Training Camp

Competition sessions are similar to regular FCS sessions, but there are some modifications to help people prepare for real matches. Your opponents will not go easy on you, to the point where they will injure you if given the opportunity, and the intensity level tends to be much higher than what you experience in the gym.

Preparation for competition then requires a different set of conditions than regular training. The physical principles are still the same, but the structure of sessions is modified to ensure competitors are prepared for what's ahead of them.

More than anything, students need to understand that competing itself is a skill. Many people think that skill in the game is all that matters, then get shocked when they show up and lose badly in a tournament. This is because competing involves a set of metagame differences that non-competitors don't think about.

The FCS considers three different timeframes for competition: training camp, the week of (the Final Mile), and the day of. What you get on the day of depends entirely on what you do in the previous two stages. If you don't handle the training camp part well, you're probably doomed since you won't have a sharp enough game to deal with better-prepared competitors. If you screw up on the Final Mile, you may not even be able to compete (if you miss weight, for example).

It's the coach's job to give students the best chance possible by creating appropriate environments for each of these stages. Students may still fail for a variety of reasons, but they'll walk into every competition knowing that they did what they could to maximize their skills beforehand.

Cultural Differences

The average martial arts practitioner who doesn't compete can operate on a much looser schedule than a competitor. They can get away with irregular training 2-3 times a week, and they don't need to seek out training partners and coaches who will challenge them if they don't want to.

Competitors, on the other hand, need to not only put in more time, but focus specifically on how to get better on a consistent basis. When you face an opponent in a real match, they will look for and exploit any weakness they can find. It's the job of the coach to help the athlete patch up those weaknesses and build on their strengths as much as they can prior to the match.

As a result, competition sessions need to be laser-focused on exposing as many weaknesses as possible in each student. On top of that, the coach has to select students who have the correct attitude about competition training so that, as a group, students are pushing each other on a regular basis.

The coach must foster a culture of excellence for a competition squad to be successful. If students aren't contributing or show signs of a poor attitude (particularly when it comes to feedback), they may need to be removed in order to maintain the integrity of the group. This stands in stark contrast to standard sessions, where a wide range of personalities and skill levels can (and should be) accommodated.

Unfortunately, selection is just part of the deal when you're dealing with competition teams. Some people, for a variety of reasons, just aren't cut out for competition. It is a stressful, difficult road that demands a level of focus most practitioners are just not that interested in. If you're one of those people, embrace it—there's nothing wrong with you, it's simply not your cup of tea.

There are some people who don't realize this and continue to push for it anyway. They don't have the psychological fortitude or physical capabilities to contribute to a competitive training room, but they refuse to acknowledge that fact. This is why coaches must be very careful about who they let in and who they allow to stay. All it takes is one person to destroy a positive, growth-oriented competition culture.

Structural Differences

As outlined in the section on Toughness, many competition classes are merely about beating each other up and rolling with round timers that match the competition in question. This doesn't actually simulate what it's like to compete, and it leads to a much higher injury rate.

The FCS competition structure does not follow that path. To start, there need to be sessions that mimic, as closely as possible, the conditions of the next competition.

This means rounds that include a referee, points, and an active audience that both encourages and discourages each student. The rounds should be based on the ruleset of the competition being prepared for, which must be regularly reviewed and refreshed so students don't make pointless mistakes during their real matches. Anytime a student gets scored on or loses in ways they didn't expect, it's just as much the coach's fault for not exposing them to that ruleset in a meaningful way ahead of time.

Coaches should include often-overlooked details like ankle markers (a tactile reminder of points), warmup rounds (to simulate warming up before a match), and spectators recording (for both later review and increased pressure). It's best to keep the number of competitors training at once to a minimum, so there can be an overwhelming focus on them as they train. This kind of regular social pressure helps to inoculate students against the stress they'll feel during the real thing.

These days should be in isolation from other days on the training schedule and known ahead of time, so students can get used to the nervousness associated with the leadup to a competition. They should not dominate the schedule, since full-speed competition rounds are where students run the highest risk of injury.

The standard tempo for competition round days is once per week, with the intention of creating a miniature version of the learning feedback loop:

At least one day of games beforehand to work on more general concepts -> one day of competition rounds to gather data -> at least one day afterward to review and work on anything that came up during the competition day.

This maximizes the learning process and minimizes injury risk, although this exact schedule can be tweaked for more or less volume based on the group involved. The model above is based on the assumption that the students are training for amateur competitions while managing other responsibilities such as jobs, families, etc.

In a more professional setting, the volume should be higher. For example, most professionals train every day, but they cannot train at full capacity seven days a week without serious injury risk. So it may be two days of competition rounds, with three days of review/tweaking/general work mixed in. This gives them a good mix of intensity and skill development without putting their bodies in more danger than you'd expect from a life spent in competition.