# Learn Karate in "Three Or Four" Years?



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 7, 2017)

I was reading Anko Itosu's "Ten Precepts of Karate" (1908) and found this peculiar passage:

_ 3. Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will understand karate. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate._


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 8, 2017)

That's nice


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 8, 2017)

Always good when someone can read.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 8, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I was reading Anko Itosu's "Ten Precepts of Karate" (1908) and found this peculiar passage:
> 
> _ 3. Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will understand karate. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate._



2 hrs a day for 4 years is 2924hrs.
So for the average hobbyist 2hrs twice a week is 104 hrs per year, which means you would achieve understanding in 28.1 years.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 8, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I was reading Anko Itosu's "Ten Precepts of Karate" (1908) and found this peculiar passage:
> 
> _ 3. Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will understand karate. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate._


And yet martial arts shouldn't take years to learn. Maybe the masters know something after all.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> 2 hrs a day for 4 years is 2924hrs.
> So for the average hobbyist 2hrs twice a week is 104 hrs per year, which means you would achieve understanding in 28.1 years.



That's quite a convoluted reading.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 8, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> That's quite a convoluted reading.


Actually it's not.  Skills are learned by the neural growth in the brain for both muscle memory and comprehension.  The time it takes for synaptic growth is kinda set by biology and evolution.  There are no short cuts. Hours in, skills out.


----------



## Encho (Oct 8, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I was reading Anko Itosu's "Ten Precepts of Karate" (1908) and found this peculiar passage:
> 
> _ 3. Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will understand karate. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate._


Hi Fuhrer drumpf,
I believe "understand" is subtle and means arriving at principles of understanding the first steps(shodan level). I don't think in the context that it is implied to learn(master) karate.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 8, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> That's quite a convoluted reading.



Because it doesn't fit your narrative?


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 8, 2017)

“One becomes a beginner after 1,000 days of training, and an expert after 10,000 days of practice.”
~ Masutatsu Oyama

So 2.7 years to become a beginner, and a little over 27 years to become an expert.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 8, 2017)




----------



## ks - learning to fly (Oct 8, 2017)

frank raud said:


> And yet martial arts shouldn't take years to learn. Maybe the masters know something after all.


 Respectfully< I disagree - if it takes 10,000 hours
to master a technique, then 3 or 4 years doesn't even
scratch the surface..


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> That's quite a convoluted reading.


Not convoluted, at all. It matches the time commitment in the quote you posted. If we cut the time in half, it still gives us 14 years. Going/practicing more often can change the calendar time required.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

ks - learning to fly said:


> Respectfully< I disagree - if it takes 10,000 hours
> to master a technique, then 3 or 4 years doesn't even
> scratch the surface..


10,000 hours is for someone excelling in a competitive field (world-class violinist, for instance). Skill can be developed much faster.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> 2 hrs a day for 4 years is 2924hrs.
> So for the average hobbyist 2hrs twice a week is 104 hrs per year, which means you would achieve understanding in 28.1 years.


Actually 2 hours twice a week would be 208 hours per year, so a little over 14 years.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Actually 2 hours twice a week would be 208 hours per year, so a little over 14 years.


EDIT: I missed a key word in your post. Most classes don't last two hours.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Check your math again. 2 hrs * 52 wks = 104 hrs/year.


2 hours *twice a week*. That would be 4 hours a week.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> 2 hours *twice a week*. That would be 4 hours a week.


Yep, I corrected myself already. Most classes aren't 2 hours.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yep, I corrected myself already. Most classes aren't 2 hours.


I'm used to places that have either 1.5 or 2 hour classes, or back to back classes you can attend. If that's not the norm, good chance it was just a typo in the original post.=, then the 28 years would be right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> I'm used to places that have either 1.5 or 2 hour classes, or back to back classes you can attend. If that's not the norm, good chance it was just a typo in the original post.=, then the 28 years would be right.


I teach 90-minute classes. Most folks I know teach 60 or 75 minute classes. I prefer the longer format (even 2 hrs), but it's harder for hobbyists to fit into their schedules.

I suspect the quote in the OP was more about how much time is spent practicing than just class time, though I also suspect classes may have been longer on average then.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 8, 2017)

The number I've heard most often about the time it takes to truly master a physical skill is 10,000 hours.  That's a LOT of mat time, isn't it. 10,000 hours, at 2 hours a day... 5,000 days. that's just shy of 14 years of every single day, 2 hour practice. Not quick.

Go twice a week, and it takes close to 50 years.  Big difference between "hobbyist" types and those of us who go (or rather, went, in my case) every day for a long while.


----------



## Buka (Oct 8, 2017)

Only took me three or four years. Eight or nine times.

Now if I could only get it right. Hey, one can hope.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 8, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> “One becomes a beginner after 1,000 days of training, and an expert after 10,000 days of practice.”
> ~ Masutatsu Oyama
> 
> So 2.7 years to become a beginner, and a little over 27 years to become an expert.



Surprisingly consistent with Itosu's remarks,


kempodisciple said:


> Actually 2 hours twice a week would be 208 hours per year, so a little over 14 years.


Well done, you spotted my deliberate mistake. You've passed my test and proven yourself worthy of my 10th Dan Certification. All you need do now is pay a small admin fee of 99,99.99 and I can mail it straight to you!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

Buka said:


> Only took me three or four years. Eight or nine times.
> 
> Now if I could only get it right. Hey, one can hope.


There's always next time, man.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Because it doesn't fit your narrative?



My narrative?

The 10 Precepts of Karate was written to convince Japanese school educators to allow karate to be taught to the students. The idea was that they would learn in a few years, and then teach the younger kids, until eventually every Japanese kid knew karate.

Precept 10 proves my point:

_
If karate should be introduced beginning in the elementary schools, then we will produce many men each capable of defeating ten assailants. I further believe this can be done by having all students at the Okinawa Teachers' College practice karate. In this way, after graduation, they can teach at the elementary schools at which they have been taught. I believe this will be a great benefit to our nation and our military. It is my hope you will seriously consider my suggestion._


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 8, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Actually it's not.  Skills are learned by the neural growth in the brain for both muscle memory and comprehension.  The time it takes for synaptic growth is kinda set by biology and evolution.  There are no short cuts. Hours in, skills out.



Yeah. And three or four years allows this.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 8, 2017)

I sense a lot of passive aggressiveness aimed at me. There's no need to post in my thread if you're just going to be that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Yeah. And three or four years allows this.


At 2 hours a day, sure. Calendar time isn’t the issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I sense a lot of passive aggressiveness aimed at me. There's no need to post in my thread if you're just going to be that way.


I’m not sure you’re using that term correctly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> If karate should be introduced beginning in the elementary schools, then we will produce many men each capable of defeating ten assailants. I further believe this can be done by having all students at the Okinawa Teachers' College practice karate. In this way, after graduation, they can teach at the elementary schools at which they have been taught. I believe this will be a great benefit to our nation and our military. It is my hope you will seriously consider my suggestion.


The first sentence in that quote does not lend credibility to the rest.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Yeah. And three or four years allows this.


It all depends on your definition.  It's not unlike growing up from teenager to adult. It's a proven scientific fact that the brain is not fully developed until the age of around 23. When we are teenagers we think we have it all figured out, that we know what we are doing. As we get older we look back and think how immature and stupid we were.
George Harrison wrote " the farther one travels the less one knows" 
Some of us here have been around a really long time. We look back and laugh at the times we thought we knew everything. If we disagree it's not to belittle you or your opinions,,, it's just that we have been there before and maybe had the same thoughts you have now,,, but time has shown and taught us to know the truth on some things.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I sense a lot of passive aggressiveness aimed at me. There's no need to post in my thread if you're just going to be that way.



Would you prefer to be told straight out that you are an idiot or do you want a more polite round the houses way? Generally many people seem to read into things people write that aren't actually there, I suggest this is what you are doing. People read other's posts from their own perspective as well as mood and way of thinking which is usually completely different from the way the writer meant it.


----------



## Buka (Oct 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> There's always next time, man.



Next time's a given. Just as last time was.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 9, 2017)

ks - learning to fly said:


> Respectfully< I disagree - if it takes 10,000 hours
> to master a technique, then 3 or 4 years doesn't even
> scratch the surface..


OP started a previous thread about how martial arts shouldn't take years to learn than posts a quote from a master saying it takes years to learn.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Yeah. And three or four years allows this.


And again, according to you it shouldn't take years. Choose a position.


----------



## Finlay (Oct 9, 2017)

Learn is a relative term

At what point can you say you have learnt Karate.

The quote states 'understand' 
Again this is a very loose term and doesn't mean mastery.

In many schools it take about 4 years to achieve 1st degree. At 1st degree we can say we understand our art but it is far from Mastery or any sort of high level


----------



## jobo (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> I was reading Anko Itosu's "Ten Precepts of Karate" (1908) and found this peculiar passage:
> 
> _ 3. Karate cannot be quickly learned. Like a slow moving bull, it eventually travels a thousand leagues. If one trains diligently for one or two hours every day, then in three or four years one will understand karate. Those who train in this fashion will discover the deeper principles of karate._


it just seems the same as your other thread? Now,as then you are correct, but your definrions are so loose that everyone else is,correct as well.

but id add, if you spend two hours a day for four years, you really should have got the hang of it,, if you haven't then you never will


----------



## JP3 (Oct 9, 2017)

Buka said:


> Only took me three or four years. Eight or nine times.
> 
> Now if I could only get it right. Hey, one can hope.


Solid response!

And yeah... me too.  I really REALLY liked the way my training was forced to start over from what I "thought" was  "scratch" 5 times. I felt like I was collecting white belts! LOL! Funny thing was, when I got my third arts black belt... and started ont he 4th one, again because I had to because I was moving due to either education or career path stuff... I noted that (it only took me the fourth time through the beginner process to notice it) I was learning a bunch of the same exact stuff, all over again, just with different descritptions, different adjectives, different ways of saying the same old stuff.

There are many roads to the top of the mountain, but there is only one top.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 9, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Yeah. And three or four years allows this.


Nope. It doesn't.

Learn to put which foot where during class, doing a kata? Sure.

Having mastered the entire skill set of a master of karate, so that the movement skills are so internalized as to automatically flow, without thought, at the reflex level?

Not in 3, 4 years. For some, not in 30 to 40 years, depending on their time spent training.

Expertise? Sure. MMastery? No.  I think what is happening here is one of Gerry's favorite things, a "definitional debate," eh?

Could be it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 9, 2017)

JP3 said:


> I think what is happening here is one of Gerry's favorite things, a "definitional debate," eh?


You've caught onto that, have you?


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 9, 2017)

Insight into what it was like training under Chojun Miyagi (founder of Goju Ryu) by the student who inherited his belt and uniform, thereby making him Miyagi’s true successor...

Meitoku Yagi

Spoiler alert... it didn’t take a couple 3-4 years to learn Miyagi’s Goju Ryu Karate.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 9, 2017)

In the original quote, it says to "understand" karate, it takes about 3-4 years.  On average, it takes a student that long to reach blackbelt.  In many schools, the blackbelt does NOT represent expertise, but that you are ready to start learning.  Itosu's quote would be very much in line with that thought.


----------



## punisher73 (Oct 9, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Actually it's not.  Skills are learned by the neural growth in the brain for both muscle memory and comprehension.  The time it takes for synaptic growth is kinda set by biology and evolution.  There are no short cuts. Hours in, skills out.



It still requires hard work and practice, but incorporating visualization does help cut down on the reps required.  There have been a couple of experiments to support this idea.  But, the overall idea of being dedicated and not an instant expert still holds true.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 9, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Would you prefer to be told straight out that you are an idiot or do you want a more polite round the houses way? Generally many people seem to read into things people write that aren't actually there, I suggest this is what you are doing. People read other's posts from their own perspective as well as mood and way of thinking which is usually completely different from the way the writer meant it.



No. I wanted discussion and I was met with passive aggeessive snarkiness. And then some guy accused me of having a "narrative" for not adhering to his convoluted reading of what I had posted.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 9, 2017)

frank raud said:


> OP started a previous thread about how martial arts shouldn't take years to learn than posts a quote from a master saying it takes years to learn.



When I said it shouldn't take years to learn, I was referring to people who think it takes decades to learn a martial art.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 9, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Nope. It doesn't.
> 
> Learn to put which foot where during class, doing a kata? Sure.
> 
> ...



30 - 40 years?

I hate how people fetishize the mystical woo-woo. It doesn't take decades to learn a martial art. It simply doesn't.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 9, 2017)

frank raud said:


> And again, according to you it shouldn't take years. Choose a position.



This is tiring. In my previous thread, I had lamented the fact that bullshido fetishizers believe it takes decades to learn a martial art. I believe a person can become perfectly knowledgeable in karate in a few years and I've always believed this.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Oct 9, 2017)

Finlay said:


> Learn is a relative term
> 
> At what point can you say you have learnt Karate.
> 
> ...



Well, I don't subscribe to this nonsense. Sorry. There's nothing magical abour karate; it's a system of fighting that can be mastered in several years.


----------



## Finlay (Oct 10, 2017)

What nonsense?

I asked to define what 'learn' means

I said 'understand' is different from 'mastery'

I said that 3-4 year is a common time frame to black belt level.

I understand that your whole purpose on this board is to get attention and try to make the longest thread possible, if you did such things in an intelligent thoughtful way you may actually get better responses from people.

Instead you read others posts ignore the points and/or questions and call it nonsense.

Even looking around, very few people in very few schools or systems reach anything more than 1st degree in a few years.

There has to be an understanding between knowledge and skill.

Even though most systems can be taught in 3-4 years and then an understanding (knowledge) is reached.

After that it is experience and refinement to reach skill. 

There is no woo-woo as you put it. This is a process found in many walks of life not just Martial Arts. The more experience you have, the more things you have come across and dealt with.

By the way, how long have you been studying Martial arts?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 10, 2017)

Finlay said:


> What nonsense?
> 
> I asked to define what 'learn' means
> 
> ...


But he's an instant expert. Can't you tell?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> 30 - 40 years?
> 
> I hate how people fetishize the mystical woo-woo. It doesn't take decades to learn a martial art. It simply doesn't.


Define “learn a martial art”.

Here may be the core disagreement. If I want to teach someone the core techniques and tactics to some competence, that will take probably 3 years-ish if they are reasonably fit and spend 3-5 hours per week. For them to learn all of the techniques to competence, add at least 3 more years. For them to have a real grasp of the concepts so they aren’t dependent upon the techniques, maybe 3 more. Deep comprehension and something approaching mastery of the principles? Many more years.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 10, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> My narrative?
> 
> The 10 Precepts of Karate was written to convince Japanese school educators to allow karate to be taught to the students. The idea was that they would learn in a few years, and then teach the younger kids, until eventually every Japanese kid knew karate.
> 
> ...


Except that what Itosu wanted to teach kids wasn't really karate.

Itosu was inspired by the tendency in British public schools to drill school children in marching. Hence the line drills of endless kihon techniques that characterised Shotokan.

The point was to make the youth fit and obedient for military service and give them a basic template in karare so that those interested could seek out a master for proper instruction in the art later.

So 4 years of basic training to prepare you to learn the art in a program emphasising fitness strength coordination and obedience.
Meanwhile the first Goju ryu students had to spend 10 years on Sanchin kata before learning anything else.

I actually agree with your core premise, learning self defence shouldn't require you to be old before you can use the art. But your not really going to find much supporting evidence in antiquity. There is some, but not a lot.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> This is tiring. In my previous thread, I had lamented the fact that bullshido fetishizers believe it takes decades to learn a martial art. I believe a person can become perfectly knowledgeable in karate in a few years and I've always believed this.



Well good for you, that's your thoughts so you can allow others theirs. You are also generalising as 'karate' is a generic word, there's quite a few different styles which varying syllabuses, there's also different instructors who may teach more than others or less than others so really apart from your attraction to the word fetish, which is a bit worrying you aren't saying very much. It depends on how long a student has to train, a young person with plenty of money and lots of time can train for hours everyday, an older person with a job and family may only be able to take an hour or so a week to train which might not happen if other things crop up. So many variables, so many different people and situations make your post invalid. That you don't like people disagreeing with you means I think you have a tendency to fetishise posting on this site.



DaveB said:


> Itosu was inspired by the tendency in British public schools to drill school children in marching.



Public schools being the very expensive private schools for rich kids here.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, I don't subscribe to this nonsense. Sorry. There's nothing magical abour karate; it's a system of fighting that can be mastered in several years.



Ok here is a mate of mine Guy Thrupp. Took him 19 years to win a title.

National title is 19 years in the making


----------



## DaveB (Oct 10, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> No. I wanted discussion and I was met with passive aggeessive snarkiness. And then some guy accused me of having a "narrative" for not adhering to his convoluted reading of what I had posted.


Because there is nothing convoluted about understanding what is actually being said.

If you train something every day for 4 years you are putting far more hours in than most hobbyists do over the same period.

That's not rocket science...

And yes, you have a narrative. "Karate doesn't take that long to learn, because I and Itosu said so".


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Well, I don't subscribe to this nonsense. Sorry. There's nothing magical abour karate; it's a system of fighting that can be mastered in several years.


yes i agree, people are using what,seems,a,very variable defintion of "" MASTERED".

the 30to 40 years level that some are,claiming is clearly a made up number based on nothing at all.

karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such. Most of them have won their medal and been retired for a,decade or two. Any one want to claim that a 50 year old gymnast is better than a 20 year old gymnast, if so, show me one in an Olympic team


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes i agree, people are using what,seems,a,very variable defintion of "" MASTERED".
> 
> the 30to 40 years level that some are,claiming is clearly a made up number based on nothing at all.
> 
> karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such. Most of them have won their medal and been retired for a,decade or two. Any one want to claim that a 50 year old gymnast is better than a 20 year old gymnast, if so, show me one in an Olympic team


Part of the problem is - as you rightly pointed out - the variability in the usage/definition of “master”. Some argue (based on their definition) that it is unattainable. Others, that it takes decades. And so forth. I suspect that you and I use different (but not terribly different) definitions, based on the years you suggest.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> Any one want to claim that a 50 year old gymnast is better than a 20 year old gymnast, if so, show me one in an Olympic team


This is a different issue. Some folks define mastery as a level of understanding, rather than physical competence. In that view, the 50-year-old coach probably has better mastery of the concepts than the 17-year-old medalist. 

You also have to account for hours, rather than years. It may take a hobbyist at MA decades @ 3-5 hrs/wk) to achieve the mastery a dedicated athlete gains in a few years (@ 20-40+ hrs/wk).


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is a different issue. Some folks define mastery as a level of understanding, rather than physical competence. In that view, the 50-year-old coach probably has better mastery of the concepts than the 17-year-old medalist.
> 
> You also have to account for hours, rather than years. It may take a hobbyist at MA decades @ 3-5 hrs/wk) to achieve the mastery a dedicated athlete gains in a few years (@ 20-40+ hrs/wk).



well then at that point it splits,  between karate as a fighting system and karate as an art form, you don't really need to " understand it to do it to a good standard, you just need the physical atributes AND the motor patterns just as you do with any other athletic activerty. To set it apart is a false hood.

after that you are getting into the zen( woo) element of enlightenment  . And I'm not opposed to that as a concept or as a good thing to achieve, it has little to do with karate as a fighting system which is the point the op is making.

if could just as easily be flower arranging they are doing to reach a higher state of consciousness, !


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> well then at that point it splits,  between karate as a fighting system and karate as an art form, you don't really need to " understand it to do it to a good standard, you just need the physical atributes AND the motor patterns just as you do with any other athletic activerty. To set it apart is a false hood.
> 
> after that you are getting into the zen( woo) element of enlightenment  . And I'm not opposed to that as a concept or as a good thing to achieve, it has little to do with karate as a fighting system which is the point the op is making.
> 
> if could just as easily be flower arranging they are doing to reach a higher state of consciousness, !


I think that is precisely the difference.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes i agree, people are using what,seems,a,very variable defintion of "" MASTERED".
> 
> the 30to 40 years level that some are,claiming is clearly a made up number based on nothing at all.
> 
> karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such. Most of them have won their medal and been retired for a,decade or two. Any one want to claim that a 50 year old gymnast is better than a 20 year old gymnast, if so, show me one in an Olympic team



Again though, the professional sports person spends hundreds of hours a month in training. 

The main reason for all the style vs style nonsense in this forum is this endless comparison between those training in a pro or semi pro capacity vs those training in a more casual manner.

Karate does not have any kind of professionalised training model that is geared towards fighting alone. Yes I'm sure there are a few kyokushin teachers out there who are the exception, but they probably took decades to get to that place where they could devote themselves. All the others who are that dedicated in my experience spend more time mastering the ephemera of technique rather than just fighting.

Ultimately the comparison between what pro sportsmen do and what your average martial artist does is one of apple's and oranges: both fruit but still different things.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> well then at that point it splits,  between karate as a fighting system and karate as an art form, you don't really need to " understand it to do it to a good standard, you just need the physical atributes AND the motor patterns just as you do with any other athletic activerty. To set it apart is a false hood.
> 
> after that you are getting into the zen( woo) element of enlightenment  . And I'm not opposed to that as a concept or as a good thing to achieve, it has little to do with karate as a fighting system which is the point the op is making.
> 
> if could just as easily be flower arranging they are doing to reach a higher state of consciousness, !



This is the distinction between Karate Jitsu, and Karate Do. It is also the reason that the two concepts were NEVER supposed to be separated. 

Karate Jitsu is the mastery of the skill; essentially learning the moves and learning to hit with them. But the Hard work that the Jitsu required built the perseverance and strength of will that characterised Karate Do. Overcoming the fear of being hit and then the pain, keeping focus and finding space to make a decisive blow... All the traits of Do flow from practice of Jitsu. 

Once one has mastered the fighting side the mind needs something else to keep it occupied and so the fighter becomes the philosopher.


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Again though, the professional sports person spends hundreds of hours a month in training.
> 
> The main reason for all the style vs style nonsense in this forum is this endless comparison between those training in a pro or semi pro capacity vs those training in a more casual manner.
> 
> ...


there are plenty of talented armature sportsmen who complete at a good level, that don't Put in more than a few hours a week practise, the same point remains that the mechanics of karate are not any harder to learn, than a lot of other sports.
the techniques Are fighting techniques, if they are not that then its not anything but dance class


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> there are plenty of talented armature sportsmen who complete at a good level




I didn't know you could play with armatures, that's a shocking piece of news, I shall have to uncoil myself now and find a magnet to play with, well if I have the energy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> there are plenty of talented armature sportsmen who complete at a good level, that don't Put in more than a few hours a week practise, the same point remains that the mechanics of karate are not any harder to learn, than a lot of other sports.
> the techniques Are fighting techniques, if they are not that then its not anything but dance class


I'll just take golfers as an example. Most of the ones I've known who were any good had either played for 20 years, or had dedicated some real time to practice for a few years (at least 4 hours a week, plus playing time). There were a few who were exceptional, and came by competency fairly easily by practicing a few hours a month for a few years (hobbyist hours in MA). I don't think that's all that different from MA. Again, if we distilled any given system to the 10 most reliable methods/techniques, and drilled those, we could speed up the process by reducing the amount of material being learned. There are some advantages to learning more tools, and some of those advantages do apply to fighting/defense, but it is possible to become competent without that wide of a range.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You've caught onto that, have you?


Even a dumb old blind guy who can't read would have caught it by now, Gerry. LOL!


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'll just take golfers as an example. Most of the ones I've known who were any good had either played for 20 years, or had dedicated some real time to practice for a few years (at least 4 hours a week, plus playing time). There were a few who were exceptional, and came by competency fairly easily by practicing a few hours a month for a few years (hobbyist hours in MA). I don't think that's all that different from MA. Again, if we distilled any given system to the 10 most reliable methods/techniques, and drilled those, we could speed up the process by reducing the amount of material being learned. There are some advantages to learning more tools, and some of those advantages do apply to fighting/defense, but it is possible to become competent without that wide of a range.


golf isn't a good comparisons, it depends on becoming competent a only two techniques, one) hitting it a long way( in the required direction) two) rolling it in a hole, .  You can learn everything you need in an hour, after that its all to-do with how well you can do those things, i could play golf passerbly first time I picked up a club , i was eight


----------



## JP3 (Oct 10, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> In the original quote, it says to "understand" karate, it takes about 3-4 years.  On average, it takes a student that long to reach blackbelt.  In many schools, the blackbelt does NOT represent expertise, but that you are ready to start learning.  Itosu's quote would be very much in line with that thought.


I think that's where this is going to get settled, in finding a generalized understanding of the word, "Understanding."

Oftentimes, we refer in the Tomiki aikido, that our shodan is akin to a high school diploma, indicating understanding of basics, and a readiness to go on.  And that's it.  So, if this constitutes "understanding," that fits right in as you say.

However, if "Understanding" is meant int he "I know exactly how all this stuff works and I can pull it out of my butt to whup 5, 10 guys in near any situation at will..."  That does not fit, and I sort of get the impression that's what is ... desired to be put in place? Of course, I've read things wrong before and will again.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Define “learn a martial art”.
> 
> Here may be the core disagreement. If I want to teach someone the core techniques and tactics to some competence, that will take probably 3 years-ish if they are reasonably fit and spend 3-5 hours per week. For them to learn all of the techniques to competence, add at least 3 more years. For them to have a real grasp of the concepts so they aren’t dependent upon the techniques, maybe 3 more. Deep comprehension and something approaching mastery of the principles? Many more years.


It's like I've got a clone out east.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 10, 2017)

JP3 said:


> I think that's where this is going to get settled, in finding a generalized understanding of the word, "Understanding."
> 
> Oftentimes, we refer in the Tomiki aikido, that our shodan is akin to a high school diploma, indicating understanding of basics, and a readiness to go on.  And that's it.  So, if this constitutes "understanding," that fits right in as you say.
> 
> However, if "Understanding" is meant int he "I know exactly how all this stuff works and I can pull it out of my butt to whup 5, 10 guys in near any situation at will..."  That does not fit, and I sort of get the impression that's what is ... desired to be put in place? Of course, I've read things wrong before and will again.


The issue is that it's an argument about what *other people* meant by understanding(/expert). You can argue till the cows come home, but unless you build a time machine to get clarification, or find somewhere that they did clarify, our interpretation of understanding means diddly squat to their quotes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> golf isn't a good comparisons, it depends on becoming competent a only two techniques, one) hitting it a long way( in the required direction) two) rolling it in a hole, .  You can learn everything you need in an hour, after that its all to-do with how well you can do those things, i could play golf passerbly first time I picked up a club , i was eight


That's back to exceptions. Most people can't shoot under 100, even after playing many years.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 10, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Because there is nothing convoluted about understanding what is actually being said.
> 
> If you train something every day for 4 years you are putting far more hours in than most hobbyists do over the same period.
> 
> ...


Would it be a "narrative?" or is it an "agenda?"

Gerry?  Definitional analysis please? Help from Webster's Latest New International Dictionary of Awesomeness?

Man... I'm just playing... this thread is, if taken with a step back and a smile on your face... Hilarious!

And I score Tez at 2, opposition nil, with one wave-off.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes i agree, people are using what,seems,a,very variable defintion of "" MASTERED".
> 
> the 30to 40 years level that some are,claiming is clearly a made up number based on nothing at all.
> 
> karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such. Most of them have won their medal and been retired for a,decade or two. Any one want to claim that a 50 year old gymnast is better than a 20 year old gymnast, if so, show me one in an Olympic team


Jobo.... that doesn't take into account that most competitively successful gymnasts... since you brought up gymnasts... start out taking gymnastics around age 3, at the latest 5 or 6, and train pretty much on a 3 to 4 times weekly for periods starting out for 1 hour for the wee ones, up to 3 hours per practice for kids less than 12 years old when they relly show promise.  Just count up those hours. And yes, by the time they get to the Olympics or whatever, there's the 10,000 practice hours.  Divers, same thing. Wrestlers, same thing. Basketball players, same thing. Soccer, same thing. Tennis, same thing.


Mastery takes a long, long time.  Maybe a better way to get to what's trying to be said, is the word "Proficiency."

I know I can train someone to be proficient in fighting in 2.5 to 5 years, because I've don that a few times. Some folks do learn faster, as they are able to either takin in formation and process it a bit faster, or they are more athletically gifted so they actually require a bit less time to get skills down.

Proficiency in 3, 4 years. I'll buy that any day.

Mastery?  There's another definition problem, but for me mastery is just that, I've got it mastered and there is very little left remaining for inquiry and now all that is really left is teaching, illustration and translation... to me that's the 30-40 years thing.

Put it this way.  We can learn to beat people up in a year in an MMA gym.  Sure, seen it done.  Specific trained responses, tactics, tools.  I don't know if that 1-year MMA guy is proficient enough to handle someone of like size and strength who has been doing it for 3 years, and again that person against someone who has been doing it for 5.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 10, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> The issue is that it's an argument about what *other people* meant by understanding(/expert). You can argue till the cows come home, but unless you build a time machine to get clarification, or find somewhere that they did clarify, our interpretation of understanding means diddly squat to their quotes.


@gpseymour, it's scaring me how often I've been clicking "like" or "agree" on your posts, or logging on to notifications of you doing the same lately. People might think one of us took over the others account...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 10, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> @gpseymour, it's scaring me how often I've been clicking "like" or "agree" on your posts, or logging on to notifications of you doing the same lately. People might think one of us took over the others account...


It's okay, KD. We'll find something to disagree about. Use a vague term or something - I can argue about that for pages!


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such.


There is a fundamental difference between those sports and a martial art like Karate, especially when it comes to self defence.  The dynamic between attacker and defender is far more complex than that between two Tennis players and a gymnast and the gym equipment. There are far less ways a tennis match can play out than there are a fight between two people, and the stakes are much higher.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's back to exceptions. Most people can't shoot under 100, even after playing many years.


that's because they haven't managed to perform the two techneque  well enough to do so, but a 100 is an made up standard that you have imposed to separate the wheat from the,chaff, , any one can learn golf in an hour, what score they achieve is a,separate issue


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> There is a fundamental difference between those sports and a martial art like Karate, especially when it comes to self defence.  The dynamic between attacker and defender is far more complex than that between two Tennis players and a gymnast and the gym equipment. There are far less ways a tennis match can play out than there are a fight between two people, and the stakes are much higher.


well no, tennis is at the very least as complicated movement pattern wise as karate, gymnastics considerable more so, landing on your head when doing a,triple flip back dismount has quite high consequences as does,smashing your teeth in on the isometric  bars, and i cant even think,about the pain from messing up the pommel horse


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Jobo.... that doesn't take into account that most competitively successful gymnasts... since you brought up gymnasts... start out taking gymnastics around age 3, at the latest 5 or 6, and train pretty much on a 3 to 4 times weekly for periods starting out for 1 hour for the wee ones, up to 3 hours per practice for kids less than 12 years old when they relly show promise.  Just count up those hours. And yes, by the time they get to the Olympics or whatever, there's the 10,000 practice hours.  Divers, same thing. Wrestlers, same thing. Basketball players, same thing. Soccer, same thing. Tennis, same thing.
> 
> 
> Mastery takes a long, long time.  Maybe a better way to get to what's trying to be said, is the word "Proficiency."
> ...



the post i was replying to said , it takes 30 to 40 YEARS to master karate, nothing about 10, 000 hours, which in its self is just a made up number you can't support with data,.

if the YEARS thing was true then the Olympic would be full of 46 year old gymnast, and it isn't.

if you want to establish the 10, 000 hour thing as a fact, then post up some FACTS to support it


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> well no, tennis is at the very least as complicated movement pattern wise as karate, gymnastics considerable more so, landing on your head when doing a,triple flip back dismount has quite high consequences as does,smashing your teeth in on the isometric  bars, and i cant even think,about the pain from messing up the pommel horse


The difference is that no other gymnasts are actively trying smash you in the face with the gym equipment.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> The difference is that no other gymnasts are actively trying smash you in the face with the gym equipment.


Il think you find that gravity is ACTIVELY trying to smash you in the the floor, or what ever piece of gym equipment is between you and the floor


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> Il think you find that gravity is ACTIVELY trying to smash you in the the floor, or what ever piece of gym equipment is between you and the floor


Gravity ia a common variable in either scenario.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> Gravity ia a common variable in either scenario.


well one) gravity isn't variable, its something of a constant, certainly if you are in the same country,,, ,two) you cannot by defintion have a common variable, if it's variable its not common and if its common its not a variable, three), the Kinect energy  , of hitting the ground at speed is much greater than can be inflicted by a punch, unless the the one doing the punches are themselves falling from a height at speed


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> well one) gravity isn't variable, its something of a constant, certainly if you are in the same country,,, ,two) you cannot by defintion have a common variable, if it's variable its not common and if its common its not a variable, three), the Kinect energy  , of hitting the ground at speed is much greater than can be inflicted by a punch, unless the the one doing the punches are themselves falling from a height at speed


One) 
The gravitational force between two objects varies as the masses of the two objects and the distance between them varies. It is only the acceleration due to gravity that is constant for objects on the surface of the Earth, not gravity as a whole.

Two)
The definition of 'variable' means 'something that varies', it has nothing to do with how common it is. Something can vary in two different situations, i.e.
y = ax 
and
y = bx
Where 'x' is the 'common' variable.
And I think the word you were looking for is 'constant', which is not variable by definition.

Three)
In both cases there is someone falling to the ground with the same kinetic energy (all other things being equal), however, in the case of the gymnast they have not been punched in the head first. A lot of people who die from hitting their head on the ground during a fight or an attack usually die because they were unconscious from the punch and don't have any control of how they fall.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> One)
> The gravitational force between two objects varies as the masses of the two objects and the distance between them varies. It is only the acceleration due to gravity that is constant for objects on the surface of the Earth, not gravity as a whole.
> 
> Two)
> fall.



no it doesn't,, the gravity experienced by any object falling to earth is the same irrespective of the mass of the object

if your saying that gravitational pull is less on mars your correct, but as nether our gymnast or our karate man is on mars, it seem slightly leftfield

And the acceleration due to gravity. Varies by air restance, so not at all a constant


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> no it doesn't,, the gravity experienced by any object falling to earth is the same irrespective of the mass of the object



No, the ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY (g) is a constant regardless of mass. 

F = GmM/r2

Where M = the mass of the Earth
m =  the mass of the person.



jobo said:


> if your saying that gravitational pull is less on mars your correct, but as nether our gymnast or our karate man is on mars, it seem slightly leftfield



Both the karate man and the gymnast would still experience the same acceleration due to gravity if they were both on mars.



jobo said:


> And the acceleration due to gravity. Varies by air restance, so not at all a constant



No, the acceleration due to gravity is constant regardless of air resistance or other forces. It is only the resultant force that is different. The only way to change the value of g is to change the mass of the Earth.

Free Fall and Air Resistance


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> No, the ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY (g) is a constant regardless of mass.
> 
> F = GmM/r2
> 
> ...


clearly not, if i drop a feather and a hammer the feather will not accelerate at the same rate as the hammer, ergo the rate of acceleration due to gravity is NOT a constant,


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> clearly not, if i drop a feather and a hammer the feather will not accelerate at the same rate as the hammer, ergo the rate of acceleration due to gravity is NOT a constant,


Drop them both in a vacuum and they will accelerate at the same rate:






Feather drop, hammer drop, mike drop.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> Drop them both in a vacuum and they will accelerate at the same rate:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes but the very defintion of a constant is it applies everywhere on every occasion, as it doesnt apply to feathers on earth, which is where we live, except for in a vacuum chamber, then it clearly is not a constant


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes but the very defintion of a constant is it applies everywhere on every occasion, as it doesnt apply to feathers on earth, which is where we live, except for in a vacuum chamber, then it clearly is not a constant



Yeah but you are technically applying another force.

So two tennis balls of the same size drop at different rates if I catch one.

And why physics conversions get silly.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you are technically applying another force.
> 
> So two tennis balls of the same size drop at different rates if I catch one.
> 
> And why physics conversions get silly.


and if another force affects it its not a constant, constants have to be eer constant to be a constant


----------



## drop bear (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> and if another force affects it its not a constant, constants have to be eer constant to be a constant



So there are no constants.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's because they haven't managed to perform the two techneque  well enough to do so, but a 100 is an made up standard that you have imposed to separate the wheat from the,chaff, , any one can learn golf in an hour, what score they achieve is a,separate issue


That’s like saying “learning to punch” doesn’t include the punch actually working, and “learning to fight” just means you can perform the movements, even if they don’t do what they are supposed to.


----------



## DaveB (Oct 11, 2017)

I can't believe Jobo is trying to argue science again.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Oct 11, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I can't believe Jobo is trying to argue science again.


He gets people to respond, which is his goal considering he's a troll.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That’s like saying “learning to punch” doesn’t include the punch actually working, and “learning to fight” just means you can perform the movements, even if they don’t do what they are supposed to.


as long as the ball ends up in the hole , then they have achieved what they were supposed to, i told you it was a poor comparison, golf is the only sport were you get infinite goes at hitting the target, well at least until it gets dark


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So there are no constants.


yes PI is a constant


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> as long as the ball ends up in the hole , then they have achieved what they were supposed to, i told you it was a poor comparison, golf is the only sport were you get infinite goes at hitting the target, well at least until it gets dark


No, that’s not playing golf - that’s just hitting a ball in the air. And hitting into the air isn’t a requirement. Making it go where you want is an important factor. Just like a punch, in that.


----------



## jobo (Oct 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> No, that’s not playing golf - that’s just hitting a ball in the air. And hitting into the air isn’t a requirement. Making it go where you want is an important factor. Just like a punch, in that.


no the only purpose of golf is to get the ball in to a hole in the ground, that is all you need to do to be,successful, there are no limit to the number of goes you can have or the amount of time you can spend doing it. Apart from the course may close for the night, so in that frame you could spend 16hours and many thousands of hits, complete the eighteen holes and have succesfully reached the objective of the game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> no the only purpose of golf is to get the ball in to a hole in the ground, that is all you need to do to be,successful, there are no limit to the number of goes you can have or the amount of time you can spend doing it. Apart from the course may close for the night, so in that frame you could spend 16hours and many thousands of hits, complete the eighteen holes and have succesfully reached the objective of the game.


That’s specious reasoning, at best. There is a measure built into the game (par). What you are saying is like saying lasting the whole fight is the goal, even if you are badly beaten and never land a single blow.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 12, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I can't believe Jobo is trying to argue science again.


And with someone with a physics degree.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes PI is a constant


So is 'g'.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes but the very defintion of a constant is it applies everywhere on every occasion, as it doesnt apply to feathers on earth, which is where we live, except for in a vacuum chamber, then it clearly is not a constant


"yes but the very defintion of a constant is it applies everywhere on every occasion, as it doesnt apply to feathers on earth, which is where we live, except for in a vacuum chamber, then it clearly is not a constant"

No, that would be a Universal constant like 'c ( the speed of light in a vacuum)' and 'G" (the Universal gravitational constant). The acceleration due to gravity (g) is a constant in a given location and distance from the center of mass of the larger object..


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That’s specious reasoning, at best. There is a measure built into the game (par). What you are saying is like saying lasting the whole fight is the goal, even if you are badly beaten and never land a single blow.


no I'm saying that golf is not a good comparison with karate for the reasons i gave given


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> no I'm saying that golf is not a good comparison with karate for the reasons i gave given


But tennis and gymnastics are?


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> But tennis and gymnastics are?


yes and football, soccer and rugby, but not ten pin bowling or darts or golf


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> no I'm saying that golf is not a good comparison with karate for the reasons i gave given


And I'm saying your reasons are not inherent to golf. There are some good reasons to say it's not a great analogy (I never really compared it to Karate), but those are not among them, IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes and football, soccer and rugby, but not ten pin bowling or darts or golf


So, if we took your reasoning to soccer, the point of soccer is to get the ball in the goal eventually. If that ever happens, that's a success. Yet ten pin bowling, it seems by your classification, has no measurement of success, so if the ball makes it to the other end (whether it hits pins or not), you've done your job.


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, if we took your reasoning to soccer, the point of soccer is to get the ball in the goal eventually. If that ever happens, that's a success. Yet ten pin bowling, it seems by your classification, has no measurement of success, so if the ball makes it to the other end (whether it hits pins or not), you've done your job.


the issue is the complexity of the movement patterns, of which golf has very few and ten pin even less, the other was just was golf doesn't really count as a,sport, , as apart from finishing the,course in as long as you want in as many hits as you want it has no measure of success, ten pin as you point out does, its just not complicated enough to be compared to karate


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> the issue is the complexity of the movement patterns, of which golf has very few and ten pin even less, the other was just was golf doesn't really count as a,sport, , as apart from finishing the,course in as long as you want in as many hits as you want it has no measure of success, ten pin as you point out does, its just not complicated enough to be compared to karate


And that is a valid reason to exclude ten-pin. Your reasons for excluding golf, however, remain specious. We'd have to define "sport" to determine if golf qualifies or not (most folks would likely say "yes").  

The factors are different, but the fact remains that very few people manage to develop a good, repeatable golf swing without a lot of practice. That was the original point. And you knew that.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is a valid reason to exclude ten-pin. Your reasons for excluding golf, however, remain specious. We'd have to define "sport" to determine if golf qualifies or not (most folks would likely say "yes").
> 
> The factors are different, but the fact remains that very few people manage to develop a good, repeatable golf swing without a lot of practice. That was the original point. And you knew that.


Golf and bowling don’t have a resisting opponent.  The others do.

Did I just get into Jobo’s mind?

Kmart sucks.

Now I’m out.


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is a valid reason to exclude ten-pin. Your reasons for excluding golf, however, remain specious. We'd have to define "sport" to determine if golf qualifies or not (most folks would likely say "yes").
> 
> The factors are different, but the fact remains that very few people manage to develop a good, repeatable golf swing without a lot of practice. That was the original point. And you knew that.


no the original point made by me, that you took issue with is golf doesn't have sufficiently complicated patterns to be comparable with karate, how long it takes you to get good at ONE movement doesn't change that. 

people like to conflate games of skill with sports, snooker is a game, so is darts and as golf is no more athletic than either of those it would seem to fall in to the same cat,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Golf and bowling don’t have a resisting opponent.  The others do.
> 
> Did I just get into Jobo’s mind?
> 
> ...


Agreed. That's actually why I chose golf. He missed the point, entirely.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> no the original point made by me, that you took issue with is golf doesn't have sufficiently complicated patterns to be comparable with karate, how long it takes you to get good at ONE movement doesn't change that.
> 
> people like to conflate games of skill with sports, snooker is a game, so is darts and as golf is no more athletic than either of those it would seem to fall in to the same cat,


Again, I never compared it to Karate - you did.

And the lesser complexity of patterns is precisely the point. People take years to get good at golf, assuming they put in at least the hours a martial arts hobbyist would, in spite of the lack of a resisting opponent and the simpler overall approach. The swing is significantly more difficult than a punch to get good at (make the ball go where you intend), perhaps a bit more difficult than basic kicks, certainly less difficult than some kicks, though it requires more precision (lower fault tolerance).


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Golf and bowling don’t have a resisting opponent



WHAT! You mean we've been doing wrong all these years? See, that's what you get when you do things outside the dojo with your students. Every thing is a fight!


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Again, I never compared it to Karate - you did.
> 
> And the lesser complexity of patterns is precisely the point. People take years to get good at golf, assuming they put in at least the hours a martial arts hobbyist would, in spite of the lack of a resisting opponent and the simpler overall approach. The swing is significantly more difficult than a punch to get good at (make the ball go where you intend), perhaps a bit more difficult than basic kicks, certainly less difficult than some kicks, though it requires more precision (lower fault tolerance).


np i didn't you threw it in there as a comparison to how long it takes to learn to karate and i said it wasn't a good comparison

define get good at?  Hitting it a hundred yards or so in the right direction is not at all difficult, anyone with reasonable hand eye co ordination should be able to do that in well under an hour, stopping it on a green is a bit more tricky, then master the  put,to get down in three, let's say 3hours all in and you can play,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> np i didn't you threw it in there as a comparison to how long it takes to learn to karate and i said it wasn't a good comparison
> 
> define get good at?  Hitting it a hundred yards or so in the right direction is not at all difficult, anyone with reasonable hand eye co ordination should be able to do that in well under an hour, stopping it on a green is a bit more tricky, then master the  put,to get down in three, let's say 3hours all in and you can play,


That's akin to having someone punch a bag. Easy to get good at. Harder to hit a moving target. Even harder to hit someone who's blocking. Even harder to hit someone hitting back. Golf is more than just hitting a ball 100 yards. Most people can't hit a distance shot with any sort of accuracy at all. Most can't hit onto a green reliably from 150 yards out (some not even from 100 yards out). Most struggle getting out of sand, hitting under obstacles, using abbreviated swings, hitting into or across the wind, hitting over obstacles, hitting to greens they can't see, playing over water, judging distances, controlling their distance, picking a reasonable approach to a given hole, putting anything that's not straight and level, hitting a knock-down shot, etc. There are far more variables than your statement implies, hence my comment about most people not being able to break 100 (not an artificial measuring point I made up - a comment made by Harvey Penick, IIRC).


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's akin to having someone punch a bag. Easy to get good at. Harder to hit a moving target. Even harder to hit someone who's blocking. Even harder to hit someone hitting back. Golf is more than just hitting a ball 100 yards. Most people can't hit a distance shot with any sort of accuracy at all. Most can't hit onto a green reliably from 150 yards out (some not even from 100 yards out). Most struggle getting out of sand, hitting under obstacles, using abbreviated swings, hitting into or across the wind, hitting over obstacles, hitting to greens they can't see, playing over water, judging distances, controlling their distance, picking a reasonable approach to a given hole, putting anything that's not straight and level, hitting a knock-down shot, etc. There are far more variables than your statement implies, hence my comment about most people not being able to break 100 (not an artificial measuring point I made up - a comment made by Harvey Penick, IIRC).


????????, there,arnt ANY moving targets in golf, that one of the main reasons its so easy to learn,


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> ????????, there,arnt ANY moving targets in golf, that one of the main reasons its so easy to learn,



There are moving targets. Seagulls, rabbits, squirrels, other golfers................


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> There are moving targets. Seagulls, rabbits, squirrels, other golfers................


there not actually targets, more collateral damage


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> there not actually targets


Depends on the golfer's mood.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> ????????, there,arnt ANY moving targets in golf



Yes, that's what I said.



> that one of the main reasons its so easy to learn,



And yet for most people, it isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> There are moving targets. Seagulls, rabbits, squirrels, other golfers................


You've seen me play, then?


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 12, 2017)

The trees usually come out of nowhere when I play.  I swear, a huge tree moved a good 20 yards onto the fairway once or twice.

And the water constantly moves too.


----------



## jobo (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, that's what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet for most people, it isn't.


well it is, there are old fat men who can hardly walk playing it,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> well it is, there are old fat men who can hardly walk playing it,


Yes, and many doing so badly. Just because someone does something, that doesn't mean they've learned to do it with any competency.

And old and fat has nothing to do with the difficulty in learning something. That kind of comment is just ignorant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> The trees usually come out of nowhere when I play.  I swear, a huge tree moved a good 20 yards onto the fairway once or twice.
> 
> And the water constantly moves too.


I was playing in Florida a few years ago, and got paired up with someone I didn't know. He was a much better golfer than me. On the second hole (about 325 yards), I landed mine in the woods on the right. He landed his nicely about 50 yards off the green right up front. I went into the woods and hit a nice shot between the trees onto the green. 

As I walked out of the woods, he said, "Man, I wish I could make shots like that out of the woods!"

I replied, "Terry, if you want to learn to play like that out of the woods, you're going to have to hit a lot more into the woods."


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and many doing so badly. Just because someone does something, that doesn't mean they've learned to do it with any competency.
> 
> And old and fat has nothing to do with the difficulty in learning something. That kind of comment is just ignorant.


but if they can hit the ball at all they have competency, they may not be at the level you have set for competency, but they have competency never the less

and old has a lot to do with the difficulty of learning,


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> and old has a lot to do with the difficulty of learning,



Speak for yourself. 10 Reasons Why You Are Never Too Late to Learn


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Speak for yourself. 10 Reasons Why You Are Never Too Late to Learn


the science that's its more difficult to learn as you age is pretty well established


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> the science that's its more difficult to learn as you age is pretty well established



However it's not impossible to learn when you get older, many people do, being 'more difficult' just means you work at it, instead of assuming you know everything.  
U3A - University of the Third Age


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> However it's not impossible to learn when you get older, many people do, being 'more difficult' just means you work at it, instead of assuming you know everything.
> U3A - University of the Third Age


i didn't say it was impossible i said it was more difficult, dependent on how old you are and what you are trying to learn a lot more difficult,  complex motor patterns are at the lot more difficult end, as you have to over write motor patterns that are all ready very well established,

for instance a 70 year old would find learning how to walk on their hands to be quite a challenge


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

RTKDCMB said:


> "yes but the very defintion of a constant is it applies everywhere on every occasion, as it doesnt apply to feathers on earth, which is where we live, except for in a vacuum chamber, then it clearly is not a constant"
> 
> No, that would be a Universal constant like 'c ( the speed of light in a vacuum)' and 'G" (the Universal gravitational constant). The acceleration due to gravity (g) is a constant in a given location and distance from the center of mass of the larger object..


i would normally do this, but seem as you are bragging about you physics degree, you should know better than use such loose terms.

the speed of light is not a constant, as light doesn't move at a constant speed, C as used in equations is the MAX theoretical speed of a sub atomic particle in a true vacuum. As space is not a  true vacuum , that is not generaly the speed at which a proton moves. It's slowed down by other particles and gravity, of which there are lots and lots,

G and g are not constants as you use them, as newton was wrong about the nature of gravity, it isn't caused by,attraction between objects with mass, it caused by,curvature in space time, which is why light( protons) which has no mass is effected by gravity, and as far as they do work, they to only work in a vacuum, which don't occur naturally

if you want to calculate gravity you need to dig out the,Einstein equations,


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> for instance a 70 year old would find learning how to walk on their hands to be quite a challenge



I know a lot of 7 year olds who find it a challenge.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I know a lot of 7 year olds who find it a challenge.


you seem to have diverted  off in to gaining physical fitness when old rather than the topic of learning complex motor patterns when older, they are both a,challenge, but in different ways for different reasons,  

i am myself trying to do both in my middle aged years, and the,fitness is easier than the,skill element, at least for me. 

I've said before my local council wouldn't let me join their football class, as i was over 50 they told me to do walking football instead, which was some what annoying as i can do a 7 min mile and can this out run at least 70% of the population


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 13, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Speak for yourself. 10 Reasons Why You Are Never Too Late to Learn



Disagree.....definitely too late to learn


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> you seem to have diverted off in to gaining physical fitness when old rather than the topic of learning complex motor patterns when older, they are both a,challenge, but in different ways for different reasons,



Try doing pole dancing and crossfit before saying that it's 'only fitness'. You generalise everything into something you think approximates what you are trying to prove, it's quite amusing watching you argue with people who do actually know what they are talking about.  



CB Jones said:


> Disagree.....definitely too late to learn



It could actually be the best time to learn, who knows? It might be when you've learnt how you actually spent your life as opposed to what you think you did.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> i would normally do this, but seem as you are bragging about you physics degree, you should know better than use such loose terms.



Oh  boy.

Wasn't bragging, merely stating a fact.



jobo said:


> the speed of light is not a constant, as light doesn't move at a constant speed, C as used in equations is the MAX theoretical speed of a sub atomic particle in a true vacuum. As space is not a  true vacuum , that is not generaly the speed at which a proton moves. It's slowed down by other particles and gravity, of which there are lots and lots,



Yes the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. It is constant for all observers everywhere. It's that relativity thing Einstein was so fond of. The speed a photon (not proton) travels depends on the medium through which it travels, but in a vacuum where there is no medium it has it's maximum value at 299 792 458 m/s which is 'c'. ALL particles with a non-zero rest mass (including the proton) cannot travel either at or faster than than 'c'.



jobo said:


> G and g are not constants as you use them, as newton was wrong about the nature of gravity, it isn't caused by,attraction between objects with mass, it caused by,curvature in space time, which is why light( protons) which has no mass is effected by gravity, and as far as they do work, they to only work in a vacuum, which don't occur naturally



Newton wasn't wrong about gravity he just had an incomplete limited explanation. Newton's explanation of gravity didn't stop working just because Einstein developed a better one. The curvature of space-time is why objects of mass are attracted to each other. Einstein's explanation is not complete either. Also 'G' is a universal constant in both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity.



jobo said:


> if you want to calculate gravity you need to dig out the,Einstein equations,



Within certain limits both Newton's and Einstein's equations produce the same results.

Oh and you can't master a martial art like Karate in just a few years.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> but if they can hit the ball at all they have competency, they may not be at the level you have set for competency, but they have competency never the less
> 
> and old has a lot to do with the difficulty of learning,


So if someone can hit a heavy bag at all, they have competency in Karate? Okay, so Karate takes about 10 minutes to learn.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> and old has a lot to do with the difficulty of learning,


Some, not a lot. And someone being old doesn't mean they learned it yesterday. I stand by my judgment of your comment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> for instance a 70 year old would find learning how to walk on their hands to be quite a challenge


Less for the reasons you cite than for others, I suspect.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Try doing pole dancing and crossfit before saying that it's 'only fitness'. You generalise everything into something you think approximates what you are trying to prove, it's quite amusing watching you argue with people who do actually know what they are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> It could actually be the best time to learn, who knows? It might be when you've learnt how you actually spent your life as opposed to what you think you did.


them old dears aren't doing anything remotely like,cross fit, and pole dancing is the wrong gender marker for me


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Some, not a lot. And someone being old doesn't mean they learned it yesterday. I stand by my judgment of your comment.


and Il stand by mine that any game that can be played by old fat men isn't a sport


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> pole dancing is the wrong gender marker for me





jobo said:


> and Il stand by mine that any game that can be played by old fat men isn't a sport



How snobbish.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> and Il stand by mine that any game that can be played by old fat men isn't a sport


And that has what to do with any of my points?


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that has what to do with any of my points?


nothing to do with your points, but a lot to do with mine


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> nothing to do with your points, but a lot to do with mine


Not really. You made no points that were specific to sports. You made points about learning difficult activities. Oh, and your comment about old, fat guys wasn't originally even about it being a sport, but about it being easy to learn. You're not even being consistent within your specious arguments any more.


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not really. You made no points that were specific to sports. You made points about learning difficult activities. Oh, and your comment about old, fat guys wasn't originally even about it being a sport, but about it being easy to learn. You're not even being consistent within your specious arguments any more.


no i definitely made a point that golf is not a,sport, i also said its easy to learn AND that its only got got three moves, hit long , hit short and put, jeez its almost darts, darts with lakes and a few trees and mostly played by fat people with asthma flat feet and a heart condition, that pay people to do the only actual exercise involved, ie carrying the clubs, or ride around in a cart so they don't have to even walk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> no i definitely made a point that golf is not a,sport, i also said its easy to learn AND that its only got got three moves, hit long , hit short and put, jeez its almost darts, darts with lakes and a few trees and mostly played by fat people with asthma flat feet and a heart condition, that pay people to do the only actual exercise involved, ie carrying the clubs, or ride around in a cart so they don't have to even walk


Yes, you made the point that golf is not a sport. But you've made no attempt to show why that distinction is pertinent (nor to define "sport", except to exclude something old guys do...interestingly, I've seen old, fat guys play soccer...just sayin').


----------



## jobo (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, you made the point that golf is not a sport. But you've made no attempt to show why that distinction is pertinent (nor to define "sport", except to exclude something old guys do...interestingly, I've seen old, fat guys play soccer...just sayin').


maybe but they don't pay young fit people to carry the ball for them.
for some unknown reason you have decided to bring golf into the,conversation as a comparator  to learning karate,?????????.

its not a good comparator as its only has three moves and its not even a proper sport, you might as well throw tiddly winks in to the mix, which is arguably a more difficult game as it has strategy


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> maybe but they don't pay young fit people to carry the ball for them.
> for some unknown reason you have decided to bring golf into the,conversation as a comparator  to learning karate,?????????.


Because it's something that takes more than a few hours to learn to a reasonable competency (contrary to your view that being able to get the ball in the air is good enough).



> its not a good comparator as its only has three moves and its not even a proper sport, you might as well throw tiddly winks in to the mix, which is arguably a more difficult game as it has strategy


Yeah, and I never compared it - you're stuck on that. And you still haven't made any cogent argument as to why only sports are relevant to what is actually a discussion of developing physical skill.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Because it's something that takes more than a few hours to learn to a reasonable competency (contrary to your view that being able to get the ball in the air is good enough).
> 
> 
> Yeah, and I never compared it - you're stuck on that. And you still haven't made any cogent argument as to why only sports are relevant to what is actually a discussion of developing physical skill.


if you are not making any comparisons between learning golf and learning karate, then why have you rattled on for post after post about learning golf, in a thread about learning karate


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> if you are not making any comparisons between learning golf and learning karate, then why have you rattled on for post after post about learning golf, in a thread about learning karate


I just answered that in the post you quoted. Maybe read it again?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I just answered that in the post you quoted. *Maybe read it again*?



He won't, chavs are never wrong.


----------



## jobo (Oct 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I just answered that in the post you quoted. Maybe read it again?


no you didn't, you just denied it,hence the follow up question,, of why you introduced the topic of golf and banged on about it for page after page


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> no you didn't, you just denied it,hence the follow up question,, of why you introduced the topic of golf and banged on about it for page after page


Actually, I didn't deny bringing up golf. Try reading it again.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I didn't deny bringing up golf. Try reading it again.


Who’s on first?


----------



## Brmty2002 (Oct 16, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Because it doesn't fit your narrative?


*Mega burn*.


----------



## Brmty2002 (Oct 16, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Who’s on first?


Whats on second. Oh, and I don't knows on third!







Dad watches this all the time. S**ts himself every time.


----------



## JP3 (Oct 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> the post i was replying to said , it takes 30 to 40 YEARS to master karate, nothing about 10, 000 hours, which in its self is just a made up number you can't support with data,.
> 
> if the YEARS thing was true then the Olympic would be full of 46 year old gymnast, and it isn't.
> 
> if you want to establish the 10, 000 hour thing as a fact, then post up some FACTS to support it


Been gone doing real world productivity for a while. Got back and noted this in the alerts.

I originally heard about the 10,000 hour thing from Bob Rea, judo 6th dan, and a M.S. in Physical Education.  It came into the public in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, in which he's talking repeatedly about studies done by Anders Ericsson.  So, I did a bit of research on it, and it appears that a lot of people just want to say that a lot (i.e. 10,000 hours, give or take) of practice isn't necessary.  I noted in passing that nearly all of the people who are trying to say the rule is B.S. are trying to sell something, give a method to shorten the time drastically.  In other words, selling shortcuts. Another way to say, selling snake oil.  You believe whatever you want, Jobo. The comment about the older gymnastic folks is off target and illogical, bodies break down.. that's a totally different physiological process.


----------



## jobo (Oct 20, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Been gone doing real world productivity for a while. Got back and noted this in the alerts.
> 
> I originally heard about the 10,000 hour thing from Bob Rea, judo 6th dan, and a M.S. in Physical Education.  It came into the public in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, in which he's talking repeatedly about studies done by Anders Ericsson.  So, I did a bit of research on it, and it appears that a lot of people just want to say that a lot (i.e. 10,000 hours, give or take) of practice isn't necessary.  I noted in passing that nearly all of the people who are trying to say the rule is B.S. are trying to sell something, give a method to shorten the time drastically.  In other words, selling shortcuts. Another way to say, selling snake oil.  You believe whatever you want, Jobo. The comment about the older gymnastic folks is off target and illogical, bodies break down.. that's a totally different physiological process.



its bogus, for a number of reasons, most especially, your failing to specify what exactly takes 10,000 hours, ie what skill, takes that amount of practise and to what level.

only a few have the genetics to be a top level sportsman, it might take a lot of practise to get there or it may not, it doesn't take,10,000 hours to learn to run, or long jump, most people have that skill cracked by the time they are 6 or so, the time spent is building fitness not motor skills, but if you haven't got the genetics, you can spend half a million hours and it will make no difference, you are not going to the Olympics .

motor skills are built and added to as you progress, there is a lot of carry over from one activerty to another, once you have developed balance reactions, hand eye/ foot co ordination and agility, then those can easily be reprogrammed, to another sport, you don't have to go back and start your 10, thousand hours again just to learn karate, all those countless hours i spent playing football as a kid count to my total,, if i can pull a fast moving foot ball out of the air, control it, dodge a,foot up studs out tackle, side step someone else and smash the ball in the back of the net, i can dodge a karate kick, side step and kick him in the knee, its super easy, to apply the already learnt motor patterns, 

i was amazed in my last class, to find i was the only one who could run backwards, how do you get to be an,adult and not learn to do that?


----------



## Mext1983 (Dec 22, 2017)

How come someone can't run backwards? This is just so easy! Step one - run backwards, that all you need to know.


----------



## Charlemagne (Dec 22, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Actually it's not.  Skills are learned by the neural growth in the brain for both muscle memory and comprehension.  The time it takes for synaptic growth is kinda set by biology and evolution.  There are no short cuts. Hours in, skills out.



Well, there is no muscle memory, but certainly the number of repetitions/trials is a major factor in learning any motor skill.  In addition, the motor learning literature is consistent that distributed practice rather than mass practice is going to lead to better retention and transfer of learning. In other words, practicing with high frequency over time, rather than bunching up practice in a short period of time.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 22, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> Well, there is no muscle memory, but certainly the number of repetitions/trials is a major factor in learning any motor skill.  In addition, the motor learning literature is consistent that distributed practice rather than mass practice is going to lead to better retention and transfer of learning. In other words, practicing with high frequency over time, rather than bunching up practice in a short period of time.


 i had to go re read the posts i was responding to. this thread is a little old.
so yeah there is no actual muscle memory within the muscle itself but the word memory usually would allude to a function of the brain.
and your 100% correct about distributed practice.  which is consistent with what the OP wrote that Itosu said  "2 hours a day of practice".  i am not sure what the number would be of repetitions but there is the law of diminishing returns that i think applies.

which BTW that bunching up of repetitions was the entire premise of "the karate kid" movie.  he did major reps in a short period of time in an attempt to match the cobra kai black belts.  kind of puts a dent in Hollywood logic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i had to go re read the posts i was responding to. this thread is a little old.
> so yeah there is no actual muscle memory within the muscle itself but the word memory usually would allude to a function of the brain.
> and your 100% correct about distributed practice.  which is consistent with what the OP wrote that Itosu said  "2 hours a day of practice".  i am not sure what the number would be of repetitions but there is the law of diminishing returns that i think applies.
> 
> which BTW that bunching up of repetitions was the entire premise of "the karate kid" movie.  he did major reps in a short period of time in an attempt to match the cobra kai black belts.  kind of puts a dent in Hollywood logic.


I'd have to dig in the research, but I don't know what it shows about the difference between distributing the reps over a few days (Karate Kid) versus many months (Cobra Kai). The 12-week fight prep they do at the gym where @drop bear trains seems to reinforce the idea of being able to compress more than most of us do, and still get good results. He and I talked through the hours, and the folks in that program compress 2-3 years (a bit less, maybe, depending how you figure it) of hobbyist training time into those 12 weeks.


----------



## jobo (Dec 22, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> Well, there is no muscle memory, but certainly the number of repetitions/trials is a major factor in learning any motor skill.  In addition, the motor learning literature is consistent that distributed practice rather than mass practice is going to lead to better retention and transfer of learning. In other words, practicing with high frequency over time, rather than bunching up practice in a short period of time.



much of this discussion has been corrupted by people insisting ma consists of fine motor skill and take up to a 10, 000 hours to lean and pass to muscle memory, the truth is that the vast majority of the vast majority of ma consist of gross motor skills, and these gross motor skills are generaly slight adaptations of gross motor skills already learnt and committed to memory. Certainly any one who has played competative sport involving hand eye,foot eye co ordination has already developed the gross motor skills that form the foundation of ma and these are already in the muscle memory.

it really shouldn't take that many reps to adapt the existing gross motor skills and commit to memory


----------



## Charlemagne (Dec 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd have to dig in the research, but I don't know what it shows about the difference between distributing the reps over a few days (Karate Kid) versus many months (Cobra Kai). The 12-week fight prep they do at the gym where @drop bear trains seems to reinforce the idea of being able to compress more than most of us do, and still get good results. He and I talked through the hours, and the folks in that program compress 2-3 years (a bit less, maybe, depending how you figure it) of hobbyist training time into those 12 weeks.



You can get good results in the short term, but not in the long term.  In the motor learning and sport psych literature it shows up pretty consistently.  Put simply, if one does a whole bunch of reps in a very short time (mass practice) then they will see a rapid rise in short term ability.  However, those abilities will not be maintained (retention of learning) and they will not be able to be expressed well in different scenarios or used in ways that are not closely related to how they were trained (transfer of learning).  Whereas if one does those same number of reps, spread over a longer time period (distributed practice) one will see better retention and transfer of those skills.  

It's akin to cramming for an exam in the few days prior rather than if one had done the same amount of studying spread out over the semester.


----------



## jobo (Dec 22, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> You can get good results in the short term, but not in the long term.  In the motor learning and sport psych literature it shows up pretty consistently.  Put simply, if one does a whole bunch of reps in a very short time (mass practice) then they will see a rapid rise in short term ability.  However, those abilities will not be maintained (retention of learning) and they will not be able to be expressed well in different scenarios or used in ways that are not closely related to how they were trained (transfer of learning).  Whereas if one does those same number of reps, spread over a longer time period (distributed practice) one will see better retention and transfer of those skills.
> 
> It's akin to cramming for an exam in the few days prior rather than if one had done the same amount of studying spread out over the semester.


you are making that lot up, the retention of muscle memory is not related to how general memory works.

i last rode a bike when i was 15, aged 48 i had no trouble at all riding a bike, that 30 years with out reps


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> You can get good results in the short term, but not in the long term.  In the motor learning and sport psych literature it shows up pretty consistently.  Put simply, if one does a whole bunch of reps in a very short time (mass practice) then they will see a rapid rise in short term ability.  However, those abilities will not be maintained (retention of learning) and they will not be able to be expressed well in different scenarios or used in ways that are not closely related to how they were trained (transfer of learning).  Whereas if one does those same number of reps, spread over a longer time period (distributed practice) one will see better retention and transfer of those skills.
> 
> It's akin to cramming for an exam in the few days prior rather than if one had done the same amount of studying spread out over the semester.


Thanks. What does the literature show about the length of distribution? Technically, the 12-week fight program is distributed learning, since they are revisiting the material over a 12-week program. Is there a significant long-term learning benefit to that same learning being less concentrated, perhaps stretched over a year or more?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd have to dig in the research, but I don't know what it shows about the difference between distributing the reps over a few days (Karate Kid) versus many months (Cobra Kai). The 12-week fight prep they do at the gym where @drop bear trains seems to reinforce the idea of being able to compress more than most of us do, and still get good results. He and I talked through the hours, and the folks in that program compress 2-3 years (a bit less, maybe, depending how you figure it) of hobbyist training time into those 12 weeks.


i think initial intensive training would be great.  as an analogy i like to say the brain has tiny micro plant root systems in the brain.  each detail of a skill is its own root system.  initial intense training would be like growing much more of these roots then average but then they need to be fed and thickened and grown.  time in training thickens the roots. time off , they wither and die.  so the challenge is to feed and grow them in size and thickness faster then they can wither and die off.  intensive training in like laying out more seed.  but they can die off quick too.
intensive training allows you to absorb more details and compound these details into a solid working model.  something that would take a really long time to do otherwise.  but you can forget it all very fast if you then dont follow up with that 2 hours a day training.

just my take on it anyway


----------



## jobo (Dec 22, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think initial intensive training would be great.  as an analogy i like to say the brain has tiny micro plant root systems in the brain.  each detail of a skill is its own root system.  initial intense training would be like growing much more of these roots then average but then they need to be fed and thickened and grown.  time in training thickens the roots. time off , they wither and die.  so the challenge is to feed and grow them in size and thickness faster then they can wither and die off.  intensive training in like laying out more seed.  but they can die off quick too.
> intensive training allows you to absorb more details and compound these details into a solid working model.  something that would take a really long time to do otherwise.  but you can forget it all very fast if you then dont follow up with that 2 hours a day training.
> 
> just my take on it anyway


the brain doesn't have a root system! Are you mixing it up with teeth?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> the brain doesn't have a root system! Are you mixing it up with teeth?


i dont even know why i bother responding to your posts.
re read my post....the key word i wrote is..... *ANALOGY.*
the definition of analogy
*noun, plural analogies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparisonmay be based:*
the analogy between the heart and a pump.
*2.
similarity or comparability:*
I see no analogy between your problem and mine.


for those who are grammatically challenged here is a photo of the brains Neural network system


----------



## jobo (Dec 22, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i dont even know why i bother responding to your posts.
> re read my post....the key word i wrote is..... *ANALOGY.*
> the definition of analogy
> *noun, plural analogies.
> ...


but there is no similarity between the brain and a root system to make an analogy out of


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> but there is no similarity between the brain and a root system to make an analogy out of


dude now your just being a troll.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 22, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> dude now your just being a troll.


You're just noticing this now?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> but there is no similarity between the brain and a root system to make an analogy out of


Except for the similarity he used in his analogy.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except for the similarity he used in his analogy.


but there are absolutely no similarities between the brain and a root system to make an analogy????? . 

just making a comparison of features that are not in anyway similar is a metaphor not an analogy


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> but there are absolutely no similarities between the brain and a root system to make an analogy????? .
> 
> just making a comparison of features that are not in anyway similar is a metaphor not an analogy


Yeah. Except for the similarity used in the analogy.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah. Except for the similarity used in the analogy.


but that "similarity" , is comparing things that are not in any way similar. If i say my TV set is like a beef burger, that not an analogy, beef burgers and tv sets share no feature similar enough to make an analogy out of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2017)

jobo said:


> but that "similarity" , is comparing things that are not in any way similar. If i say my TV set is like a beef burger, that not an analogy, beef burgers and tv sets share no feature similar enough to make an analogy out of.


A TV set can be like a beef burger, in that both can get hot. Both can smoke (if one is cooked, and the other is damaged). Both can be warm. Etc.

Just because there are no obvious similarities, that doesn't mean there aren't any available for analogies.

On top of all that, you're the only one trying to make TV:beef burger analgous to brain:root system.

Oh, and dendrites do resemble root hairs, as does the branching of neuron pathways resembles the branching of a root system. You completely ignored that similarity between brains and root system. And, of course, the similarity used in the original analogy.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'd have to dig in the research, but I don't know what it shows about the difference between distributing the reps over a few days (Karate Kid) versus many months (Cobra Kai). The 12-week fight prep they do at the gym where @drop bear trains seems to reinforce the idea of being able to compress more than most of us do, and still get good results. He and I talked through the hours, and the folks in that program compress 2-3 years (a bit less, maybe, depending how you figure it) of hobbyist training time into those 12 weeks.



In any event not being a neurologist. I would have thought the whole point of practicing is Reenforcing skills through compression.

And this spreading out idea is kind of balls.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> In any event not being a neurologist. I would have thought the whole point of practicing is Reenforcing skills through compression.
> 
> And this spreading out idea is kind of balls.


Distributed learning has a lot of very solid evidence to support it, and has for at least 3 decades. However, I’m not sure how much distribution is optimal. That’s what I was hoping someone would have better info on. The 12-week program fits the definition of distributed learning, and so does a typical hobbyist schedule. I would expect (but don’t have knowledge of evidence for it) that the 12-week schedule produces at least as much physical learning, and maybe a bit less intellectual learning.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 23, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Distributed learning has a lot of very solid evidence to support it, and has for at least 3 decades. However, I’m not sure how much distribution is optimal. That’s what I was hoping someone would have better info on. The 12-week program fits the definition of distributed learning, and so does a typical hobbyist schedule. I would expect (but don’t have knowledge of evidence for it) that the 12-week schedule produces at least as much physical learning, and maybe a bit less intellectual learning.



I would have thought that the saturation point would be pretty high.

I mean at some point you are suggesting  that practicing less becomes more beneficial.

Imagine someone was playing a musical instrument. I don't think culture reflects that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I would have thought that the saturation point would be pretty high.
> 
> I mean at some point you are suggesting  that practicing less becomes more beneficial.
> 
> Imagine someone was playing a musical instrument. I don't think culture reflects that.


It's not a matter of practicing less or practicing more, but of whether there's assimilation time between practice. At it's essence, the principle is that 6 hours of continuous practice (on new material) won't yield the same result as 6 1-hour sessions. So, if we're talking about 6 hours a week, it's better to break it up into multiple sessions than to do it all at once.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> In any event not being a neurologist. I would have thought the whole point of practicing is Reenforcing skills through compression.
> 
> And this spreading out idea is kind of balls.


Excuse me for not being fluent in Aussie, but is balls good or bad here?  Is it bollocks or the dog’s bollocks?  Quite polar opposites.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I would have thought that the saturation point would be pretty high.
> 
> I mean at some point you are suggesting  that practicing less becomes more beneficial.
> 
> Imagine someone was playing a musical instrument. I don't think culture reflects that.


this is where my plant root analogy comes in.  the reality of it is that we only are able to do ANYTHING by means of our brains.  those little fiber looking things need time to actually grow and connect to other little fibers.  so 24/7 practice is going to have that diminishing return effect.
BUT... there are several factors going on here.  first is that there is a learning curve to take in all the information.  i think this is where that intensive practice is great.  you get more time to actually learn more details and to link everything together.  more info in....  but then there is the matter of making the skills stronger and more instinctual, more reactionary.  and for this to happen you need more time.  this is where the 2 hours a day is perhaps more optimal.   so to learn a skill yeah more hours is better. but then to make it really part of you you need months of repetitions.  these fibers grow thicker and allow faster "down load speeds" more natural movement, better reaction time.  the thicker the fiber the better and there is always a degradation factor when you take days off so you dont want that either.  i should also note we are just talking skill building here. there is a lot of other things to be working on like cardio and strength.

EDIT:  also there is a point in training for many hours where your brain is just fried and is burnt out.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Excuse me for not being fluent in Aussie, but is balls good or bad here?  Is it bollocks or the dog’s bollocks?  Quite polar opposites.



Balls is bad in this case.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It's not a matter of practicing less or practicing more, but of whether there's assimilation time between practice. At it's essence, the principle is that 6 hours of continuous practice (on new material) won't yield the same result as 6 1-hour sessions. So, if we're talking about 6 hours a week, it's better to break it up into multiple sessions than to do it all at once.



When do they test that. At the end of the week? or the end of 6 hours?

Otherwise you could have 5 days to forget.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> When do they test that. At the end of the week? or the end of 6 hours?
> 
> Otherwise you could have 5 days to forget.


I'll see if I can find some study summaries for you (unless someone beats me to it). It'll take me some research, because most of my references are old, and it's time to update them.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 24, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'll see if I can find some study summaries for you (unless someone beats me to it). It'll take me some research, because most of my references are old, and it's time to update them.


This is why I enjoy being here, it forces me to do homework.
Also Google is a god send as most of my stuff is in paper book form and it's impossible to reference anything quickly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> This is why I enjoy being here, it forces me to do homework.
> Also Google is a god send as most of my stuff is in paper book form and it's impossible to reference anything quickly.


For something like this, I'll hop into a university's online library (I have access to U of Phoenix library) to search journals. Google is easier for searching, but harder for me to find what I need.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> its bogus, for a number of reasons, most especially, your failing to specify what exactly takes 10,000 hours, ie what skill, takes that amount of practise and to what level.
> 
> only a few have the genetics to be a top level sportsman, it might take a lot of practise to get there or it may not, it doesn't take,10,000 hours to learn to run, or long jump, most people have that skill cracked by the time they are 6 or so, the time spent is building fitness not motor skills, but if you haven't got the genetics, you can spend half a million hours and it will make no difference, you are not going to the Olympics .
> 
> ...



Let's take your example, Jobo.  You said, "only a few have the genetics to be a top level sportsman, it might take a lot of practise to get there or it may not, it doesn't take,10,000 hours to learn to run, or long jump, most people have that skill cracked by the time they are 6 or so, the time spent is building fitness not motor skills, but if you haven't got the genetics, you can spend half a million hours and it will make no difference, you are not going to the Olympics ."

First, what's this fascination with the Olympics?

The average child learns to walk in the range of 9 to 14 months, and to run after that up to 24 months.  Just doing math, 8 hours of waking time per day times 365 days a year = 2,920 total hours.

So, just to put things in perspective, there are 24 hours per day, let's say the child is awake and able to do whatever for 8 of those hours. Whatever = practicing walking and running while they play, follow adults, pester siblings, torture the dog (i.e. whatever). I don't know if you have kids, or nieces/nephews at that age, but they very rarely stop moving around.

So, as you say, if they've got it, meaning running "cracked," though what level of skill you mean by that missed me, by the age of 6, if you only counted from 24 months of age to 72 months (6 years old) that's an available "practice time" of 11,680 hours.

And... I agree with you, some skills do build and cross-over, as you described above with the football example cross-piollinating into sparring low kicks. the "What" the muscle group is "Doing" is very similar, so the coordination pathways have already been learned. So, good on you.  I betcha it doesn't help you much with Wushu, though.

I'm not saying that there's something magical about the 10,000 hours threshold. I'm saying that people are always wanting, well almost always, wanting the shortcut to greatness. And, here's another point, Greatness (i.e. mastery) isn't always the level of skill necessary for competence, just go ask guys who have made their living all their lives as apprentice electricians, plumbers, carpenters, pipefitters etc., and never wanted to take the test to go up the chain to journeyman, much less "Master," as that position comes with more money, but more headaches too... and there's something to be said for quality of life.

Likewise, while many, many people have the potential capacity to be very good at something or other (the game of golf is a great example) most don't have the Money with which to pay for the Time to practice to get good enough. Range balls are expensive for a hobby. But, they are comfortable with their 16 handicap, so they just continue to play their sunday round with their buddies and trade the same bet money back and forth.  A version of the same thing could be said for tennis. For billiards. FOr darts. Pick something, you'll find that the people who are really, really good have been at it for at least a decade of doing whatever on a regular, ongoing, multiple times per week basis...... 

*shrug*  If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. Just don't get frustrated with me when the magic doesn't happen in the O/P's 3 or 4 years, that's what I'm driving at.


----------



## jobo (Dec 24, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Let's take your example, Jobo.  You said, "only a few have the genetics to be a top level sportsman, it might take a lot of practise to get there or it may not, it doesn't take,10,000 hours to learn to run, or long jump, most people have that skill cracked by the time they are 6 or so, the time spent is building fitness not motor skills, but if you haven't got the genetics, you can spend half a million hours and it will make no difference, you are not going to the Olympics ."
> 
> First, what's this fascination with the Olympics?
> 
> ...



?????????????/??, if you think a three year old walks for 8 hours a day, i suggest you borrow a three year old and take he or she on an 8 hour walk , you get though 2hours tops, and half of that will be ridding on your shoulders,


----------



## JP3 (Dec 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> ?????????????/??, if you think a three year old walks for 8 hours a day, i suggest you borrow a three year old and take he or she on an 8 hour walk , you get though 2hours tops, and half of that will be ridding on your shoulders,


So, now you know my kids, too? That's cool. Very perceptive of you from across the pond, mano.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 24, 2017)

jobo said:


> ?????????????/??, if you think a three year old walks for 8 hours a day, i suggest you borrow a three year old and take he or she on an 8 hour walk , you get though 2hours tops, and half of that will be ridding on your shoulders,


So, you'd claim that walking and running and stumbling around for a total of 8 hours is the same as 8 hours of straight walking?


----------



## jobo (Dec 25, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, you'd claim that walking and running and stumbling around for a total of 8 hours is the same as 8 hours of straight walking?


no, didn't say that, you can take a few,rest stops

Ps happy Xmas to you and yours


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 25, 2017)

jobo said:


> no, didn't say that, you can take a few,rest stops
> 
> Ps happy Xmas to you and yours


Still not the same, man. Toddlers move a LOT during the course of a day - easily several hours of movement. But they don’t walk continuously for any real duration.

EDIT: And a merry Xmas to you, too, brother.


----------

