If you wanna get results in anything, the best thing you can do is optimise for the inputs.

You can't control results, but you can control how you take action.

You need to find the way of taking action that works for you.

Here's what I mean.

When I was 18 I moved from my hometown to Hong Kong to study Martial Arts.

The 2 most senior students had completely different methods of approaching their study, but both were incredibly accomplished.

P was a former International Taekwondo competitor at the highest level.

R was a former amateur boxer who had the option to go pro, and then moved to Thailand where he had a successful competitive combat career.

Their approach to training could not have been more different. Both were smart and both were skilled, but their approaches were polar opposites.

P was all about the mental side.

With R, it was all physical.

P would analyse everything he was doing and only train in the way he found to be most effective. He wouldn't take action until he'd figured out the "best" way to approach it.

It was all about maximising the result of every action and only working on things he thought gave an outsized return.

R was a machine. He would stand and complete repetitions of basic movements thousands of times to solidify his base and understanding.

Both were extremely competent fighters and I couldn't pick one over the other.

But it was always interesting asking them to explain things to you.

Even if you asked them both the same question, the explanation would be different, but the outcome would somehow be the same.

For example, let's imagine you asked why you shouldn't move a certain way after taking an action.

P would explain things like the angles, lines of sight, stability of footwork, power generation and so on.

R would think for a second then have you stand in front of him before he'd say, "try it now". When you tried it, you'd end up with a fist in your face. Which is still one of the most effective lessons I've ever come across (you'll never make that mistake again).

Was one method better than the other?

No.

In both, the end result is the same. You learned the better way to tackle that problem.

It's just P had stopped to think about it and so could verbalise WHY more eloquently.

R had an almost instinctive method of understanding because he had done an insane number of reps. He understood the inherent strengths and weaknesses through experience.

They were best mates and their different approaches helped one another elevate their understanding.

Me?

I naturally gravitated towards R's method.

My training warm up would be 500 reps of each foundational footwork and movement. I had an instinctive understanding of them and how to use them.

Because I was naturally like R, I focused on P's teaching and understanding to help me get better at the theory behind things.

Together, they made me the #3 student at the school within 18 months.

You have to know where you're strong and weak with getting your stuff done.

Focus on where you're strong to get stuff done, learn about where you're weak to improve your results.

Still to this day, I default to "just do the fucking reps".

I can sit down and churn out copy, assets, and promotions like no one else I know.

The repetitions of doing so helps me learn. But if all I was to do was to sit here and write, my ability to get better is stifled.

You need both theory and action to grow.

Theory without action is pointless. It's just locked in your head and you never how it actually works.

Action without theory can get results, but it has diminishing returns unless you're trying to understand WHY something works.

My advice to you, find where your natural potential lies - in understanding or doing.

Focus on improving that consistently.

But also build in system to help you get practice at where you're weak.

And if you want some help to figre out the theory, or get a kick up the arse to put in the reps, check out the GM+ Community here.

Pete "do the reps" Boyle

​,​