My opinion is that it's counter productive. I'm of the mindset that having a good balance is more beneficial than training just one combination like that. Sometimes an opponent will get a good read on your strategy and techniques. When this happens a person has to be able to switch things up.
If a frog had a clutch, it wouldn't jump.
And I always wonder, what if you run into someone who trained just as well to counter that one thing, because he hates losing to it?
Okay, that's more like what I was saying above, though, again, it shouldn't take 2 years of complete focus to develop a technique to that level. I think a lot of us actually take that approach in concept. We find something new (or something old we haven't developed the way we want) and we work on it until it gets to where we want it to be - whether that's making it our bread-and-butter move (what I call a "pocket technique"), or just building some functional skill in it.
But how good of a read is someone you never met actually going to get?
Not by me
It is entirely reasonable to develop more than one bread and butter move at the same time, in two years.
I don't understand the question, OTH.There are many good points above. But the thing that worries me the most is in today's teaching environment, where in the sequence of sweeps, or whatever move you decide to use in your school, do you place belt promotions, including higher belts?
I feel like I would lose my flow. Good technique isn't just crisp execution, but the ability to flow from one to the next. I feel that negecting the latter would invalidate the former.
I guess that depends how we look at the concept KFW has in the OP. I'm starting to think maybe he has a different idea in mind than I originally read in it (since he's clarified he's talking also about doing this repeatedly). So, if I spent a concentrated period of time (okay, maybe not 2 years, but let's keep that for discussion) working on my hip throw, I'd want to also work on how to set it up. That would be part of training it extensively. So, I'd have to work on the flow from other techniques into a hip throw. Then I'd want to train recoveries - the better I can recover if the throw fails, the more confidently I can commit to it. So, I'd train working from various points of failure in a hip throw into other techniques.
I interpreted it as if you’re teaching one technique for years, what criteria do you use to rank/promote your student. Not a bad question at all if you’re a teacher who has a ranking system and students are hung up on rank.
That's kind of what I was getting at with all those words I used earlier. This is a shorter - probably clearer - statement of it. And there is no such thing as "too much Dr. Pepper".Ever have one of those moments when the whole picture suddenly gets really clear for a moment? Happened to me last week. I became kind of overwhelmed with the realization of how all the different techniques I'd been training were just reflections of exactly the same concept, applied in different situations ....like the same wine in different shaped bottles.
Maybe if you look at it that way, one technique or many ...what difference does it make? If you get the big picture, they come down to the same thing.
Or was I under the influence of too much Dr. Pepper?
Well yes, but even then you'd have to neglect the rest of your game.
