking skills and strategies to counter the takedown.
Think about this logically and you will get it.

I HAVE thought about it even before being directed by you to do so. And I still disagree.

Using this particular example, training specifically against someone shooting in would definately be a benefit — the shortest and best path to training dealing with this specific attack.

But I maintain that someone who has honed their striking (a critical part of which is honing their TIMING) over many, many years does not "NEED" to train against someone shooting in on him to "properly coordinate his striking skills and strategies to counter the takedown."

Someone with striking mastery would just see incoming low targets and hit them.

FWIW, I've HAD people shoot in on me and defeated them with precision striking before EVER training specifically defenses against the shoot. And, at those times, I was FAR from a master striker.

Think carefully about your quote and you will see your lack of understanding of ranges by mistaking ground fighting to have anything to do with defending against takedowns.

I've given it careful thought. I don't see how you can claim that defending against takedowns doesn't have anything to do with groundfighting.

Groundfighting only happens after a takedown or a knockdown (except for those rare cases in which someone initiates an attack on a prone opponent).

Those most interested in taking someone down via a shoot are nearly ALWAYS groundfighting specialists.

As for my "lack of understanding of ranges" — please enlighten me. After almost 20 years of punching, kicking, wristlocking, choking, body holding, throwing, etc., I'm not an expert in recoginizing "ranges" — but I wouldn't say I'm lacking to any great degree, either.

Feel free to fill me in.

 

[SensibleManiac]

Yes, I understand that. What makes you think I didn't? It was just using a specific example to discuss a general idea.

Howabout this scenario: does someone need to crosstrain in high kicking to be able to defend against high kicks?

And what constitutes "crosstraining" exactly? A four-hour session? Or two years of twice-weekly training?

I didn't think you did because I used the specific example of striking and shooting for the takedown and you were talking about the ground which is a different range than my example, so I took that as misunderstanding my example.
Someone doesn't have to cross train to defend against high kicks they can have good evasive and blocking skills however by training specifically against high kicks they will be better.
The more specific experience they have the better. Therefore several years is better than four hours.

There is no doubt that crosstraining in a style, combat range or weapon will give you additional insight about that style, combat range or weapon.

We completely agree here.

I HAVE thought about it even before being directed by you to do so. And I still disagree.
Using this particular example, training specifically against someone shooting in would definately be a benefit — the shortest and best path to training dealing with this specific attack.
But I maintain that someone who has honed their striking (a critical part of which is honing their TIMING) over many, many years does not "NEED" to train against someone shooting in on him to "properly coordinate his striking skills and strategies to counter the takedown."
Someone with striking mastery would just see incoming low targets and hit them.
FWIW, I've HAD people shoot in on me and defeated them with precision striking before EVER training specifically defenses against the shoot. And, at those times, I was FAR from a master striker.

I have no doubt that you can successfully defend the takedown by having great precision and timing however, imagine a very well trained individual who has cross trained in striking, wrestling, and BJJ fighting against a very good boxer with great precision and timing who knows his opponent is well versed in all ranges. Now do you think that the fighter who is well versed in all ranges will have more chance of faking or setting up and entering into a clinch and taking his opponent down OR do you think the boxer with only his having great precision and timing will be able to deal with the situation that is out of his element (not used to being shot in on and thrown) and adapt on the fly to something he isn't used to. Don't you agree that the fighter who has more experience mixing ranges and setting his opponent up will have a much better chance of pulling it off on someone who is trying to adapt his skills in the heat of the moment.
Remember I'm not saying is it possible? I'm saying who do you think has the better chance, tell me you don't think the crosstrained fighter has the much better chance.

I've given it careful thought. I don't see how you can claim that defending against takedowns doesn't have anything to do with groundfighting.

Groundfighting only happens after a takedown or a knockdown (except for those rare cases in which someone initiates an attack on a prone opponent).

Those most interested in taking someone down via a shoot are nearly ALWAYS groundfighting specialists.

Maybe I worded it wrong, defending the takedown and groundfighting are obviously related, but again they are distinct from each other.
One can be well versed in greco roman wrestling and not know very much about the ground (guard, side mount, etc...) yet have great clinching and throwing skills. Sometimes the thrower is setting up a ground and pound attack and doesn't have great grappling skills. (possibility)

As for my "lack of understanding of ranges" — please enlighten me. After almost 20 years of punching, kicking, wristlocking, choking, body holding, throwing, etc., I'm not an expert in recoginizing "ranges" — but I wouldn't say I'm lacking to any great degree, either.

Feel free to fill me in.

Scott don't take this as an attack, but there could still be holes in your training regardless of how long you've trained in many ranges, I'm NOT saying that this is the case but the truth is that the more familiar and experienced you are in training in different schools of thought about ranges and approaches then the better off you'll be this is just a fact that I've learned throughout the years. Does this mean that you know nothing after 20 years of training? Absolutely not, you are probably a very capable fighter but I absolutely believe you would be better by cross training in different approaches to gain a fuller understanding.
Keep in mind that I'm assuming much about you based on what you've said and that your signature says you train in Hapkido.

Again I'm NOT saying you are not a capable fighter or attacking you in any way, all I'm saying is that it is a fact that you would be better by opening yourself up to different approaches. The choice is yours depending on your goals, Hapkido is a great martial art, I just don't believe there is such a thing as a complete martial art.

Again maybe my wording was wrong, when asking you to think carefully maybe what I should be saying is open yourself to different approaches.
Still this depends on what your goals are.

All the best on your path.

 

[zDom]

I think we are more in agreement than our last couple of posts would indicate, Sensible.

I DO agree that cross training is a great benefit — the shortest and probably best path to learning to deal with specific attacks.

I don't think it is absolutely necessary, however.

I think my time in TKD (2nd dan) definately has given me an edge in punching/kicking/standup over my fellow hapkido students.

Likewise, I believe that my throwing would benefit if I had the opportunity to spend some time with some Judo players, and my ground game would improve if I spent some time rolling with a BJJ school.

So yea, I agree those who are crosstrained will generally have a better chance. It is DEFINATELY important and beneficial.

On the other hand, I'm also pointing out that, for example, a guy who has spent 3 months rolling in BJJ who tried to shoot in on Mike Tyson or He Il Cho would probably end up knocked out — even though Tyson and Cho haven't (to my knowledge) spent any time cross training. Maybe even someone with a year or more rolling BJJ, for that matter

Tyson (er.. at his prime or somebody current who is at that level of boxing skill) and Cho are THAT good at THEIR "game" (striking), IMO, that they are likely to come out the victor regardless of the flavor of attack and any lack of any cross training.

A boxer with that same 3 months or even year of experience? Er.. not so much. Someone in THAT position can even the odds in a hurry with some crosstraining rather than waiting on 15 years of experience.

 

[SensibleManiac]

On the other hand, I'm also pointing out that, for example, a guy who has spent 3 months rolling in BJJ who tried to shoot in on Mike Tyson or He Il Cho would probably end up knocked out — even though Tyson and Cho haven't (to my knowledge) spent any time cross training. Maybe even someone with a year or more rolling BJJ, for that matter

Absolutely, we should acknowledge that having a little experience in cross training or an art like BJJ will not nearly be enough to defeat an accomplished fighter even if his training is only in one range.
If Mike Tyson in his prime would have cross trained in greco roman wrestling for several months, then the fact that he was so dangerous as a boxer would only make him that much more dangerous as a fighter.
It should also be stated that beginning martial artists can get overwhelmed by focussing on multiple ranges from the start of their training.