Brown Belt in 3 years?!

Underground BJJ Ground
21

m.g 
In my opinion the people who struggle the most with Bjj are those who NEVER really mastered a physical activity before in their life or Bjj is the first and only physical activity



Shen and m.g. make excellent points. However, I don't know if I necessarily agree with the terms “naturally athletic” or “naturally talented”. I used to think this way but, through reading books like The Art of Learning, Talent Is Overrated, Training at the Speed of Life, and On Combat I have opened my mind to the possibility that natural talent doesn't exist. And that most of people we consider to be "naturally talented" were just exposed and driven to do physical activity by their environment at an extremely young age which has allowed their body and mind to create a neuron-schema and the ability to mimic activities they see faster than those that were not exposed to the same physical activity that young. This idea makes this quote by m.g. more relevant, in my mind, than the term "naturally talented". Just a thought.

I could be totally wrong.

22

raleigh - guy at my school got his QUICK, maybe in 4 years, he could wear a bb today and no one would question it, it happens bro, you jelly?


I'm jelly

23

"In my opinion the people who struggle the most with Bjj are those who NEVER really mastered a physical activity before in their life or Bjj is the first and only physical activity they have really tried to master. Such a person, for some reason, tries to make up for their lack of physical/motor skill experience and ability, by approaching something like Bjj as if it is an academic subject"

This is sooooo me.

24

i had a 4 year head start on this one guy who got his purple same time as me. I got him into bjj. he wrestled in hs and is stronger than an ox at 150. he is a 4 stripe brown now and he has no problem rolling w/ black belts.

i like when we roll and he hands me my ass.

25

A close friend of mine is the same way. We started about the same time and he's a 4 stripe brown and I'm a 2 stripe purple now. :( He trains 7 days a week 2 to 3 times a week and is an absolute beast. At every belt so far, he's placed at the Pan Ams, Mundials and No gi Worlds so no one questions his validity.

26

I'm a 4 stripe purple belt after 3 years in gi. I started gi training in Nov 2008. I think I would be higher but have had to cut back on grappling numerous times for months at a time due to injuries in that 3 yr span. Although I did have 20 Pro MMA fights before wearing a gi. Phone Post

27

shen - 

Comprehensive curricula and all that stuff is really for average and less talented people.

Believe it or not, the WORST way to learn anything is to be formally taught it, step by step in a comprehensive manner. This takes the longest for a student to "get" and integrate the material to the point where they are functional with it.

When you engage your "analytic brain" while learning, you are now taking the scenic route to being functional. This is fine in a martial art you are going to do for many years, but it's not optimal. Often people mistakenly think this is necessary. But in reality, most people just ENJOY learning this way. To them it feels like what "learning" is supposed to feel like; step by step, comprehensive with no detail left to chance. They think they are getting "the little details that make the move work" They are, and that is precisely the problem.

You know which people DON'T like learning this detail-oriented way? Naturally talented people. They get bored with all the talking, they understood the move 10 minutes ago when they first saw it and just want to do it, while the less talented "intellectuals" in class ask ever more detail-oriented questions. This is the precise moment where learning gets off-track.

Usually it is people who are not especially talented (i.e. most of us) who like the details most. We often tend to gravitate to teachers who give "tons of details".

Truth is, good coaches tend to know instinctively that they should give only the amount of detail the student needs to do the move well. The goal is, or should be, to get the student to be able to do the move well, quickly rather than to "understand" the move well. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INTELLECTUALLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING IN ORDER TO DO IT WELL. The goal is NOT to make the students understand the move, that's later. If you put understand BEFORE integration, you usually put the kibosh on getting functional quickly.

Later on, when they are functional, the student can become aware of the details (may of which he is already be doing).

The BEST way for a human to learn something -though not always possible- is to see it and instinctively know that they've "got it". We have all experienced this plenty in life. You don't need to be told anything, it's obvious to you. No lessons needed. With jiu jitsu, some guys see a sweep once and just "get it" and can do it. Whereas, other people are paying $200 an hour for privates on that same sweep years down the line because it's "just not working for them". Ironically, what they are probably getting at that private is a bunch more details.


while this might work for you teaching style, i guess i disagree...

in all the instructing i've done (military, etc) i found the "why" is extremely important, as then the trainee understands the intent/goal of the action.

i know with me, you can tell me to do somethng a certain way because it works, but if i don't know why, i don't really care.

personally, i'm the type of person who wants to know the "how" and "why" things work....maybe the difference between the "BJJ prodigy-types" is that they don't waste their time...they just want to know what works and move on.

28

Twelve Gage - 
m.g 
In my opinion the people who struggle the most with Bjj are those who NEVER really mastered a physical activity before in their life or Bjj is the first and only physical activity



Shen and m.g. make excellent points. However, I don't know if I necessarily agree with the terms “naturally athletic” or “naturally talented”. I used to think this way but, through reading books like The Art of Learning, Talent Is Overrated, Training at the Speed of Life, and On Combat I have opened my mind to the possibility that natural talent doesn't exist. And that most of people we consider to be "naturally talented" were just exposed and driven to do physical activity by their environment at an extremely young age which has allowed their body and mind to create a neuron-schema and the ability to mimic activities they see faster than those that were not exposed to the same physical activity that young. This idea makes this quote by m.g. more relevant, in my mind, than the term "naturally talented". Just a thought.

I could be totally wrong.


interesting...i've read "On Combat," and have been looking at those other books. i'm definately gonna pick them up now...

29

I thought the Art of Learning really under-delivered.  I had high expectations and it really didn't meet them.  



Here are the two articles that have impacted my training (in BJJ and the other arts I currently practice) more than any others:

    The Expert Mind, by Philip E. Ross (Scientific American)

    How to Grow a Super-Athlete, by Daniel Coyle (New York Times)

  •  


30

Twelve Gage - 
m.g 
In my opinion the people who struggle the most with Bjj are those who NEVER really mastered a physical activity before in their life or Bjj is the first and only physical activity



Shen and m.g. make excellent points. However, I don't know if I necessarily agree with the terms “naturally athletic” or “naturally talented”. I used to think this way but, through reading books like The Art of Learning, Talent Is Overrated, Training at the Speed of Life, and On Combat I have opened my mind to the possibility that natural talent doesn't exist. And that most of people we consider to be "naturally talented" were just exposed and driven to do physical activity by their environment at an extremely young age which has allowed their body and mind to create a neuron-schema and the ability to mimic activities they see faster than those that were not exposed to the same physical activity that young. This idea makes this quote by m.g. more relevant, in my mind, than the term "naturally talented". Just a thought.

I could be totally wrong.



I tend to agree more with this. Although Shens post was excellent I cant completely agree with it as I do believe the why is very important. The talented ones might not need it but it will definitely benefit the group as a whole much more

31

twinkletoesCT - How to Grow a Super-Athlete, by Daniel Coyle (New York Times)


  •  


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?pagewanted=all

Wow.   Thanks for that one.  Great article.



Excerpts:

Four factors stand above the rest:

1. Driven Parents. The hunger and ambition of Russian parents is uniquely strong, particularly when one considers how hard life is in Russia right now and also that the patron saint of Russian tennis parents is the ex-Siberian oil-field worker Yuri Sharapov, who came to America with less than $1,000 and his 7-year-old daughter, Maria, who now earns an estimated $30 million a year in endorsements. On the other hand, while they are intense, Russian parents aren't all that different a group from the parents in Serbia, the Czech Republic or Mission Viejo, Calif.


2. Early Starts. The kids here start young and specialize early. They are tennis players, and not much else competes for their attention (only a handful owned video games, according to my informal poll), and they also benefit from a Russian culture that's built to select athletes and shield them from academic pressures. Incidentally, there were indeed elite athletic genes floating around at Spartak: Alexandra's parents were famous figure skaters, and another kid was Myskina's cousin. So good genes probably play a role, or (just as likely, to my mind) there's a beneficial effect to growing up in an environment of working athletes.


3. Powerful, Consistent Coaches. Most tennis coaches I saw were treated with a respect reserved for university professors. The tennis clubs I visited were patrolled by a squad of Brezhnev lookalikes who offered advice that seemed hewed from stone. Their institutional specialty is biomechanics, but the point is perhaps not so much in the details of that coaching, but rather in the passion, rigor and uniformity with which that coaching is delivered. This, incidentally, is the opposite of the entrepreneurial system in which many American tennis coaches operate, as they often compete with one another, relying on their ability to sell their services to sometimes anxious parents. American coaches have to be unique to survive; Russian coaches are mostly the same.


4. Cultural Toughness. As poets have pointed out, the intrinsic hardiness of the Russian woman is legendary. Historically, this might have something to do with the hardships of life under Communism and the loss of 11 million soldiers in World War II. Whatever the cause, the immediate effect is a tangible mental toughness and a work ethic second to none. After all, at Spartak, they don't speak of "playing" tennis. The verb they like to use is borot'sya — to struggle.




 

32

BshMstr - 
shen - 

Comprehensive curricula and all that stuff is really for average and less talented people.

Believe it or not, the WORST way to learn anything is to be formally taught it, step by step in a comprehensive manner. This takes the longest for a student to "get" and integrate the material to the point where they are functional with it.

When you engage your "analytic brain" while learning, you are now taking the scenic route to being functional. This is fine in a martial art you are going to do for many years, but it's not optimal. Often people mistakenly think this is necessary. But in reality, most people just ENJOY learning this way. To them it feels like what "learning" is supposed to feel like; step by step, comprehensive with no detail left to chance. They think they are getting "the little details that make the move work" They are, and that is precisely the problem.

You know which people DON'T like learning this detail-oriented way? Naturally talented people. They get bored with all the talking, they understood the move 10 minutes ago when they first saw it and just want to do it, while the less talented "intellectuals" in class ask ever more detail-oriented questions. This is the precise moment where learning gets off-track.

Usually it is people who are not especially talented (i.e. most of us) who like the details most. We often tend to gravitate to teachers who give "tons of details".

Truth is, good coaches tend to know instinctively that they should give only the amount of detail the student needs to do the move well. The goal is, or should be, to get the student to be able to do the move well, quickly rather than to "understand" the move well. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INTELLECTUALLY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING IN ORDER TO DO IT WELL. The goal is NOT to make the students understand the move, that's later. If you put understand BEFORE integration, you usually put the kibosh on getting functional quickly.

Later on, when they are functional, the student can become aware of the details (may of which he is already be doing).

The BEST way for a human to learn something -though not always possible- is to see it and instinctively know that they've "got it". We have all experienced this plenty in life. You don't need to be told anything, it's obvious to you. No lessons needed. With jiu jitsu, some guys see a sweep once and just "get it" and can do it. Whereas, other people are paying $200 an hour for privates on that same sweep years down the line because it's "just not working for them". Ironically, what they are probably getting at that private is a bunch more details.


while this might work for you teaching style, i guess i disagree...

in all the instructing i've done (military, etc) i found the "why" is extremely important, as then the trainee understands the intent/goal of the action.

i know with me, you can tell me to do somethng a certain way because it works, but if i don't know why, i don't really care.

personally, i'm the type of person who wants to know the "how" and "why" things work....maybe the difference between the "BJJ prodigy-types" is that they don't waste their time...they just want to know what works and move on.



I don't know, it doesn't really sound to me like you disagree.

I think that it is correct that these "minor phenoms" aren't generally concerned so much with the process of why/how a technique works as they are focused on the RESULT of the technique. (I am talking about the initial stages of learning here). After a while they may be as "detail oriented" as anyone, but their leaning process is usually the exact opposite of most people, who try to get down the details first.

As I mentioned, this detail first approach where the "whys" and "hows" are all addressed is what appeals to most of us. MOST of us want to know how and why before we even lift a finger. We need reasons to move.

That's the beauty of natural athletes, they don't, they just do it.

It's a stereotype that has some basis in truth: athletes often are NOT the most intellectual people. They tend to be kinesthetic learners. Highly intellectual people tend not to be the most athletically inclined, they tend NOT to be kinesthetic learners.

My point is that --to the extent one's personality will allow-- one should get functional first, then try to learn the minutia.

You want to INITIALLY strip away the words, the intellectualization because they slow everything down during the early phases of learning. Later, those details can help inform the technique and become beneficial.


33

twinkletoesCT - I thought the Art of Learning really under-delivered.  I had high expectations and it really didn't meet them.  

Here are the two articles that have impacted my training (in BJJ and the other arts I currently practice) more than any others:
<ul>The Expert Mind, by Philip E. Ross (Scientific American)
How to Grow a Super-Athlete, by Daniel Coyle (New York Times)
<li> </li></ul><span style="display: none; " id="1321643752652S"> </span>



Actualy Chris you are the one that inspired me to do more reading on the subject. I remember you posted that NY Times artilce awhile back, that plus some of the training I've had at work. I've been reading up on a lot of these things mostly teaching/learning methods from other professions. I've always felt that there has to be better ways to increase the uptake bjj.

I agree with the Art of Learning. Talent is overrated was much better I think. BTW when is this half guard video coming out?


But shen is really on to something, I think. I've been in classes taught by pro fighters and thought wow this really lacks a lot of detail and is really sloppy. But when I roll with these guys they can give me fits. So maybe the details don't really matter, but its just keyboard warriors and people that buy too many books like me that try to make them matter more than they should.

34

I asked Roy Harris about this topic (since he's an instructor often named when discussing "intellectual approaches") and he said that individuals who have a high level of coordination (aka natural athletes) tend to pick up on (and retain) small details within the movements that help them to perform at a high level.  Those of us who lack their natural ability will often need to be taught those small details.  



When the people at that level teach, they often "fail to mention" the small components behind what they do, either because (A) they don't consciously acknowledge that they do them, or (B) because they assume that everyone is doing them naturally (because THEY found/implemented them naturally).  



I don't think this is groundbreaking information I'm adding to the discussion -- it sounds consistent with what most folks in this thread are saying.  But perhaps it ties a couple perspectives together:  It's a reason that some folks will perform well without being told the minutia, and others will need to be shown that information in order to perform well.  

35

Twelve Gage,



Thanks for the kind words.  With all the projects currently on my plate, I'm thinking about putting out the HG DVD next year sometime.

36

this thread has been bothering me all day.

i approach jiu jitsu EXACTLY like an academic subject. i can only commit around 2.5 hrs a day to train, so the rest of the time i'm thinking about it, reading about it, or studying footage. i keep better notes on jiu jitsu than i did on subjects in college. and now people who are very experienced teachers are saying this is NOT a good way to learn something that is inherently a physical activity.

also, i've read the same books you guys are referencing.

anyways, i have a few questions i hope you guys can provide insight on:

- what is the most efficient way of learning a jiu jitsu technique? i'm not looking for shortcuts, but there is indication on this thread that there IS a better way to learn

- would you say rote repetition is a good or bad thing?

- there are a lot of cases that indicate everybody here knows at least one person who enjoys a learning curve that is way above the norm. what do you guys think is the difference? i think a common theme seems to be that a lot of these guys have prior wrestling/grappling/mma experience, but could there be another factor we are overlooking?

37

countlphie - this thread has been bothering me all day.

i approach jiu jitsu EXACTLY like an academic subject. i can only commit around 2.5 hrs a day to train, so the rest of the time i'm thinking about it, reading about it, or studying footage. i keep better notes on jiu jitsu than i did on subjects in college. and now people who are very experienced teachers are saying this is NOT a good way to learn something that is inherently a physical activity.

also, i've read the same books you guys are referencing.

anyways, i have a few questions i hope you guys can provide insight on:

- what is the most efficient way of learning a jiu jitsu technique? i'm not looking for shortcuts, but there is indication on this thread that there IS a better way to learn

- would you say rote repetition is a good or bad thing?

- there are a lot of cases that indicate everybody here knows at least one person who enjoys a learning curve that is way above the norm. what do you guys think is the difference? i think a common theme seems to be that a lot of these guys have prior wrestling/grappling/mma experience, but could there be another factor we are overlooking?



Well, think about it this way: you may have no choice...

Great kinesthetic learners aren't that way because they decided "Hey, this is a good way to learn, I'm gonna try to not over intellectualize until I get a solid kinesthetic sense of the move". No! They are just wired that way.

People can't really decide to be a "phenom". They CAN decide to work hard, yes, but people who tend to learn physical skills easily, tend to the type of learner I am talking about. Basically, they are natural "jocks".

But all of us can learn a lesson from them to focus more on the RESULT and less on the PROCESS ( the hows & whys/details) when first learning moves.

People need to get out of their head.

As mentioned above, Jiu jitsu is an activity, when we try to take it out of that realm and put it in a realm we are more comfortable with (i.e. intellectualizing), we are really satisfying the demands of our personality rather than what we need to get good at the technique.


38

ok i see what you're saying. thanks for the response

haha it's strange - i ask questions all the time in class about "why this foot goes here" and things like that. and sometimes my instructors can explain, and sometimes they can't.

i guess i realized, it actually doesn't matter whether i know those answers or not at my level of skill, and i just need to trust they know what they're doing (which they totally do of course), and practice what they tell me to.

it also explains why i've been told, "stop talking. just shut up and train."

39

 Now, that is where I disagree with Shen.



On the one hand, BJJ is a physical discipline, and eventually we all need to get there.



On the other hand, we each have different learning styles.  Assuming that everyone needs to "get out of their head" is right in some cases, and wrong in others.  Auditory learners in particular often learn best when they can rehearse the activity in their head while performing it.  



To intellectualize the learning process is NOT to make it something other than an activity.  It is a discipline with both mental and physical aspects.  Both need care and development.



countlpliie asks "what is the most efficient way of learning a jiu jitsu technique? i'm not looking for shortcuts, but there is indication on this thread that there IS a better way to learn".  It's true, there IS a best way to learn, allowing some variation for the individual's aptitudes.  



1)  Learn a technique.



2)  Practice the technique until it becomes precise and smooth, with no jerky movements or pauses.  Practice it until you can to it correctly BY FEEL, rather than by thinking about it.  (The number of repetitions for most people is in the hundreds at this stage, unless they are highly coordinated, or they are not really being as precise as they think they are).  



3)  Practice the technique in combination with other techniques (starting with 2-technique combos, then 3, then 5).  Drill each combination as though it is a new technique (give it sufficient repetition until you can do the combo BY FEEL).  



4)  Combine the combinations into a drill.  There are many kinds of drills that you can use, based on your skill level.  The best drills don't have a break -- they are often cyclic.  



5)  Spar with the techniques.  This gives them context amidst movement and other techniques.  First, do this in isolated areas (guard passing, e.g.) to emphasize timing, distancing, and sensitivity.  



6)  Review and reflect upon what has been learned (and developed).  Refine and redefine the technique.



7)  Make an effort to personalize the technique.   Optimize its delivery for your body type, personality, strengths, weaknesses, aptitudes, and limitations.  





Another thought to add to the discussion:  I just finished reading "Mozart's Brain and the Fighter Pilot" by Richard Restak, and he discusses some best practices for skill development.  Two things he mentions are particularly relevant to us:



1)  When a skill is first learned, we use both our motor cortex and premotor cortex during the first 40 minutes of practice (in other words, our brain is both EXECUTING the movement and PLANNING the execution of the movement at the same time).  After the 40 minute mark, the premotor cortex (planning area) shuts down and allows the motor cortex to simply work on its own.  So factor that in, the next time you're wondering how many reps would be good for you.  



2)  After a practice session is complete, the brain is still solidifying the neural pathways that were just built.  It takes several hours before the lesson has been "etched" into the brain's pathways (i.e. the practice has been made permanent), and during those few hours the WORST thing you can do is to go work on another unrelated skill (the example he uses is a Tennis lesson right after 18 holes of golf).  This creates an "interference" effect that diminishes the result of BOTH lessons.  Instead, he suggests giving yourself a few hours, while the brain permanently stores the first lesson, before moving on to the next one.


40



There's just not way to "discuss" your way into being good at jiu jitsu.

--But that's what some people attempt to do. They think: "If I can just get the special details from Professor_________, THEN I will really UNDERSTAND what I am doing and be doing it RIGHT, and then..."

Meanwhile, there is some new dude on the other side of the mat already wrecking people with the move.