- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
In the past, I’ve written about the power of marginal improvements in martial arts skill development. In a nutshell, there are two ways to go about constructing the physical training regimen you need to get better: by focusing on general physical preparedness (GPP) or specific physical preparedness (SPP).
The GPP approach seeks to enhance your ability to adapt to a variety of physical stressors. The result can be an improved response to load bearing, increased adaptability to long-term exertion and quicker recovery during post-anaerobic bursts. This approach doesn’t assume specific end tasks (training for a specific sport), and this lack of a single focus is reflected in the makeup of a typical program, which might consist of exercises from many sports.
GPP choices can include Olympic lifts, bodyweight exercises, basic gymnastics, sprints, rowing, rope climbing, sledgehammer work and tire flipping. Obviously, it’s a broad-based approach designed to boost overall fitness, and it can assist you in a variety of physical endeavors. In short, GPP gives little thought to the end result; it’s more concerned with "ifs" or "just in case" scenarios than certainties.
THE SPP APPROACH
The SPP approach begins with the end in mind. It assumes certainty because you know exactly what sport is being trained for and thus makes exercise selections based on contingencies encountered in the specific outcome.
With the outcome known, you can construct a program that reflects what definitely will be and perhaps give a little thought to "maybes."
A sample SPP program for boxing would include roadwork, heavy-bag training, focus-pad work, weight training, skipping rope and the like. You’ve probably noticed that there’s more similarity between GPP and SPP than one would think. Although once you enter the boxing ring there’s no lifting competition, you still train with weights. Although there’s no push-up contest, you still do push-ups.
Although there’s no foot race, you still run. SPP may train with a known outcome in mind, but the broad-based (general) approach is still used.
Beyond the borrowing of a few conditioning methods from other sports, there might be even more of a reason to combine GPP and SPP: it involves a crack in the logic behind SPP conditioning.
The crack is certainty.
Yes, sports have set rules and, to some degree, predictable outcomes, but assumptions beyond the limits imposed by the rules may be misplaced. As Mike Tyson famously said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."
Don’t misunderstand me. The uncertainty in a specific sport isn’t a worry that you’ll suddenly be confronted with a downhill slalom in a tennis match. The certainty of the rules isn’t in question. What is in question are some assumptions about the boundaries of conditioning performance required for a particular sport.
LET'S TAKE ONE ASPECT
Let’s take one aspect of a boxing match—a punch—and hypothesize about what fuels it. Which approach contributes most to a successful blow?
Good punching technique? SPP, undoubtedly.
Good footwork to get you there? Again, SPP.
Good timing on the punch? Another one for SPP.
Good power? It could be the heavy-bag work (SPP), the push-ups (GPP) or the bench presses (GPP). Because power comes from the ground up, it also could be the roadwork (GPP), the rope work (GPP), the squats (GPP), the plyometric box work (GPP) or perhaps the core work you did (GPP).
The punch was fired precisely under duress? SPP sparring work definitely helped, along with perhaps a bit of the resolve forged by tough GPP metabolic sessions.
If the punch was fired late in the rounds after fatigue set in? This shows good adaptation to continuing workload—SPP for sure, but you also have to tip your hat to GPP.
Was the punch executed when you were off-balance? If so, you might have to thank your GPP instability work that "woke up" and conditioned muscles seldom used in predictable balance or terrain conditions.
PREPARE FOR THE UNEXPECTED
You can be certain about the sport, its rules and its technical approaches, but there’s less certainty about how a system as complex as the human body will adapt to the work. Plans do have a tendency to experience entropy on the fly, and when that happens, you have only two ways to cope:
Hope your journey to 10,000 hours of mastery (SPP) has progressed enough to deal with the new variables, or
Hope that your varied conditioning (GPP) can buy you a little time to cope with the uncertainty until order can be restored.
The first is easier to control than the second. You can’t become a time traveler and magically be 3,000 hours farther into your 10,000-hour journey.
However, you do have control over strategy No. 2. While you’re building your 10,000-hour bank of experience, you can invest in GPP conditioning insurance and gamble that it’ll see you through some of the rough spots where your hours haven’t taken you yet.
In the final analysis, you should embrace both SPP and GPP. Commit to the mastery of your art while preparing for unpredictable but reasonable variables.
SPP is your plan, and GPP is your backup for when you get punched in the face.
