How Do You Train Your Weaknesses Without Losing Your Strengths?

One of the most common pieces of advice in combat sports is, “Work on your weaknesses.” It's good advice, but like a lot of simple advice, it leaves out an important question: How much attention should your weaknesses get?

I've seen athletes become so focused on fixing what they're bad at that they gradually stop developing the things that made them good in the first place. A fighter has excellent boxing but mediocre wrestling, so they spend months trying to become a better wrestler. A grappler has a dangerous guard but isn't particularly good at passing, so every training session becomes an attempt to fix the passing. Eventually they may improve the weakness, but they've also taken time away from the skills that actually make them effective.

I don't think the goal of development is to make every part of your game equally good. That's probably impossible, and even if it weren't, I'm not sure it would be desirable. MMA and BJJ are too broad for anyone to become exceptional at everything. The goal is to develop enough breadth that you don't have glaring holes, while developing enough depth in particular areas that you have real strengths.

That's an important distinction. You don't necessarily need to turn every weakness into a strength. Sometimes you just need to make the weakness good enough that it stops limiting the things you're already good at.

Imagine a fighter with excellent boxing and a strong pressure game but mediocre wrestling defense. Their boxing is one of the reasons they're dangerous in the first place. They don't necessarily need to become an outstanding wrestler. They need enough wrestling defense that an opponent can't simply take them down every time they try to use their boxing.

That might mean learning to recognize common takedown entries, improving the initial defense, understanding the fence, developing good underhooks and learning how to get back to their feet. Those skills might never become the defining feature of their game.

This is where I think the idea of limitations is more useful than simply talking about weaknesses. A weakness becomes important when it limits what you can do elsewhere. If I'm not particularly good at something but it rarely affects my ability to do what I want to do, it may not deserve a tremendous amount of training time. If an opponent can consistently force me into a position where that weakness becomes the dominant factor, then it has become a limitation that needs attention.

Instead of simply asking, “What am I bad at?” I'd rather ask, “What is preventing me from doing what I'm good at?”

A BJJ player might not have a great open guard, but if their closed guard, passing and top game are excellent, that weakness may not be particularly urgent. Another grappler may have a good guard but struggle badly when someone gets to their back. That weakness may deserve much more attention because it creates a serious problem that affects everything else they are trying to do.

The same principle applies to MMA. A striker may not need to become an outstanding grappler. They may need enough takedown defense to keep the fight standing. A grappler may not need to become a great kickboxer. They may need enough striking to close distance safely and make opponents respect their entries. The weakness is being developed in service of the larger game.

There is another reason I don't like the idea that athletes should constantly work on whatever they're worst at: people need to develop their strengths too. If you're naturally good at something, that doesn't mean you can simply leave it alone. A strength is not a finished product. In many cases, the things you're already good at are the areas where you have the greatest potential to become exceptional.

If you have unusually good timing, keep developing your timing. If you're naturally difficult to take down, don't stop wrestling because you've already got that part figured out. If you're a good passer, become a great passer. If you have a particularly effective striking style, keep refining it. Development isn't just about eliminating deficiencies. It's also about finding out how far a strength can actually go.

This becomes particularly important as an athlete becomes more experienced. Early in development, I want people exposed to a broad range of skills and problems. They need enough experience to discover what they're good at and enough experience to understand what other people can do to them. As they develop, patterns begin to emerge. Maybe someone has exceptional timing. Maybe they're naturally difficult to control. Maybe they have unusual power. Maybe they're extremely good at solving problems from a particular position.

At that point, I want development to become more individual. We can still address weaknesses, but we're also asking a different question: What could this person become really, really good at?

That's where strengths become weapons.

And the balance between strengths and weaknesses will depend on the athlete's goals. Someone training BJJ two or three times a week for enjoyment doesn't need to approach development the same way as someone preparing for their first tournament. Someone building toward an MMA career has different priorities again. There is no universal percentage of training that should be devoted to weaknesses because the purpose of training isn't the same for everyone.

For a hobbyist, the goal might simply be becoming a more complete grappler while continuing to enjoy the things they're naturally good at. There is nothing wrong with spending a lot of time working on your favorite position because you enjoy it. You can also deliberately spend some time in positions you dislike because you want to become more well-rounded. The balance can change based on what you want from training.

For someone preparing to compete, the balance becomes more specific. During the period between competitions, there is more freedom to experiment, work on weaknesses and add new skills. You can spend months developing something that isn't very good yet because you have time to let it develop. You can start in bad positions, work on your weak side, change habits and experiment with different approaches.

Once a competition approaches, the emphasis naturally shifts. Now you want to refine the things you're going to rely on. If you're fighting, you want to sharpen the strengths that are going to help you win rather than trying to completely rebuild yourself at the last minute. You may still have to address specific weaknesses, especially if your opponent is likely to attack them, but the goal becomes performance rather than exploration.

In other words, out of camp you can develop; in camp you refine. That's an important distinction for competitive athletes, but the underlying principle applies to everyone: the right thing to work on depends on what you're trying to accomplish right now.

I also think we sometimes make the mistake of assuming that improving a weakness means spending more time doing the thing we're bad at. That's not always the answer. Sometimes the solution is to understand how that weakness interacts with the rest of your game.

Maybe you're not a great wrestler, but your striking creates excellent opportunities to wrestle. Maybe you're not a great striker, but your wrestling makes opponents react in predictable ways that create striking opportunities. Maybe your guard isn't your strongest position, but understanding how to get back to your feet makes it much harder for someone to keep you there.

Now we're no longer simply asking whether an individual skill is good or bad. We're asking whether the pieces work together.

That's ultimately what I want to see as an athlete develops. Early development should create breadth. Then we identify strengths and weaknesses. We bring weaknesses up enough that they don't create obvious limitations, while developing strengths deeply enough that they become reliable weapons. Eventually the athlete learns how those strengths and weaknesses interact and builds a game around them.

That's a much more realistic goal than trying to create a perfectly balanced athlete.

The best fighters and grapplers I've worked with aren't necessarily good at everything. They have areas where they're exceptional, areas where they're competent and probably some things they would rather not have to do at all. What makes them difficult is that their strengths are well developed and their weaknesses are managed well enough that opponents have trouble exploiting them.

So when someone tells you to “work on your weaknesses,” I think the better question is which weaknesses, and why?

Fix the weaknesses that are holding you back. Maintain the ones that don't deserve immediate attention. Develop new skills when you have the time and opportunity. And continue pushing the things you're already good at until they become genuine strengths.

You don't need to be equally good everywhere.

Your weaknesses tell you what needs attention. Your strengths tell you what might be worth developing.

The goal isn't to eliminate every weakness. It's to become a more complete athlete while developing the things that can eventually make your game your own.