Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

Filed under: Getting Better

Be Happy

Photo Credit: IMDB

Never have I been involved in anything where I was so totally consumed in examining my weaknesses, my faults, and my areas to improve than in bjj.  We are constantly evaluated by ourselves, our training partners, and our instructors.  It is a seemingly endless quest for improvement through constantly looking judgementally at our game and seeking out a better path - searching evermore for what can be made better.  It is this challenge that in many ways drives us all and it is this inability to hide our inadequacy in the shadows that gives bjj it's value.

That said, it can become discouraging at times.  So if you are there, try something new.  Look instead at the positive aspects of your game.  What is going well?  What are you pulling off in class?  Maybe you are rolling more without becoming tired.  Maybe it is as simple as surviving longer against the better players in your club?  Maybe you pulled off that new submission you have been thinking about, or are now able to hold down an opponent from side control.  Perhaps just making it to class with the demands of life is a victory in itself.

Whatever it is that is going well - whatever is going your way - take a moment and savor that.  Congratulate yourself.  Relish the accomplishement and bring a bit of balance to your bjj thoughts.

Feel better?  Good.   Now get back to critiquing every thing you every did wrong and examining even the smallest weakness.  Gotta love jits!

Transitions to Mount

As I mentioned in my last post, I spent the last three months with my principle goal being to attain mount.  This meant that anytime I was in side control I was working tirelessly to mount.  The only time I finished anyone from side control was if the sub was handed to me.  If they had good defense, I was working to advance the positional ladder.

Since I am changing my approach to attack more from side control for the next few months, I wanted to document a bit of what I used to transition to mount so I don't forget it.  Here are my favorite ways to get mount right now:

1. Quick Step Over: This is what Dave uses in his Jiu-Jitsu 101.  From side control you switch your base, weight your opponent, control the opponents knees with your free hand, and step over.  Your foot slaps on the mat and you take mount as you control the far elbow.  I would say that this is what I use 90+% of the time.

2. Sneaky Leg Trap: I learned this from Paul Schreiner and it's great.  You use your bottom leg to trap the opponents nearside leg.  Once trapped, you pull it back and then take mount.  I found that the more I shift my hips low, the easier this becomes.  It is also easier on guys who are lazy with their near leg.  I think this one is the most fun to do, and what I do when #1 doesn't work.

3. Foot Grab: I am not sure where I saw this one first (I think Royler or Leo Viera), but basically you grab your own foot and pull your leg over to mount.  This one is sneaky as well, but I find it a good option against tight defense.  I have better success the higher up I am on their body since it gives me more room to pass my foot across.

4. Reverse Step Over: This one is a bit fancy, but the idea is to bring your bottom leg over their head quickly, landing in mount.  Lots of times I end up in a mounted triangle position (or S Mount).  Sometimes it works beautifully.  I only do this one if I am playing.  I just can't get it to work in a high percentage way, yet.

5. Knee Drive: This one I use the least.  I still need a lot of practice with it, but the idea is to drive the knee across (like going to knee on belly) and then touching the knee on the mat (far side).  Note that you may get stuck here - that is why this one is more experimental for me - I need to look into cleaning my technique up on this one, but it is something I play with now and again and I know there is something there to discover as I have seen Leonzinho use it. 

I should also note that when using #1 above, I often will stop before completing mount.  I really like to trap their far hip with my heel and then ride out the storm from there.  I seem to have a lot of base with my hips still low.  Once they settle down, then I transition to full mount.

Two other quick mount things I have learned recently around mount transitions.  First was from Rener Gracie (online) and showed how not to be lazy with your legs from side control bottom.  Keeping knee pressure has made it much harder for people to use these transitions on me.  The second is that when I get mount, grabbing a collar immediately to threaten the choke has made securing a high mount much easier (cause they have to defend vs escape).  Duh.

See you on the mat!

Focus on the Finish

Photo Credit: Doug Sparks

Three months ago at the seminar at OneWorld, Paul Schreiner mentioned how Roger and BJ Penn viewed the essence of jiu-jitsu as pass, mount, finish.  That was a new perspective for me at the time.  Since then, I have focused a lot of energy on that mindset.   The results have been outstanding.  I went from hanging out in side control without a plan, to building a game around the mount transition, resulting in 4 or 5 high percentage ways of mounting that I use very often.  I am a different player now, and all it took was a few months of focused attention.

Tonight as Dave watched me roll against one of my training partners, he commented that I should be "finishing people at least 3 times during a roll".  The essence of his comment is that I need to change my mindset - my mental game.  Not that I need to be "aggresive", but I must always look and pursue the attack more than I do.  I am training my mind as well as my body.

I have spent nearly all of my training time with a focus on position, and this seems like a good time to incorporate a new objective.  Until further notice, I will be working for the finish.  This means applying pressure to force the action.  This means threatening a finish whenever I have control.  This means starting to be very aware of any fleeting opportunity and capitalizing on it quickly - leaving no option for escape.  If my experiment from mount is any judge, I expect this new paradigm to take at least three months to set in fully.

I am excited to incorporate this mindset and see the changes it brings to my game.

Paul

Evolution On The Mat

Photo Credit: Colin Purrington

A few weeks ago, Dave mentioned that life in the academy is like evolution.  We adapt and change based on our environment - Darwinian Natural Selection.  In Jiu-Jitsu, our habitat is the mat and our training partners.  It is where we live. 

The interesting take-away from this viewpoint is that we only grow when we pressure is applied.  For example, let's say that every time you escape side control you reach over your opponent's shoulder to roll them.  Now you're pretty strong, so it works most of the time - and when it doesn't, you just try something else.  The problem is that you made a mistake by reaching over the shoulder and a good player would have made you pay dearly - but your training partners don't.  If no one capitalizes on your mistake, you never know you made one - but it gets worse.  Not only do you not know it was an error, but you keep making the same error, ingraining it into your game.  Now you have a habit that will take time to change.  Bummer.

The essence of this is a few things.  First, don't let people get away with mistakes.  Playing an attacking game trains you to react instinctually, capitalizing on errors - and this is good.  It also communicates mistakes to your opponent in an honest and direct way.  They learn faster and so do you.

The other big insight from this perspecitve is that we should all be seeking out stronger partners.  Of course there is a benefit to rolling with all levels of people, and we should,  my point is we should not shy away from better players.  If you have ever decided to head home after class instead of slapping hands with that one guy that gives you fits, then you know what I mean.  These are the people that push us - and in the end we all get better.

See you on the mat!

Assessing My Game

 

Photo Credit: San Diego Shooter

I thought it would be a good idea to get a baseline understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of my game.  I tend to think of an area as strong when meet the following simple two rules, (1) I have a game plan I go to naturally and (2) I can execute against it decent players. 

Any position without these being true constitutes an area where I either (1) Don't have a clear enough plan of attack or (2) Haven't worked my gameplan enough where I can do it on the mat.  Either way, it represents a gap that needs filling.

The idea of this exercise is just to clarify my own perceptions and help me to identify the rough edges I need to round out through focused study, rolling, and drilling.  Here is my quick list:

Areas for Improvement:

  • Attacking Combat Base
  • Attacking from Sitting Up Guard
  • Sweeping from Butterfly Guard
  • Defeating Butterfly Guard
  • Attacking (Subs/Sweeps) from Closed Guard
  • Opening Closed Guard
  • Double Underhooks Pass
  • Knee Drive Passes
  • Attacking the Turtle
  • Maintaining Back Control
  • Finishing from the Back
  • Footlocks
  • Escaping Turtle Safely and Quickly
  • Guard Recovery (Early)
  • Side Control Escapes to Guard vs. Knees
  • Attacking from Knee Ride
  • Escaping Knee Ride

Areas of Strength:

  • Controlling and Passing Half Guard Top
  • Holding and Attacking Side Control
  • Holding and Attacking Mount
  • Gaining Mount Efficiently
  • Gaining and Finishing S-Mount
  • Armbar Control and Finish
  • Getting to Knees from Bottom
  • Protecting from Turtle
  • Torrenado Pass

The first thing that I noticed in doing this is how lopsided it is - I have a lot more areas that need serious work than areas where I am strong.  I also think I am being a bit hard on myself since I play from these "weak" positions all the time, and do fine, but I know they can be much better.  My goal is that automatic pressure game.  I am light years away from what I know a game can be.

My sense is that when I have reversed this ratio, I will feel like I have a decent game from everywhere.  In my mind this is what a purple belt has vs. a blue.  They have a sound plan they can execute from everywhere and the confidence to put it into action.  Of course it works more against whites and blues that blacks, but the seed is there to build on.

I'll let you know if that is true when I get there, but I do recall Saulo saying once in JJ University that you should feel like the belt before you get it.  I don't feel like a purple at all yet so I keep at it like everyone else.

The Questions Have Changed...

When I first started bjj I was obsessed with learning as much as I possibly could.  I asked questions all the time, watched a ton of videos, went to seminars, and more.  The questions that occupied me oftentimes were like the following:

  • How do I start from the knees?
  • How do I get away when I have been crossfaced?
  • What attacks do I have from <insert postition here>?
  • Which palm goes up or down when going for chokes?
  • What is the exact percentage of effort I should give when drilling?
  • Should I roll hard or just play?

More recently I have been asking questions like:

  • How do I take top position from anywhere?
  • How can I transition to the back from anywhere?
  • What is the key to controlling this position?
  • What is the controlling hub I want in this position?
  • What is my next attack if they defend this one?
  • How can I use my lower body in this position?
  • How can I eliminate their defenses to gain an advantage?

I am not saying that one list is better than the other - they are snapshots at a point in time in my development.  What questions are you asking of yourself or your instructors?  Sound off in comments, I'd love to hear...

See you on the mat.

The Secret to "Get Good"

I came across this article by way of John Kavanaugh and the SBGi Forum.  It is a fascinating read about the factors that influence greatness.  Very applicable to all of our progression in BJJ. 

The University of Michigan opened its new computer centre in 1971, in a low-slung building on Beal Avenue in Ann Arbor. The university's enormous mainframe computers stood in the middle of a vast, white-tiled room, looking, as one faculty member remembers, "like one of the last scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey". Off to the side were dozens of key-punch machines - what passed in those days for computer terminals. Over the years, thousands of students would pass through that white-tiled room - the most famous of whom was a gawky teenager named Bill Joy.

Joy came to the University of Michigan the year the computer centre opened, at the age of 16. He had been voted "most studious student" by his graduating class at North Framingham high school, outside Detroit, which, as he puts it, meant he was a "no-date nerd". He had thought he might end up as a biologist or a mathematician, but late in his freshman year he stumbled across the computing centre - and he was hooked.

From then on, the computer centre was his life. He programmed whenever he could. He got a job with a computer science professor, so he could program over the summer. In 1975, Joy enrolled in graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley. There, he buried himself even deeper in the world of computer software. During the oral exams for his PhD, he made up a particularly complicated algorithm on the fly that - as one of his many admirers has written - "so stunned his examiners [that] one of them later compared the experience to 'Jesus confounding his elders' ".

Working in collaboration with a small group of programmers, Joy took on the task of rewriting Unix, a software system developed by AT&T for mainframe computers. Joy's version was so good that it became - and remains - the operating system on which millions of computers around the world run. "If you put your Mac in that funny mode where you can see the code," Joy says, "I see things that I remember typing in 25 years ago." And when you go online, do you know who wrote the software that allows you to access the internet? Bill Joy.

After Berkeley, Joy co-founded the Silicon Valley firm Sun Microsystems. There, he rewrote another computer language, Java, and his legend grew still further. Among Silicon Valley insiders, Joy is spoken of with as much awe as Bill Gates. He is sometimes called the Edison of the internet.

The story of Joy's genius has been told many times, and the lesson is always the same. Here was a world that was the purest of meritocracies. Computer programming didn't operate as an old-boy network, where you got ahead because of money or connections. It was a wide-open field, in which all participants were judged solely by their talent and accomplishments. It was a world where the best men won, and Joy was clearly one of those best men.

Sport, too, is supposed to be just such a pure meritocracy. But is it? Take ice hockey in Canada: look at any team and you will find that a disproportionate number of players will have been born in the first three months of the year. This, it turns out, is because the cut-off date for children eligible for the nine-year-old, 10-year-old, 11-year-old league and so on is January 1. Boys who are oldest and biggest at the beginning of the hockey season are inevitably the best. And so they get the most coaching and practice, and they get chosen for the all-star team, and so their advantage increases - on into the professional game. A similar pattern applies to other sports. What we think of as talent is actually a complicated combination of ability, opportunity and utterly arbitrary advantage.

Does something similar apply to outliers in other fields, such as Bill Joy? Do they benefit from special opportunities, and do those opportunities follow any kind of pattern? The evidence suggests they do.

In the early 90s, the psychologist K Anders Ericsson and two colleagues set up shop at Berlin's elite Academy of Music. With the help of the academy's professors, they divided the school's violinists into three groups. The first group were the stars, the students with the potential to become world-class soloists. The second were those judged to be merely "good". The third were students who were unlikely ever to play professionally, and intended to be music teachers in the school system. All the violinists were then asked the same question. Over the course of your career, ever since you first picked up the violin, how many hours have you practised?

Everyone, from all three groups, started playing at roughly the same time - around the age of five. In those first few years, everyone practised roughly the same amount - about two or three hours a week. But around the age of eight real differences started to emerge. The students who would end up as the best in their class began to practise more than everyone else: six hours a week by age nine, eight by age 12, 16 a week by age 14, and up and up, until by the age of 20 they were practising well over 30 hours a week. By the age of 20, the elite performers had all totalled 10,000 hours of practice over the course of their lives. The merely good students had totalled, by contrast, 8,000 hours, and the future music teachers just over 4,000 hours.

The curious thing about Ericsson's study is that he and his colleagues couldn't find any "naturals" - musicians who could float effortlessly to the top while practising a fraction of the time that their peers did. Nor could they find "grinds", people who worked harder than everyone else and yet just didn't have what it takes to break into the top ranks. Their research suggested that once you have enough ability to get into a top music school, the thing that distinguishes one performer from another is how hard he or she works. That's it. What's more, the people at the very top don't just work much harder than everyone else. They work much, much harder.

This idea - that excellence at a complex task requires a critical, minimum level of practice - surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact, researchers have settled on what they believe is a magic number for true expertise: 10,000 hours.

"In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals," writes the neurologist Daniel Levitin, "this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of practice over 10 years... No one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery."

This is true even of people we think of as prodigies. Mozart, for example, famously started writing music at six. But, the psychologist Michael Howe writes in his book Genius Explained, by the standards of mature composers Mozart's early works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were all probably written down by his father, and perhaps improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those concertos that contain only music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now regarded as a masterwork (No9 K271) was not composed until he was 21: by that time Mozart had already been composing concertos for 10 years.

To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about 10 years. (Only the legendary Bobby Fischer got to that elite level in less than that time: it took him nine years.) And what's 10 years? Well, it's roughly how long it takes to put in 10,000 hours of hard practice.

Ten thousand hours is, of course, an enormous amount of time. It's all but impossible to reach that number, by the time you're a young adult, all by yourself. You have to have parents who are encouraging and supportive. You can't be poor, because if you have to hold down a part-time job on the side to help make ends meet, there won't be enough time left over in the day. In fact, most people can really only reach that number if they get into some kind of special programme - like a hockey all-star squad - or get some kind of extraordinary opportunity that gives them a chance to put in that kind of work.

So, back to Bill Joy. It's 1971 and he's 16. He's the maths wiz, the kind of student that schools like MIT, Caltech or the University of Waterloo attract by the hundreds. "When Bill was a little kid, he wanted to know everything about everything way before he should've even known he wanted to know," his father William says. "We answered him when we could. And when we couldn't, we would just give him a book." When he applied to college, Joy got a perfect score on the maths portion of the scholastic aptitude test. "It wasn't particularly hard," he says, matter-of-factly. "There was plenty of time to check it twice." He could have gone in any number of directions. He could have done a PhD in biology. He could have gone to medical school. He could easily have had a "typical" college career: lots of schoolwork, football games, drunken fraternity parties, awkward encounters with girls, long discussions with roommates about the meaning of life. But he didn't, because he stumbled across that nondescript building on Beal Avenue.

In the 70s, when Joy was learning about programming, computers were the size of rooms. A single machine - which might have less power and memory than your microwave - could cost upwards of a million dollars. Computers were hard to get access to, and renting time on them cost a fortune. This was the era when computer programs were created using cardboard "punch" cards. A complex program might include hundreds, if not thousands, of these cards, in tall stacks. Since computers could handle only one task at a time, the operator made an appointment for your program and, depending on how many other people were ahead of you in line, you might not get your cards back for several hours. And if you made even a single error in your program, then you had to take the cards back, track down the error and begin the whole process again. Under those circumstances, it was exceedingly difficult for anyone to become a programming expert. Certainly becoming an expert by your early 20s was all but impossible. "Programming with cards," one computer scientist from the era remembers, "did not teach you programming. It taught you patience and proofreading."

That's where the University of Michigan came in. It was one of the first universities in the world to abandon computer cards for the brand-new system called "time-sharing". Computer scientists realised you could train a computer to handle hundreds of tasks at the same time. No more punch cards. You could build dozens of terminals, link them all to the mainframe by a telephone line, and have everyone programming - online - all at once.

This was the opportunity that greeted Bill Joy when he arrived on the Ann Arbor campus in the autumn of 1971. "Do you know what the difference is between the computing cards and time-sharing?" Joy says. "It's the difference between playing chess by mail and speed chess." Programming wasn't an exercise in frustration any more. It was fun.

According to Joy, he spent a phenomenal amount of time at the computer centre. "It was open 24 hours. I would stay there all night, and just walk home in the morning. In an average week in those years I was spending more time in the computer centre than on my classes. All of us down there had this recurring nightmare of forgetting to show up for class at all, of not even realising we were enrolled."

Just look at the stream of opportunities that came Joy's way. Because he happened to go to a far-sighted school, he was able to practise on a time-sharing system, instead of punch cards; because the university was willing to spend the money to keep the computer centre open 24 hours, he could stay up all night; and because he was able to put in so many hours, by the time he was presented with the opportunity to rewrite Unix, he was up to the task. Bill Joy was brilliant. He wanted to learn - that was a big part of it - but before he could become an expert, someone had to give him the opportunity to learn how to be expert.

"At Michigan, I was probably programming eight or 10 hours a day," he says. "By the time I was at Berkeley, I was doing it day and night... " He pauses for a moment, to do the maths in his head which, for him, doesn't take long. "It's five years," he says, finally. "So, so, maybe... 10,000 hours? That's about right."

Is this a general rule of success? If you scratch below the surface of every great achiever, do you always find the equivalent of the Michigan Computer Centre or the hockey all-star team - some sort of special opportunity for practice? Let's test the idea with two examples: the Beatles, one of the most famous rock bands ever, and Bill Gates, one of the world's richest men.

The Beatles - John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr - came to the US in February 1964, starting the so-called "British Invasion" of the American music scene. The interesting thing is how long they had already been playing together. Lennon and McCartney began in 1957. (Incidentally, the time that elapsed between their founding and their greatest artistic achievements - arguably Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and the White Album - is 10 years.) In 1960, while they were still a struggling school rock band, they were invited to play in Hamburg, Germany.

"Hamburg in those days did not have rock'n'roll music clubs. It had strip clubs," says Philip Norman, who wrote the Beatles' biography, Shout! "There was one particular club owner called Bruno, who was originally a fairground showman. He had the idea of bringing in rock groups to play in various clubs. They had this formula. It was a huge nonstop show, hour after hour, with a lot of people lurching in and the other lot lurching out. And the bands would play all the time to catch the passing traffic. In an American red-light district, they would call it nonstop striptease.

"Many of the bands that played in Hamburg were from Liverpool," Norman continues. "It was an accident. Bruno went to London to look for bands. But he happened to meet a Liverpool entrepreneur in Soho, who was down in London by pure chance. And he arranged to send some bands over. That's how the connection was established. And eventually the Beatles made a connection not just with Bruno, but with other club owners as well. They kept going back, because they got a lot of alcohol and a lot of sex."

And what was so special about Hamburg? It wasn't that it paid well. (It didn't.) Or that the acoustics were fantastic. (They weren't.) Or that the audiences were savvy and appreciative. (They were anything but.) It was the sheer amount of time the band was forced to play. Here is John Lennon, in an interview after the Beatles disbanded, talking about the band's performances at a Hamburg strip club called the Indra: "We got better and got more confidence. We couldn't help it with all the experience playing all night long. It was handy them being foreign. We had to try even harder, put our heart and soul into it, to get ourselves over. In Liverpool, we'd only ever done one-hour sessions, and we just used to do our best numbers, the same ones, at every one. In Hamburg we had to play for eight hours, so we really had to find a new way of playing."

The Beatles ended up travelling to Hamburg five times between 1960 and the end of 1962. On the first trip, they played 106 nights, of five or more hours a night. Their second trip they played 92 times. Their third trip they played 48 times, for a total of 172 hours on stage. The last two Hamburg stints, in November and December 1962, involved another 90 hours of performing. All told, they performed for 270 nights in just over a year and a half. By the time they had their first burst of success in 1964, they had performed live an estimated 1,200 times, which is extraordinary. Most bands today don't perform 1,200 times in their entire careers. The Hamburg crucible is what set the Beatles apart.

"They were no good on stage when they went there and they were very good when they came back," Norman says. "They learned not only stamina, they had to learn an enormous amount of numbers - cover versions of everything you can think of, not just rock'n'roll, a bit of jazz, too. They weren't disciplined on stage at all before that. But when they came back they sounded like no one else. It was the making of them."

Let's now turn to the history of Bill Gates. His story is almost as well-known as the Beatles'. Brilliant young maths wiz discovers computer programming. Drops out of Harvard. Starts a little computer company called Microsoft with his friends. Through sheer brilliance, ambition and guts builds it into the giant of the software world.

Now let's dig a bit deeper. Gates' father was a wealthy lawyer in Seattle, and his mother was the daughter of a well-to-do banker. As a child Gates was precocious, and easily bored by his studies. So his parents took him out of public school, and at the beginning of seventh grade sent him to Lakeside, a private school that catered to Seattle's elite families. Midway through Gates' second year, the school started a computer club. "The Mothers' Club at school did a rummage sale every year, and there was always the question of what the money would go to," Gates remembers. "That year, they put $3,000 into buying a computer terminal down in this funny little room that we subsequently took control of. It was kind of an amazing thing."

Even more remarkable was the kind of computer Lakeside bought: it was an ASR-33 Teletype, a time-sharing terminal with a direct link to a mainframe computer in downtown Seattle. "The whole idea of time-sharing only got invented in 1965," Gates says. "Someone was pretty forward looking."

From that moment on, Gates lived in the computer room. He and a number of others began to teach themselves how to use this strange new device. The parents raised more money to buy time on the mainframe computer. The students spent it. As luck would have it, Monique Rona, one of the founders of C-Cubed - a company that leased computer time - had a son at Lakeside, a class ahead of Gates. Would the Lakeside computer club, Rona wondered, like to test out the company's software programs on the weekends in exchange for free programming time? Absolutely!

Before long, Gates and his friends latched on to another outfit called ISI, which agreed to let them have free computer time in exchange for working on a piece of software that could be used to automate company payrolls. In one seven-month period in 1971, Gates and his cohorts ran up 1,575 hours of computer time on the ISI mainframe, which averages out at eight hours a day, seven days a week.

"It was my obsession," Gates says of his early high school years. "I skipped athletics. I went up there at night. We were programming on weekends. It would be a rare week that we wouldn't get 20 or 30 hours in. There was a period where Paul Allen and I got in trouble for stealing a bunch of passwords and crashing the system. We got kicked out. I didn't get to use the computer the whole summer. This is when I was 15 and 16. Then I found out Paul had found a computer that was free at the University of Washington. They had these machines in the medical centre and the physics department. They were on a 24-hour schedule, but with this big slack period so between three and six in the morning they never scheduled anything." Gates laughed. "That's why I'm always so generous to the University of Washington, because they let me steal so much computer time. I'd leave at night, after my bedtime. I could walk up to the university from my house. Or I'd take the bus." Years later, Gates' mother said, "We always wondered why it was so hard for him to get up in the morning."

Through one of the founders of ISI, Gates landed a secondment programming a computer system at the Bonneville Power station in southern Washington State. There, he spent the spring of his senior year writing code.

Those five years, from eighth grade to the end of high school, were Bill Gates' Hamburg, and by any measure he was presented with an even more extraordinary series of opportunities than Bill Joy. And virtually every one of those opportunities gave Gates extra time to practise. By the time he dropped out of Harvard, he'd been programming nonstop for seven consecutive years. He was way past 10,000 hours. How many teenagers had the kind of experience Gates had? "If there were 50 in the world, I'd be stunned," he says.

If you put together the stories of hockey players and the Beatles and Bill Joy and Bill Gates, I think we get a more complete picture of the path to success. Joy, Gates and the Beatles are all undeniably talented. Lennon and McCartney had a musical gift, of the sort that comes along once in a generation, and Joy, let us not forget, had a mind so quick that he could make up a complicated algorithm on the fly that left his professors in awe. A good part of that "talent", however, was something other than an innate aptitude for music or maths. It was desire. The Beatles were willing to play for eight hours straight, seven days a week. Joy was willing to stay up all night programming. In either case, most of us would have gone home to bed. In other words, a key part of what it means to be talented is being able to practise for hours and hours - to the point where it is really hard to know where "natural ability" stops and the simple willingness to work hard begins.

What is so striking about these success stories is that the outliers were the beneficiaries of some kind of unusual opportunity. Lucky breaks don't seem like the exception with software billionaires, rock bands and star athletes; they seem like the rule.

Recently Forbes Magazine compiled a list of the 75 richest people in history. It includes queens and kings and pharaohs from centuries past, as well as contemporary billionaires such as Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim. However, an astonishing 14 on the list are Americans born within nine years of each other in the mid-19th century. In other words, almost 20% of the names come from a single generation - born between 1831 and 1840 in a single country. The list includes industrialists and financiers who are still household names today: John Rockefeller, born in 1839 (the richest of the lot); Jay Gould, 1836; and JP Morgan, 1837.

What's going on here is obvious, if you think about it. In the 1860s and 1870s, the American economy went through perhaps the greatest transformation in its history. This was when the railways were built, and when Wall Street emerged. It was when industrial manufacturing started in earnest. It was when all the rules by which the traditional economy functioned were broken and remade. What that list says is that it was absolutely critical, if you were going to take advantage of those opportunities, to be in your 20s when that transformation was happening.

If you were born in the late 1840s, you missed it - you were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you were born in the 1820s, you were too old - your mindset was shaped by the old, pre-civil war ways. But there is a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just perfect. All of the 14 men and women on that list had vision and talent. But they also were given an extraordinary opportunity, in the same way that hockey players born in January, February and March were given an extraordinary opportunity.

Let's do the same kind of analysis for software tycoons such as Bill Joy and Bill Gates.

Veterans of Silicon Valley will tell you that the most important date in the history of the personal computer revolution was January 1975. That was when the magazine Popular Electronics ran a cover story on a machine called the Altair 8800. The Altair cost $397. It was a do-it-yourself contraption that you could assemble at home. The headline on the story read: Project Breakthrough! World's First Minicomputer Kit To Rival Commercial Models. To readers of Popular Electronics, then the bible of the fledgling software and computer world, that headline was a revelation. Computers up to that point were the massive, expensive mainframes of the sort sitting in the white-tiled expanse of the Michigan computing centre. For years, every hacker and electronics wiz had dreamed of the day when a computer would come along that was small and inexpensive enough for an ordinary person to use and own. That day had finally arrived.

If January 1975 was the dawn of the personal computer age, then who would be in the best position to take advantage of it? If you're a few years out of college in 1975, and if you have had any experience with programming at all, you would have already been hired by IBM or one of the other traditional, old-line computer firms of that era. You belonged to the old paradigm. You have just bought a house. You're married. A baby is on the way. You're in no position to give up a good job and pension for some pie-in-the-sky $397 computer kit. So let's also rule out all those born before, say, 1952.

At the same time, though, you don't want to be too young. You can't seize the moment if you're still in high school. So let's also rule out anyone born after, say, 1958. The perfect age to be in 1975, in other words, is young enough to see the coming revolution but not so old as to have missed it. You want to be 20 or 21, born in 1954 or 1955.

Let's start with Gates, the richest and most famous of all Silicon Valley tycoons. When was he born? Bill Gates: October 28 1955. The perfect birthdate. Gates is the hockey player born on January 1.

Gates's best friend at Lakeside was Paul Allen. He also hung out in the computer room with Gates, and shared those long evenings at ISI and C-Cubed. Allen went on to found Microsoft with Gates. Paul Allen: January 21 1953.

The third richest man at Microsoft is the one who has been running the company on a day-to-day basis since 2000 - one of the most respected executives in the software world, Steve Ballmer. Steve Ballmer: March 24 1956.

And let's not forget a man every bit as famous as Gates, Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple Computer. He wasn't from a rich family, like Gates, and he didn't go to Michigan, like Joy. But it doesn't take much investigation of his upbringing to realise that he had his Hamburg, too. He grew up in Mountain View California, just south of San Francisco, which is the absolute epicentre of Silicon Valley. His neighbourhood was filled with engineers from Hewlett-Packard, then, as now, one of the most important electronics firms in the world. As a teenager he prowled the flea markets of Mountain View, where electronics hobbyists and tinkerers sold spare parts. Jobs came of age breathing the air of the very business he would later dominate. He picked the brains of Hewlett-Packard engineers and once even called Bill Hewlett, one of the company's founders, to request parts. Jobs not only received the parts he wanted, he managed to wangle a summer job. He worked on an assembly line to build computers and was so fascinated that he tried to design his own... Steve Jobs was born on February 24 1955.

Another of the pioneers of the software revolution was Eric Schmidt. He ran Novell, one of Silicon Valley's most important software firms, and in 2001 became the chief executive officer of Google. He was born on April 27 1955.

I don't mean to suggest, of course, that every software tycoon in Silicon Valley was born in 1955. But there are very clearly patterns here, and what's striking is how little we seem to want to talk about them. We pretend that success is a matter of individual merit. That is not the whole story. These are stories about people who were given a special opportunity to work really hard and seized it, and who happened to come of age at a time when that extraordinary effort was rewarded by the rest of society. Their success was not of their own making. It was a product of the world in which they grew up. Their success, in other words, wasn't due to some mysterious process known only to themselves. It had a logic, and if we can understand that logic, think of all the tantalising possibilities that opens up.

By the way, let's not forget Bill Joy. Had he been just a little bit older and had to face the drudgery of programming with computer cards, he says he would have studied science. Bill Joy the computer legend would have been Bill Joy the biologist. In fact, he was born on November 8 1954. And his three fellow founders of Sun Microsystems - one of the oldest and most important of Silicon Valley's software companies? Scott McNealy: born November 13 1954. Vinod Khosla: born January 28 1955. Andy Bechtolsheim: born June 1955. ·

© Malcolm Gladwell 2008.

  • This is an edited extract from Outliers: The Story Of Success, by Malcolm Gladwell, to be published on November 27 by Allen Lane at £16.99. Malcolm Gladwell: Live In London is on November 24 at 5.45pm and 8.30pm at the Lyceum Theatre, London. Tickets from £13.50 to £26.50. To book, call 0844 412 1742 or go to malcolmgladwell-live.com. There will be an interview with Malcolm Gladwell in tomorrow's Observer.

· This article was amended on Tuesday November 18 2008. We noted that almost 20% of a list of the 75 richest people in history compiled by Forbes magazine were born in America within nine years of each other. Andrew Carnegie should not have appeared among them. He was born in Scotland. This has been corrected.

 

How serious am I?

In BJJ sometimes I find myself being lazy.  I just go and train without much thought to it.  I have found in the last few years that the people who do the best are not only the most consistent, but also the most inquisitive.  They are passionate about the art and show up for class day in, day out.

Although I find consistency and passion to be the top factors in improvement, there are many other things I have been thinking about.

These days I tend

How much sleep do you get every night?

How is your diet?

Are you having fun?

Do you lift weights regularly?

How long can you roll before you get gassed?

Do you keep a notebook of your classes?

Do you drill moves and positions outside of class?

Do you attend seminars?

Do you take private lessons?

 

BJJ Notebook w/Evernote

Over the years in bjj I have tried to keep a notebook chronicling my progress.  It has ranged from a basic pad of paper to an excel spreadsheet, to a word doc.  Each time I ended up stopping for some reason or another.  Excel was great cause you could put in all types of sortable attributes like what type of move it was, where you learned it, etc.  This worked ok until I went back and tried to make sense of all my "opponent puts his left hand on your rt collar and shifts his right hip".  I pretty quickly realized that model was a fail for me.

Word was great because I could put pictures into the file easily.  This was perfect for grabbing techniques off of videos or websites and documenting what I was working on.  The challenge is that I ended up with a monster file that I could never find a good way of organizing.  Plus it was always on the "other" computer. 

Paper of course is nice and there is something magical about writing something down with your hands, but I hated ending up with pages and pages of random notes.  Also, I had lots of duplicate entries, no way to easily figure out everything I knew from a given position, no way to add new ideas to an existing move, and more.

So recently I was inspired by two events to try to tackle this problem once and for all.  The first event was the general realization that I need to know my game more clearly.  Dave always tells me that there is only two things, hubs and transitions.  As I reflected on that I realized I need to understand what I already do and know to a deeper extent.  The second event was at the Paul Schreiner seminar.  Paul mentioned that he keeps a notebook and tracks, for example, when anyone passes his guard.  He then figures out the counter.  This diligence has helped his game, so I figured why not follow a proven path.

Luckily, I think technology may have come to the rescue.  I started using a tool called Evernote.  It is an online notebook with the benefit of having client applications for windows and mac, but all the data is synced to the cloud.  So you can take your notes anywhere and be able to get to them from anywhere.  It also allows you to tag items as well.  So in my Evernote, I have notebooks for each position (Mount, Back, etc) and then moves in each notebook.  I have tagged each move with tags like submissions, escapes, transitions, etc.

This model makes it very, very easy for me to get a complete picture of my game at any time.  It also makes it very clear where I am weak as well.  It seems like a great tool for understanding and developing your game.  Oh, and it's free too.  Check it out at www.evernote.com.

See you on the mat.

The Power of Three

 

We have all heard about the power of three.  It is found everywhere from presentations, to telephone numbers, to the three stooges.  If you've ever tried to remember something, you've likely found it much harder to remember items after you get beyond three.  Personally, after three I reach for a pen and paper.

How does this relation to bjj?  We'll I have recently been trying to pare down my game.  Over the last several years it seems that I have been on a mission of accumulation.  Like most people at my level we watch instructionals, read books, go to seminars, attend class and more.  All of this is in the hope that we get better.  I don't knock that path.  It has been very fun for me and it has also been great to hear different people explain the same move.  There is always a little detail that changes, or an area of focus that shifts. It has given me the opportunity to play with lots of fun things.  I think most everyone goes through it and that is great.  My hope now is that I can evolve that path of exposure to one of refinement.

As I make this move, I wonder, why now?  What prompted this?  How do I know I have seen "enough" and should now refine.  I wish I had an answer, but I don't.  For me it is just a personal feeling.  I guess, if I was pressed for an answer, I'd say the reason for my shift is the same reason as my past focus on maximum exposure.  At the time I likely believed (even unconsciously) that seeing every move I can would make me better, whereas now, I believe that drilling a core set of positions and moves is more important.  Thus the change.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.  Take closed guard top.  Over the years I have seen dozens of people teach opening the legs.  There are countless ways.  If you asked me a few weeks ago what I do, I'd likely have shows two or three moves that came to mind.  What happened to the other ones?  Are they not good or did I just forget them?  Are the ones I showed the best for the person asking?  Are they even my best moves?  Do they even work for me?

So for now in closed guard, I plan to work three openings that have worked great for me in the past.  I just want to get rock solid in these three.  If after a year or so I want to mix it up with new thoughts that is great, but I'll be doing it from a base.  It will also allow me develop an idea of what my go to game really is.  Of course, at my level I don't really have my lifelong "A" game - if you believe Matt he'd say that you develop that at Brown Belt.  What I am referencing here is having a game I know clearly and that I go to when I am pressed.

For whatever reason (not a personal decision), I seem to want to focus now.  However, regardless of how many "moves" I have seen, in some positions I couldn't tell you what I do all the time.  For example, in closed guard what do I do?  Sometimes I go for the overhook, sometimes the arm, sometimes the omoplata, sometimes the hip bump sweep.  I guess this is ok since I am "flowing" with what my opponent gives me, but in the end I think I have ended up without a clear game that I go to.

What does this all mean?  I guess it means that I have seen a lot of moves but never really worked them.  Who cares that you can list 5 armbars if you can't hit any?  My plan is this:

1. Focus on Hubs.  This means to really articulate what hubs are out there and work on holding the hub.

2. Articulate and Develop a Few Options. 

 

I trained with Dave today and we covered north south.  That is one area that has always plagued me.  It is a really tough spot to deal with, but Dave showed me his game there and it is one of utter simplicity and works very, very well.  The greats continue to inspire me in that they keep evolving their game and simpliying it in the process.

So my recent obsession is to really focus on a few (less than three) per position.  Once I have clarity on those three top moves, I plan to spend some real dedicated time working