Eliminating 1 Weakness vs Adding 1 Strength

[isshinryuronin]

I had just posted this in response to another thread, but think it's deserving of its own thread:

Oshima Tsutomu, Shihan, Funakoshi Gichin's highest ranked student said, "Eliminating one weakness is better than adding one strength."

Your thoughts on this training strategy?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Life is too short to be good on everything.

 

[_Simon_]

I quite like the idea . I feel like it's maybe more applicable to intermediate/advanced practitioners who need to let go of the unnecessary hindrances, tensions etc in order to progress and deepen their understanding, but it's very applicable to me in my trajectory and past training.

There's alot of unnecessary stuff I need to trim, and as I do it very small bit at a time, I can truly feel the difference...

Perhaps it is a sort of continuum on one's path. Firstly it's a process of adding strengths, tools, techniques, strategies etc. Then over time, you refine it and deepen it via letting go of "weaknesses", or things which creep in (to me this also relates majorly to one's own psychological baggage), and that to me represents a big part of the "do" aspect.

I reckon this applies to all who train in martial arts though, from those who train it purely for a pragmatic purpose (fighting, self-defence), or for those who enjoy pursuing it as more of a pathway into wisdom and relevance to life.

It's a really profound and important topic I reckon

 

[J. Pickard]

all things equal, your net gain is the same either way isn't it?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

- Can Albert Einstein contributed to the world more if he could play piano well?
- If you want to make all A grades from your elementary school class, how many years will you stay in the elementary school?
- Even if you can make all A grades in your elementary school, does it equal to PhD degree?
- If you have 160 IQ, does that mean you can run 100 meters within 9 seconds?

 

[isshinryuronin]

We can look at it this way: You're getting a D in Spanish and a B in math. To keep things even, assume both subjects are equally useful to your future. Do you spend more time to raise the D to a C, or to raise your B to an A?

Alternate question: Is it better to be great with your hands and a poor kicker (or visa versa), or to be good with both? A specialist, or a jack of all trades?

 

[jmf552]

I think it depends on how bad the weakness is and how strong the strength might be. I have a lot of weaknesses in the martial arts. I work on them all the time, but eliminating one would leave many more. Whereas if I had to defend myself, one solid strength might be all I need. As Bruce Lee famously said, "I don't fear the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once. I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."

 

[MadMartigan]

Oshima Tsutomu, Shihan, Funakoshi Gichin's highest ranked student said, "Eliminating one weakness is better than adding one strength."

Your thoughts on this training strategy?

As said above, it really depends.

If the strength is your striking skills and the weakness your grappling... then I'd say eliminate the weakness.

If you're focusing within a more narrow set of goal posts, then maybe not. An Olympic Judoka has little use for improving their kicks... better for that person (at least during their competition days) to focus on improving that.

Then you get down to the next level, within a skill set. Then it goes back to rounding out your skills and reducing weaknesses.

Then you're fairly competent in many areas within your skill set, at which point it might be time to specialize (working on improving your strengths again).

In the end it feels like a nesting doll. There's another layer under another... and around and around it goes haha.

 

[skribs]

We can look at it this way: You're getting a D in Spanish and a B in math. To keep things even, assume both subjects are equally useful to your future. Do you spend more time to raise the D to a C, or to raise your B to an A?

Or if you have all Cs, are you going to try to raise one to a B, or try to pick up a new thing that you can learn to do at a C level? Or if you plan to go into STEM and want to drop Spanish, then raising that B to an A is probably better for you. Or if you have an A already, do you want to raise it to an A+, or add something else?

If you're just concerned with your GPA, then raising your bad grades will help. But if you're concerned with an accumulation of knowledge, then learning more skills or rounding out your weaker skills will probably help more.

Applying it to martial arts:

Within an art, it's probably best to raise your worst grades. To prioritize eliminating bad habits over learning more complicated or niche techniques. However, sometimes the more complicated technique can teach you more about the basic version. It takes more knowledge of a roundhouse kick in order to do a tornado kick. Doing a tornado kick can help you better understand the roundhouse kick.

Overall, it depends on your goals. I consider myself very good at TKD. Continuing TKD training will lead to very small gains in my ability. In fact, if my goal was to compete, I think Yoga, weight training, and running would probably give me bigger gains in TKD than TKD class itself at this point. However, if you give me a few months in another art (such as BJJ), then I think I will learn a ton of new skills in a very short amount of time.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I had just posted this in response to another thread, but think it's deserving of its own thread:

Oshima Tsutomu, Shihan, Funakoshi Gichin's highest ranked student said, "Eliminating one weakness is better than adding one strength."

Your thoughts on this training strategy?

Not enough context. What if getting rid of a weakness is the same process of adding a strength? Weakness is poor kicking skills. To get rid of that weakness you must add a strength.

 

[Buka]

If you're a dojo rat, you work at all the wonderful things that you do that come naturally and that make you who you are. But if you're a dojo rat - you also work at the things that you really, really suck at.

If you don't, then, well...you know. Nice try, I guess.

 

[geezer]

Not enough context. What if getting rid of a weakness is the same process of adding a strength? Weakness is poor kicking skills. To get rid of that weakness you must add a strength.

Exactly.

Out of context, this becomes like of one of those wise "fortune cookie" sayings that is really pretty ambiguous. Without clarification, it sounds deep, but means little.

On the other hand, if the context is the choice between learning another "advanced" or specialized technique versus correcting an error or weakness in your fundamentals, I would certainly agree. I suspect the original intent may have been something along this line.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Exactly.

Out of context, this becomes like of one of those wise "fortune cookie" sayings that is really pretty ambiguous. Without clarification, it sounds deep, but means little.

On the other hand, if the context is the choice between learning another "advanced" or specialized technique versus correcting an error or weakness in your fundamentals, I would certainly agree. I suspect the original intent may have been something along this line.

True. I agree with your conclusion, but left it open to invite other shades of readings that could be valid as well. Perhaps Oshima visited a Chinese restaurant before making this statement.

IMO, one should have no major fundamental weakness and at least one or two "super" skills he can rely on in a pinch. But if there is a fundamental weakness in one's skills, one may not get the chance to use his special strength.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

IMO, one should have no major fundamental weakness and at least one or two "super" skills he can rely on in a pinch. But if there is a fundamental weakness in one's skills, one may not get the chance to use his special strength.

Agree!

general skill (soldiers) - no major fundamental weakness.
door guarding skill (generals) - special strength.

You train your soldiers and generals in different ways.

 

[wab25]

I see both sides being mentioned... but in order to eliminate a weakness, you must first identify a weakness. In order to add a strength, you must know what strengths you already have. Having the knowledge of your weaknesses and strengths is a very valuable thing to have... in training or fighting... or in life.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Having the knowledge of your weaknesses and strengths is a very valuable thing to have... in training or fighting... or in life.

So right you are! I think this is one of the main keys to success. Necessary in order to execute any kind of strategy successfully. But it is dependent on recognizing your strengths and weaknesses as you said. This can be difficult at times as ego or blindness can prevent you from seeing or admitting your weakness. It can take courage to be that honest with yourself. Then, you need the will to take steps to overcome it.

Knowing your strengths must be backed by the confidence and will to exert them. "Know thyself" is an ancient piece of wisdom. One of the most valuable, IMO, and sometimes, one of the hardest to accomplish.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Eliminating a weakness and adding a strength, on the surface, is a great concept but there are 'weaknesses' that cannot always be eliminated. For instance, if you are 5'-8", stopped growing and still playing basketball, you may not ever overcome the height disadvantage. Sure you could spend time working on your vertical leap but that will take a toll on your body and the time you will spend on your other skills.

I think I prefer Sun Tzu's approach to weaknesses (and strengths). Understanding your weaknesses and using them as strengths seems far more pragmatic and practical for the average practitioner. Know thyself, know thy enemy. Engage people with what they expect and they will settle into a predictable response. Occupy their minds while you wait for that extraordinary moment they cannot anticipate. Then strike.

Better to spend time developing an outside shot than trying to increase your vertical by 8". Sure you can still work on your vertical and driving to the hoop but the price you pay may to be successful may be a toll that your body won't be able to sustain for a long period of time. However, that being said, the time to bring out the vertical and ability to drive would be when your opponent least expects it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Eliminate weakness if you can. We depend upon our techniques. Depending on a poor one can be a real problem.

Put another way, I'd rather fix a hole in one of my techniques than to start learning another.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Eliminating a weakness and adding a strength, on the surface, is a great concept but there are 'weaknesses' that cannot always be eliminated. For instance, if you are 5'-8", stopped growing and still playing basketball, you may not ever overcome the height disadvantage

I think I prefer Sun Tzu's approach to weaknesses

Better to spend time developing an outside shot than trying to increase your vertical by 8".

Sun Tzu said, "There are battles that must not be fought." If you have a weakness that's hard/impossible to overcome, you must devise a strategy where that weakness does not come into play. You had a great example: If you are unable to win the battle under the hoop, shoot from the outside. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of yourself and the opponent, one should be able to come up with a workable winning strategy. Luckily, many do not have the awareness or mindset to be able to implement this concept.

Another of my favorite Sun Tzu's sayings is to know the ground (geographic, legal, social) you're fighting on, as this will have a major effect on strategy and tactics. Although written in regards to armies, his wisdom is applicable to single combat as well, as Musashi related in his book. Strategic concepts are universal and can be applied to many of life's endeavors. IMO, many MA schools do not spend enough time on this.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not enough context. What if getting rid of a weakness is the same process of adding a strength? Weakness is poor kicking skills. To get rid of that weakness you must add a strength.

I suppose we could argue that poor kicking skills is a weakness, and good kicking skills are a strength, but that mediocre kicking skills are neither.

But I think the idea is more conceptual than that.

My view on this is the same in most contexts. In general, if the weakness is a key weakness, you need to shore it up. Otherwise, you're likely better off improving in an area of strength. So, if you are bad at defending single-legs, but are training for a competition style where those are not favored, that may be a non-key weakness. If you're training for MMA or other competition formats where they are prevalent (and competitors are good at them), then it's a key weakness. A lack of kicking isn't necessarily a key weakness in MMA, and it's probably more efficacious to focus on developing your primary weapons, rather than adding so-so kicking to your arsenal.