Was explaining this too a student so thought I'd share my thoughts..... We all know that technique over strength is a fundamental concept in most martial arts but a recent seminar that touched up on the subject, and the terminology that was used, got me thinking a bit more about it. The seminar was run by Matt Thornton and the situation was two good grapplers having a roll in front of the class. Fighter A was smaller and more technical than fighter B, an accomplished grappler himself. Fighter A was catching B in submissions, these were being resisted pretty well but more through strength than technique. At the end of the roll, Matt asked fighter B how much, in a rough percentage, he thought his submission defences had been attribute driven and how much had been technique driven. Matt went on to stress the importance of training a technical game over an attribute driven game and I've thought about it quite a bit since. Before we move on I'll just try to clarify the terms. By "technique" I mean the most efficient purely mechanical motions. By "attribute" I mean everything else that fuels your technique, in particular the physical attributes (strength, speed, explosiveness etc). There are other attributes too such as timing but I think you know what I'm talking about. Anyway, what I wanted to say was that every club has students who rely on their physical attributes (size, strength etc) over technique. Some clubs force a technical game by having a warm up so hard that you cannot use your attributes when you train. Others simply focus on getting the students to learn to relax and use correct technique. Here are, IMO, the disadvantages of training with a primarily attribute driven game: - Capped progress. There is FAR more potential in a technical game. Your technique can be improved so much in so many ways for all your training life. However, the possible gains in size and strength are much more limited. This is often why those athletic guys who turn up and rely of their attributes often get left behind in the long run and don't stick with it. - Options. Technique gives you many more options in your arsenal than attributes. - No where to go. A fighter (who is in reasonable shape) with a highly technical game can always always increase his use of attributes if he needs to (muscling on the final part of a submission against a strong opponent for example). An attribute driven fighter who meets another strong fighter has nowhere to go! - Safer training. Relying on attributes in training is hard work and often results in more injuries than training more for good technique. It's also harder to train often with an attribute driven game as it's so physically demanding. A purely attribute driven game = limited progress and fewer options. A strong technical game + attributes = lots of potential growth and a much better game, this is what makes a great fighter. Nathan
Good stuff - your last sentence just about sums it up The problem is that, especially for those with a natural tendency to strong attributes, the attributes path leads to a quicker "fix" in the short term. Many never get beyond that "quick fix". Having said that - the old Paul Vunak lecture about what seperates world class athletes from mediocre ones springs to mind e.g. Does a Magic Johnson know more techniques than a college player? What makes him different if not his attibute level? It could be said that "Having a good technical base" is an attribute.
Yeah, but theres grapplers who're like a database of technique and there are those who's technical knowledge is narrower but has more depth. Excellent post Levo!
Thanks Levo! I never really understood what was being told to me until now. The 'attribute' vs 'technique' explanation is incredible. I have to show it to my husband. He is definitely an attribute driven fighter and didn't really get it why he should try to relax. His instructor would just keep telling him to relax without a good explanation. This will be easy for him to comprehend and may get him training MMA again. If he understood that by relaxing and developing good technique he is opening a door to way more development and progress instead of just winning against the same three guys he trains against. Strength was all he ever needed and in the atmosphere winning seemed the goal. Now he will see HOW personal development comes into it as opposed to just being told to develop personally. I've got to find a new gym for him to train in - he is going to love your post!!
I agree with everything that has been said. But, some people take the just knowing techniques too far. A lot of martial artist (McDojang types) believe that if they just know the techniques and never train their body or mind that they will be able to effectively defend themselves. I've heard people use this as an excuse countless times as to why they don't train hard. Which is why you hear a lot of time of boxers, or sport fighters being able to beat traditionalists, because they depend on technical knowledge and not improving their mind and body. I don't think you need to be a big muscle bound body builder, but you should strive to be toned, fast, in shape, and healthy. Just a couple of extra thoughts that I'd thought I'd add. Good original post.
Here's one for you guys... Lennox Lewis Vs a local amateur heavyweight What makes them different? Does Lennox know any more punches than the amateur?
No he doesn't 'know' more punches, But Lewis's Techniques are crisper, have better technical delivery from a mechanical POV, are more efficient and he uses more 'intuitive' combinations. He's also much more experienced (Which counts for something). From an attributes POV he possesses good power and has major bodyweight (the Blimmer!). If it was a case of out strengthing other fighters, then he'd have had more problems against Klitschko (Judicious use of the head helped in that one). As Klitschko is taller than him and had more lean muscle on his frame, whereas Lewis had more lean choccy bars on his.
To add to my original post... I'm not saying a game based on physical attributes will always be unsuccessful, just that there are drawbacks in the long term. There are plenty of fighters out there (mostly at new/ inexperienced and/or isolated clubs) who dominate their training partners with size/strength. I've also seen guys get away with it in amateur competition. However, when faced with an equally strong opponent in their weight category they often can't do anything. And when they face a fighter at their weight who trains for a technical game (and has also done the necessary physical conditioning to be a fighter) they get smoked. You see them at every competition, they try to use their strength like they do in training, realise they are against other strong guys the same size and either hold on for dear life or get punked coz they don't know what to do. In addition, relying on physical attributes can often lead to very bad technique. A great example was from another Matt Thornton seminar, a strong guy asked how he could better escape side control so Matt asked to see what he meant. A smaller fighter came down in to side control and the guy just grabbed him and spent to next minute bucking trying to bridge him over. Matt's advice went something like this: Your problem is that you're a big strong guy. In side control you want to get your arms between you, create space and keep his weight off you. You're hugging him and giving him the pin. You may be able to bridge over smaller and less experienced training partners but with a good grappler or against someone your size in competition you just pinned yourself. Take away the strength in training and work on technique. Use all your attributes when fight but only with good technique you've worked in training. Exactly my point. Interesting point. I wouldn't say that knowing more techniques = good technique though so it doesn't really change things IMO. Maybe I wasn't very clear what a meant. By a strong technical game I mean the knowledge and ability to use the most efficient moves at the right time without relying just on attributes like strength, speed and explosiveness. I don't care if people "know" moves (ie demonstrate them), just if they know what to do AND can do them against a resisting opponent. By relying on physical attributes I meant using strength/speed/explosives over technique. Does that make sense? Magic Johnson IMO does have a better technical game if you use that way of thinking. Glad to be of help You seem to have understood exactly what I was trying to say which is a relief coz it was a bit of a ramble! Yeah, good point. Like I said above, I don't think I was very clear. I assumed people would know what I meant by good technique (ie knowing what to do AND being able to do it against a resisting opponent), I should have pointed that out. Good technique PLUS attributes is the way to go. However, I was just trying to point out some pitfalls on relying primarily on physical attributes during training. As I said before, by a good technical game I don't mean knowing more techniques. Thanks for all your replies, it was just something I'd been thinking about today and you're really helping me sort out the thoughts and terminology for when I use it in the future. Nathan
to build on this discussion .. I would like to bring out american football .. I don't know about the rest of you .. but if you look at jerry rice now an oakland raider (miss him as a 49er) [still playing at the rightful age of 41] and terrell owens of the 49ers, the difference between them is that jerry has a more polished game despite terrell's obvious physical advantage.. jerry may not have had the speed, nor the strength but he knew how to use the strength properly, how to use the speed he had to his advantage or some wold say lack of speed.. in other words jerry rice had more functionality in his playing style. .. he was crafty.. or in the case of bruce lee. I remember reading an article with bob bremer writing that bruce admitted to bob that there were some faster than him.. but bruce told bob that he found out how to be more deceptive..
Good stuff Nathan - I understand your view more now, and - it brings our views much closer! So - I assume you enjoyed training with Matt then?
Glad to hear I'm starting to make sense Thanks for helping me clear things up a bit! Couldn't actually train with Matt this time as I'm recovering from a whiplash type neck injury but took a couple of my students along. Man, I learn so much each time I see him, whether live or on tape. Not techniques (although he's always got some cool new details which make me go "doh") but more on other stuff like the training, coaching, tactics, martial philosophy etc. It always opens up little boxes in my head and stuff starts to spill out (like this post lol). Nathan
Good post, I've only just started to realise how much strength I've been using lately and I'm putting much more effort into technique than what I have been. When I first started, I used next to no strength and was always stuck on the bottom, then I started using all of it and found myself on top... but, my escapes are lacking, I tend to power out of pins most of the time. I've also realised when you've got the proper technique, you can use all your attributes for longer which is my main motivation for focusing on technique more since I've been neglecting it.
CMA saying First the courage, then the power then the Kung Fu. Lam's Equation 10 skills = 1 strength 10 strengths = 1 will On technique... Less is more & K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid) Jeff
I concure Its not the strength of the blow that matter but the strength of placement of the blow or something like that.
Yeah? I certainly hope so. I have been in the arts for 3 years, 2 of them seriously. Can't understand why it took me so long to work out? I think it's come as I've started to work my open guard. We'll see the impact it has on my training soon I guess.
What is the one thing anyone trained should fear? The novice, because you cannot anticipate their moves. This applies in almost all walks of life, not just combat.
