Eliminating 1 Weakness vs Adding 1 Strength

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I don't think a new technique is a strength. It doesn't become a strength until you are really good at it. Lacking it may or may not be a weakness, depending upon context. So developing a strength, in the MA context, either means developing an existing skill to a highly functional level. If you decide to do that with a new skill, it's a very long path in most cases.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

Even in the examples that you give, you cannot improve in those areas unless you add strength in those areas. For example, defending against single-leg take downs involves adding a skill (strength) to do so.

I can under Bill statement, because it's specific. But when we talk about weaknesses and strengths. We often remove the weakness by adding a strength. Unless the weakness is something you drop. Like say you bounce 2 times before you punch and bounce 3 times before your kick. Here nothing needs to be added. But then this is would be more along the lines of getting rid of bad habits before trying to learn new skills. But even with this context is important. A bad habit in full contact may be a good habit in point sparring.

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

This is the mindset that I was taught. I couldn't learn a new skill until I fixed or strengthen the old one.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Even in the examples that you give, you cannot improve in those areas unless you add strength in those areas. For example, defending against single-leg take downs involves adding a skill (strength) to do so.

I can under Bill statement, because it's specific. But when we talk about weaknesses and strengths. We often remove the weakness by adding a strength. Unless the weakness is something you drop. Like say you bounce 2 times before you punch and bounce 3 times before your kick. Here nothing needs to be added. But then this is would be more along the lines of getting rid of bad habits before trying to learn new skills. But even with this context is important. A bad habit in full contact may be a good habit in point sparring.

This is the mindset that I was taught. I couldn't learn a new skill until I fixed or strengthen the old one.

I think I wasn't clear. I don't have to be strong in something to not be weak in it. There's a mid-point where it's not really my strength, but it's no longer an exploitable weakness for just anyone. So, if I develop a reasonable defense against single-leg, someone with superior single-leg takedown (it's one of their strengths) will still have an advantage over me in that area. But the average single-legger won't find it such an easy target. To me, "strength" in this context means something that you are particularly good at - a primary weapon (in offense) or area of really low vulnerability (in defense).

I think an easier example is guarding the head. Some people have a real weakness here. I can simply move in and tag their head at will (head-guarding weakness). There are other folks who I have a really hard time getting head shots in on (head-guarding strength). Between those two points are a lot of people I can get in on, but only with some work, which probably gives them opportunities, so it's no longer a weakness but not yet a strength.

It's definitely not a black-and-white issue, for sure. That's why I said it's more conceptual.

 

[Yokozuna514]

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.

Knowing the ground. Understanding the environment. Knowing the ruleset. All factors that can be used to your advantage if you have a better understanding that your opponent. Definitely agree that not enough time spent on these concepts.

 

[caped crusader]

I think it´s better to work on a few techniques and be a master of them rather than trying to be a "jack of all trades" a watered down list of techniques. why waste years of your life ? Boxing bag, weights, some good ground work. Basta ... fitness is key too not gassing out quickly.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

This is why I "don't play in other people's strengths." I often try to force people into their weakness vs me trying to fight within my weakness. Even if my opponent and I have the same strengths. I will still seek where my opponent is weak.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This is why I "don't play in other people's strengths." I often try to force people into their weakness vs me trying to fight within my weakness.

This is why I love the circular dragging. Most striker are not familiar with this strategy. The moment that you drag their arm and run in circle, the moment that 99% of the time, they will resist. You can then take advantage on it.

 

[jmf552]

This is why I love the circular dragging. Most striker are not familiar with this strategy. The moment that you drag their arm and run in circle, the moment that 99% of the time, they will resist. You can then take advantage on it.

For Joe Schmo on the street, I think it might work. Anyone who is trained well will not resist. They will go with it and make you pay. Especially a striker who has had any grappling training, which nowadays a lot of them have. And if you do that to a true grappler, like a BJJ guy, you are completely screwed. You can make anything work in a demo.

 

[jmf552]

I think there is another way to look at the original question, offense vs. defense. If your defensive skills are weak, you gotta do something there. If you can't prevent a punch from landing in some way, or if you can't prevent yourself from being thrown or a limb broken, those are key weaknesses, because if you are deficient there, you can't bring any of your other strengths to bear. You are out of the fight immediately.

But if you defenses are good, you may not need a whole catalog of fancy offensive techniques. Some of the pure self defense teachers, from William Fairbairn up to Tim Larkin, only teach like 5-7 offensive moves and they are simple. But they are aimed at killing/maiming/incapacitating the attacker, not scoring points or looking good.