Dana Sheets wrote:
If you're learning techniques then you'll need to go very wide before you can connect the dots on your own. If you explore fundamental principles then you can attach movements to any of those principles.
A big catalog of techniques is more difficult to master than a slim booklet of principles.
Correct, but once the fight begins you better be pretty good at the techniques and have enough good ones to get the job done. IMO what principles do is help you recognize how things work allowing you to pick up different techniques and apply them in a shorter amount of time.
I think the width of knowledge comes with the study of anatomy, human psychology, stress response, historical people attached to a certain tradition, the context of the development and evolution of arts, etc.
You can go deeply into any of those elements.
Very good point Dana, but if you go too wide and too deep then you run the risk of diluting your training. We may have to be a little choosy in what we study and what we just get a small exposure to.
How do you learn how to train something long enough to make it work instead of throwing it out too early.
I believe by training something new in as realistic way as possible is the best way to go. So far it seems to be working with the gentleman that I'm helping to train. Today we were working on countering some chokes, having your air supply cut off works wonders on learning how to make a technique work.
Spend three years following a teacher and then strike out on your own.
Never follow a teacher.
I don't think you can put a time limit on it, but I do think the relationship you have with the person teaching does matter. Is the relationship of master and indentured servant or a matter of trainer/coach and trainee/athlete? I've met people that should have broken with their "master" years ago but felt some vague obligation to them even though they were being stifled.