It is often said that in order to master a skill, it has to be performed 10,000 times. Some say 5,000 and some say up to 30,000. Some say 10,000 hours, some say more and some say less. Overall, there is much disagreement amongst experts (and non-experts...) about this.

Let us examine some of the factors that may play a part in mastering a skill.

A saying everyone knows is 'practice makes perfect'. 
I am very fond of a saying by one of my great teachers, Mannie de Matos, who corrects by saying:
'Practice doesn't make perfect – practice makes permanent; perfect practice makes perfect'. 
I wholeheartedly agree.

Most dedicated martial artists will spend countless hours repeating a particular move or technique in order to perfect it; but as mentioned above, this makes permanent – not perfect. In the case where the repetitions are not perfect, the 10,000-repetition rule can go out the window.
If you spend 10,000 repetitions training an incorrect move, can you still be considered a master of that particular skill? Possibly. 
But is that outcome worth the time spent? Probably not. 

This means that in order for our repetitions to 'count' or be productive, we have to have another key ingredient – focus.

When observing martial artists who are at a higher level, there is a common thread in the process of learning a new skill:

1. They spend a lot of time getting the first few repetitions right, even if it means they do less of them in a given timeframe.
2. They perform repetitions slowly, paying attention to every minute detail and step in the sequence of actions to execute the move, be it a single punch or a complex kata.
3. They try different ways of learning to retain the skill – watching the demonstration, having the technique done on them, doing the technique in the air, doing it on equipment, doing it on a training partner (and with various degrees of resistance), asking questions about it, trying to explain it someone else, doing it with their eyes closed, etc. After the session is finished, they will often write their thoughts, or read something about the topic.
 This combination allows for a more complete, deep and multidimensional understanding of every facet of the technique and, once again, is often done at the expense of doing more repetitions in the same time frame.
4. Once the first repetitions are perfected at a low speed, then speed is increased. That being said, even when speed is increased, focus remains.

This may appear very trivial. But the key here is not the speed of the repetition; it is the focus that must be maintained throughout.

This is one of the most frustrating things for many martial artists, particularly when first starting out. It can get boring, and often turns into 'going through the motions', literally and figuratively.

To overcome this, persistence and variation will help. 
Try and focus for one more repetitions today; two more tomorrow, and so on. Try and change your routine to include different variations or applications of the technique.
And a final tip from my experience – try and do the 'boring stuff' at the start of your workout, because at the end of it you will be too tired to focus and will probably leave it until the next time...

To summarise, practice does not make perfect – practice makes permanent; perfect practice makes perfect.

If you want help in improving your learning (not just your skills), please contact me :)

Stay tunes, stay safe.

OSS

To choose a path is not an easy thing to do, and the path you choose may turn out to be different to what you had expected, in terms of both destination and journey.

People train in the martial arts for different reasons - fitness, hobby, competition, the social aspect, self-defence, confidence, stress release, etc. And those are all beautiful reasons. For some, however, it is more than that. It is a way of tapping into who you really are and finding your place in the world. Those people do not train in martial arts.

They live them.

Part of choosing your path is questioning the path, and continuously so. 
I think this is true for any path, but especially for people who choose art - any art – as their path in life. Art is something that people can judge based on opinion, and as such can be subject to harsh criticism, often without deep understanding of it. 
People connect with a song, an image, a movement. The description or emotion that is associated with that song, image or movement, for that person, depends on their point of view. It’s a good song or a pretty picture or a fascinating movement. It’s a bad song or an ugly picture or a boring movement.

Inevitably, if you persist on your path, you will end up teaching or mentoring others, or sharing your knowledge in some form. And when you teach art – again, any art – you will find that some people love what you teach, while others do not. Some agree with you, and some do not.

I believe a good teacher should question themselves more regularly and rigorously than any of their students. Questioning not only the knowledge that you share, but also the method of sharing that knowledge shows a deeper understanding of that knowledge and a desire to continue to perfect your art and yourself.

One of my mentors has a sign in his office, which reads:
‘To become great and rise above the average, daily practice and sharpening of skill must not only become habit but a part of life’. And one of my favourite phrases, which I have written about in great length before is:
‘The answer to any ‘what if’ question is ‘do something else’”.

Teaching becomes an integral part of the art itself, and as such daily practice and sharpening of skill are necessary if one is to become great at it.

Questioning your path and questioning the way you do things is not a sign of weakness but a natural part of walking the path and sharpening your skill. 
And searching for answers, asking for guidance where needed, learning from mistakes and finally committing to your chosen solution is a sign of strength and a willingness to walk the path when it becomes hard, rather than giving up when you face a problem.

So please allow me to part with an untraditional greeting:

Keep questioning yourself, and a happy journey.

Stay safe, stay tuned.

OSS

Distance and timing are perhaps the two most important attributes in nearly all competition sports. When looking at combat sports such as boxing, kickboxing, MMA and so on, it is easy to see how fighters with superb timing and control of distance and range can defeat opponents who are faster, stronger or more technically-savvy. Look at Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Jamey Toney, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather Jr., Anderson Silva, Lyoto Machida and Georges St-Pierre, just to name a few of my personal favourites.

I have encountered two schools of thought with regards to these attributes in the context of self-defence.

Many self-defence systems, particularly Krav Maga exponents, advocate the idea of forward movement as the base for successful defence. The idea behind this is to put the attacker on the back foot, literally as well as mentally, in order to disable their ability to continue the attack. The forward movement, combined with a blitz attack should enable the defender to push the attacker back and inflict sufficient damage to subdue the attacker or to cause enough stun to allow for a quick escape. As such, distance becomes almost irrelevant, as we have only two options – either there is enough distance to run away, or get so close as to disrupt the opponent’s attacks, but very little happens in between. The same logic applies to timing – in self-defence there is often no time to assess your opponent’s movements, patterns or technical ability. The only option is to escape or press forward, and executing movements like a perfectly-timed light jab is not effective. Timing relates more to how long an encounter takes place before other factors, such as multiple attackers or weapons, come into play.

The other approach, which I tend to lean towards, is that both timing and distance do indeed matter in self-defence. That being said, I also believe they take much longer to develop and be comfortable with. 

The application of technique should, ideally, follow this logic - “nearest target, closest weapon, best result”. In other words, we have to pick the best target and use the optimal weapon available in order to inflict maximum damage. Both Distance and timing play a crucial role in doing this successfully.

To start with, if you are alert enough to your environment and surrounding, you may be able to eliminate many threats altogether by controlling distance using effective movement. This could mean running away, circling or maneuvering to a position where you have the advantage.

Next, take the typical male ‘monkey dance’ where two guys stare each other down from across the room. As one approaches they begin to verbalise threats or challenges and gradually close distance until they come to blows (assuming no opportunity to deescalate or escape is available). This implicitly implies that the same technique won’t work at all ranges of the encounter. Throwing something, kicking, punching or head butting can all work as efficient techniques, but only at different ranges. The same goes for timing. If the opponent closes the distance faster than you realise you may use the incorrect technique, for example kicking when you should punch, and you may find yourself off balance and paying dearly for that mistake.
Secondly, while it is true that most self defence situations will end up in some form of grappling or extremely-close quarter combat (the ‘bad breathe’ range, as a good friend likes to call it), it does not start there. Let’s look at another example – someone rushes at you to try and tackle you to the ground. Depending on your understanding of timing and distance you may choose to block if they are very close, sprawl if you have a bit of space, kick if they are further out, or redirect them if you can. But all of these require a good understanding of how far away the opponent is, how quickly they are closing the distance, how quickly you can execute the technique and what the range will be when you execute the technique.

There are many more such examples. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, so please comment, post or email us any time.

Stay safe, stay tuned.

OSS

I am a big proponent of the ‘what if’ questions that come up in training. We all know them. Here are some common examples:
- What if the other guy is too strong?
- What if this doesn’t work?
- What if I need to fight an armed gang of 500-pound, 7-foot behemoths with my hands tied behind my back?

My favourite answer, and one that used to frustrate me more than anything else years ago, was my Sensei’s most common one:

'The answer to any ‘what if’ question is ‘do something else’'.

Wise words indeed!

A recent seminar with the very wise Hock Hoccheim has brought up another important ‘what if’ question, one which is often neglected. Even worse, it is one that is often unfairly shunned as a distasteful answer to 'what if' questions. The question is:

‘What if the opponent is stunned?’

In most modern self-defence systems there is an emphasis on using simple, effective and easy techniques to deal with attacks. Things like throws or complicated locks are generally frowned upon as being ‘non-realistic’ or hard to pull off on a resisting opponent. Which is often true.

However, one thing many people forget is that even in old traditional styles – Jujutsu, Aikido, Silat, etc. – the lock or throw is usually preceded with striking the opponent hard enough to produce some form of compliance or stun which will enable the next move to be executed easily (or at least more easily).
The same can be seen with regards to mechanical restraints such as handcuffs. It is often necessary to turn a non-compliant person into a compliant one before applying the cuffs in order to prevent injuries to both the officer and the person in custody. And again the same is applicable to conflict on a larger scale. War is seldom won by waging a frontal attack against a stronger enemy. Instead, some distraction or incapacitation often takes place prior, in order to enable or support that attack.

With this in mind, it is possible to separate techniques into two groups – ones that work on a non-compliant opponent, and ones that don’t.

Some may think of these categories as 'realistic' and 'non-realistic'. I think it's more of a matter of 'before' and 'after'. How does one make work a techinque that is meant for a compliant opponent? Simple! by making the non-compliant opponent compliant. And how does one achieve that? Well, that's all up to you. 

Where this gets tangled is when we look at the legal aspects of applying techniques from these groups.
Those techniques that work on non-compliant opponents - for example, punching someone really hard in the face to stun them so you can apply locks or takedowns - are considered to be a higher level of force than those that do not. As such, they should be used second rather than first in order to demonstrate that one has escalated the use of force according to the law and only when there was no other choice. The problem with that approach, however, is that unfortunately it doesn’t always work that way.

And so, we go back to a ‘chicken or the egg’-type discussion of what is effective and what can and can’t, should and shouldn't be done under ‘real’ conditions…

To me this goes back to the original answer of the ‘what if’ question – do something else! If the technique does not work, then maybe you simply haven’t put your opponent into a position or situation where it will. The next time you think about ‘what if’, at least also ask yourself ‘what if the opponent is diminished?'

Stay tuned, stay safe.

OSS