# Learn 7-17x faster with private lessons?



## Q-Man (Sep 14, 2007)

"You can learn 7x-17x times faster with private lessons."  

I've read this comment on several different Kenpo/Kempo websites.  I have not noticed it on any non-Kenpo/Kempo sites.  Can anyone tell me if this is true and how they came to the "7x-17x times faster"  part?  thanks


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 14, 2007)

Of course, it is completely false. It sounds like a clever marketing plan to separate you from your money seventeen times faster.

Let's examine with an anecdote Mr. Planas uses frequently, and is in his biography in 'The Journey', if I recall. The following is paraphrased.

_The teacher in Kenpo does about five minutes worth of work. It then takes the student five years of work to learn that lesson completely._

Let us examine this.
A Kenpo instructor, can "teach" the technique Five Swords very quickly. There are four (or five) basics that compose the technique.

A - Step back into a Right Neutral Bow
B - Execute a Right Thrusting Inward Block to the aggressors forearm
C - Execute a Right Front Ball Kick to the aggressors groin
D - Land with an Right Outward Diagonal Handsword to the aggressors neck

Fifth Basic - a positional cover with the left hand in the middle zone / or pinning check with the left hand ~ I don't think we need to redebate these choices in this thread.​The teachers work is done at this point. Now, for the student to truly "learn" the technique, he needs to execute it at least 100 times (There is a '100 Times Rule' in our studio ~ although, I think that is shy by a factor of 10). I don't think there is any methodology that allows a student to shortcut the work of burning in the technique.

Now, in a private lesson, the student may be presented with more material than he would receive in a group lesson, but that does not equate to learning that material. And in fact, I will go one step further. I think that in most private lessons, the student is presented with too much material to comprehend and internalize. So not all of that private lesson time is effective. 

No, I believe the premise is false. You can not learn seven times faster with private lessons.


----------



## Jim Hanna (Sep 14, 2007)

Q-Man said:


> "You can learn 7x-17x times faster with private lessons."
> 
> I've read this comment on several different Kenpo/Kempo websites. I have not noticed it on any non-Kenpo/Kempo sites. Can anyone tell me if this is true and how they came to the "7x-17x times faster" part? thanks


 

Well, I can't speak for the EPAK system (any variants) but I can say that that statement is true for the Tracy's curriculum.

The beauty of private lessons are that you (the student) can go at your own speed. That's one of the reasons I initially began kenpo. I was hungry and wanted to learn. I was taking TKD and had to wait for everyone to catch up in order to take a test at a predetermined date. With the private lesson philosophy (in the Tracy schools), a student tests individually when he or she is ready--and there is no belt testing fee.

If you're dedicated and practice then your progress is greatly accelerated.

Not only that, but private lessons provide an opportunity for those less talented, less dedicated students, to stay in kenpo because that student does not have to keep up with anyone.

Teaching privates is hard work. It is much more financially beneficial to teach a large group of people for an hour rather than one person.

Jim


----------



## MJS (Sep 14, 2007)

Q-Man said:


> "You can learn 7x-17x times faster with private lessons."
> 
> I've read this comment on several different Kenpo/Kempo websites. I have not noticed it on any non-Kenpo/Kempo sites. Can anyone tell me if this is true and how they came to the "7x-17x times faster" part? thanks


 
Anytime there are stats, like what you mention here, I have to wonder where those numbers come from.  As for the rest of the question...I think that private lessons are good.  Many times, especially if the group classes are large, and the student/instructor ratio isn't what it should/could be, there may be some students that suffer.

How many times should someone take one?  I take one every week in addition to my group class.  I've had private lessons set up with students weekly in addition to their classes.  It gives the student the chance to focus on something specific, and its 1 on 1.

People will certainly have different views on the subject and of course thats fine.  Again, for myself, I enjoy taking them and I suggest them to anyone that would like another chance to focus more on material.

Mike


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Sep 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> Anytime there are stats, like what you mention here, I have to wonder where those numbers come from.


 
Good point. Remember 38% of all statistics are made up 

B


----------



## KenpoDave (Sep 14, 2007)

Q-Man said:


> "You can learn 7x-17x times faster with private lessons."
> 
> I've read this comment on several different Kenpo/Kempo websites. I have not noticed it on any non-Kenpo/Kempo sites. Can anyone tell me if this is true and how they came to the "7x-17x times faster" part? thanks


 
I have always seen..."With private lessons, students can learn 7-17 times faster than with group classes alone."

"students CAN learn..."  It's not a hard and fast rule, it is a potential.  With privates, students are not held to the rate of the rest of the class.  It is good for those who are gifted, and better for those who are not.

The key, as I understand it, is to take a private each week, and attend at least two group classes each week.  I have seen students who only attend the privates fall behind, or plateau very easily.

In groups alone, it is easy to get lost in the crowd.  Instructors that I have had are not able to give the attention that individuals need, and unfortunately, before and after class, they are always teaching another class.  If not, they are taking a break and not interested in teaching at that moment.  That's why I left.

The numbers came from teaching students to a certain level with groups alone, and teaching others with a combination of privates and group.  It took students doing both privates and groups far less time to reach a similar skill level than students only taking groups.


----------



## Blindside (Sep 14, 2007)

There is no question that I learned faster with private lessons, and I continue to take them to this day.  I get to focus on my weaknesses, not the weaknesses of the group I am studying with that day.  I am free to ask all the questions that I might be too shy to ask in front of my peers.  

In my current practice I prefer to split costs of private lessons with my main training partner, he assimilates information at about the same rate as I do, but we remember different things.  When we execute the tech the instructor gets to act as a third person observer and we both get practice in execution and "feeling" the tech.  After we finish the private, we then meet again to rehash the material a couple of days later, we usually remember different things and have picked up different nuances from the lesson.

I'm pretty skeptical of claims of the numbers presented here though, great marketing tool though, I'd have far fewer reservations of a claim of 3 to 5 times.  

Lamont


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 15, 2007)

Being an Ol' Tracy guy, and we all know that's who we're talking about here, I have to say that it is easily true.  Privates, simply for dumping a large amount of information and motion training into a student's head is way far above and beyond anything a group training method can bring to the table...  

I have never done a realistic comparison, because no matter how you cut it, individuals are individuals, but I wouldn't be surprised at the numbers at all.  From my perspective of all my years of training and teaching, I find that the statement is not outlandish at all.

It is as I have said before; Think of Al Tracy what you will, but you can not deny that his business acumen is first class.  the learning faster via private lessons is a fact, and it is one that the Tracy System capitalizes on in a really fine way that, actually, ends up being a win-win situation for student and teacher alike.  I find that private lessons work even better with the use of NeuroLinguistic Programming concepts involved in the individual process.

I also suspect that people who pooh-pooh "privates" out of hand have never tried it, or have never been shown or taught how to use private lessons correctly. It seems, in my exposure to many different Kenpo schools and methodologies, that, often enough, Kenpo people spend myriad man hours arguing their way through the morass of tehnical  ups and downs (what some would call the analysis paralysis), and very little time experimenting with or learning actual teaching skills.  And that, is unfortunately, most sad for upcoming students.

For example... tons and tons of posts on these forums about technique this and technique that, "My instructor teaches it this way"... "Well, my instructor teaches it that way"... But how often do we see posts questioning or answering the best methods of teaching!?

Just imagine that, somewhere, someone has a class with the worlds' worst group class only -Kenpo Instructor, and how that instructor could be improved, and by extension, his students, with just a bit of instruction in the art of private instruction.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 15, 2007)

Sigung86 said:


> and how that instructor could be improved, and by extension, his students, with just a bit of instruction in the art of private instruction.


 
Are you teaching "teaching", or teaching kenpo? 

If your instructor were to benefit from a lesson in giving private instruction, why would there not be similiar benefit by giving the instructor a lesson in group instruction?

I am a professional trainer of adult students. And I hope that I am always on alert for new methods and techniques that allow me to present information with more clarity. (This past week, I observed a colleague training ~ and I picked up several tips from her presentation style)

But, there are two sides to education ~ the teaching side and the learning side. Improving the presentation skills on the teaching side, I believe does not directly correlate to an improvement of kenpo skills on the learning side. 

The student has to do the work.


----------



## Carol (Sep 15, 2007)

I've definitely learned a lot faster with private lessons.   

At least for my own training, my instructors work with me to make sure I understand what they are trying to teach.  Some things are easier for me to learn than others, they get it.  Then he watches what I do to see if I am performing it correctly, and he fine tunes a lot of my mystakes.  

A pet peeve that I personally have about martial arts instruction is not understanding how to do something, and then be told to just practice it.  Why must I repeat something that I know is wrong, yet I don't know how to forget?  Then all I'm doing is burning crap in to memory that I have to un-learn later.  Frankly speaking, it would be more effective for me to do pushups than to burn in bad material.  

Privates right now are pretty much the only option for me due to my current work schedule.  However, I don't see giving them up entirely even if I have a chance to return to group classes.  The one on one attention is simply more efficient, for me.


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Are you teaching "teaching", or teaching kenpo?


 
And why should what I teach make any difference?  Unless I am misunderstanding your question?  Assuming I know what you are asking in a general way I will respond by saying...  

It does not matter whether I am "teaching" or teaching Kenpo, or underwater fingerpainting, as far as that goes.  There are methods and there are procedures and there are "tricks" that work regardless of the subject.

Another way to look at your generally worded statement is that, it should not matter if I am teaching in a highly qualified university, or a low-end rental Kenpo School.  If I am teaching, even if only for fun and profit, I owe the student my very best.

Continuing on that vein, teaching is not something to take lightly.  There are those who do, and those who teach.  I know that in the past that has been used as somewhat of a putdown.  You either can, or you have to teach.  However,  looking at it from another side... Simply because you can tie  your shoes does not mean you have the general alacrity, or abilities to teach someone else to tie theirs.

Each student is individual.  Some are visually oriented, some audio oriented, some are kinesthetic.  I have no understanding of how I can put some of each in a room, teach one way only, and then insist that it is the student's responsibility to pick it all up, and get it all correctly.

Then we deal with different levels of learning ability.  Some students will be able to see it once, and have it immediately, and forever.  For instance, I had a fellow, about 12 years ago, who walked into my school.  He was a "natural"!  He had the sum total of everything under the old Tracy System from Yellow to first Black, in about a year.  

Then I had a young man I taught with learning disability and some physical impediments.  It took me six weeks, or so, of private lessons to get him standing and transitioning into and out of a Square Horse, and doing the inward and outward blocks ande reverse punch.

So, how does that work?  Was I simply an awesome instructor with one student and a numbskull with the other?  Or did I perhaps, simply, not work well with the other?  Could it have been a bit of individual learning issue with each student?  A combination of all of the above?  I, honestly, don't know, but I do know that I would have not been able to reach the student with the learning disabiity at all in a group lessons only type of environment.





> The student has to do the work.


 
And so, once we have placed our hallowed hands on the situtation, given a bit of knowledge and ensured the student can do it at some level (low or high) we are no longer responsible for them?

Actually, the teacher had better be there working with the student(s) and s/he had better be accessible by the student, or s/he "ain't" much of a teacher.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 15, 2007)

Q-Man said:


> "You can learn 7x-17x times faster with private lessons."





Jim Hanna said:


> Well, I can't speak for the EPAK system (any variants) but I can say that that statement is true for the Tracy's curriculum.



Let's suppose a student in group instruction could reach black belt in 5 years (i.e., 60 months). Then someone learning 7-17 times faster could do it in 3.5-8.5 months?


----------



## John Bishop (Sep 15, 2007)

arnisador said:


> Let's suppose a student in group instruction could reach black belt in 5 years (i.e., 60 months). Then someone learning 7-17 times faster could do it in 3.5-8.5 months?




Realistically speaking: there's a big difference in learning how to mimic techniques you've been shown, and applying those techniques in a live fashion.  
Someone could be taught kata privately, and be on a world class level, but yet not be able to fight.  
I think the place for private instruction is as a supplement to group classes.  In fact I would say there should be at least 3 hours of class instruction for every hour of private instruction.  
Techniques need to be worked in a live fashion, against opponents of various sizes, speeds, and skill levels.


----------



## LawDog (Sep 15, 2007)

Like everything else there is a proper time and place for everything, one must just find it.


----------



## KenpoDave (Sep 15, 2007)

arnisador said:


> Let's suppose a student in group instruction could reach black belt in 5 years (i.e., 60 months). Then someone learning 7-17 times faster could do it in 3.5-8.5 months?


 
Groups are typically an hour.  Privates are a half hour.

60 months of groups at 2 groups a week at 4.3 weeks a month is 516 hours of training.

That is equivalent to 1,032 private lessons.  Students in Tracy's typically reach black in about 3 years.  That is 156 private lessons.  That is 6.6 times faster.  I reached mine in a year and 10 months.  That's 11 times faster.  A student who is able to do it in a year is 19 times faster than the 5 years of groups model.  Even if we even it out to 5 years each, a student doing two groups a week is spending 4 times as much time learning than the guy doing privates.

We can play with the numbers all day long.  But the actual point is this...privates allow an instructor to work individually with a student.  He is able to load the student with more material in an individual 30 minute lesson than most people learn in a month of group classes.  What this does, and this is the kicker, is free up the group time for actual work rather than instruction.  Time spent teaching/talking/explaining is time NOT spent working out.  So we do all the teaching/talking/explaining in private lessons, and we lead group classes.  Yeah, there is some teaching.  But for the most part, the instructor knows what everyone knows because he already taught it to them privately, and customizes the class to get the most efficient use out of the time.

Here is a real scenario of just last week.  A student had tested for and received his yellow belt.  On his next private, we went through all the orange belt kicks.  Worked about 5-10 of each, just enough for him to be able to perform the kick correctly.  Then, Monday night group class focused on those kicks.  He performed at least 100 repetitions of each kick, from a variety of stances and positions.

Wednesday, same kicks with bag work.  Roughly 50 reps of each kick.  The instructor made corrections as needed, but did not have to stop and teach.

Had we needed to spend the time in group teaching those kicks from scratch, the amount of work accomplished would have been greatly diminished.  The best part is that the upper belts, the ones who knew the kicks and did not need the corrections, were able to focus on their intensity, power, speed, form, etc, and got a better physical workout than the person who the group was actually customized to.

It's a pretty cool thing.


----------



## LawDog (Sep 15, 2007)

Groups are 1 hour? Is this the time frame that is normally used on the West Coast?


----------



## Doc (Sep 16, 2007)

John Bishop said:


> Realistically speaking: there's a big difference in learning how to mimic techniques you've been shown, and applying those techniques in a live fashion.
> Someone could be taught kata privately, and be on a world class level, but yet not be able to fight.
> I think the place for private instruction is as a supplement to group classes.  In fact I would say there should be at least 3 hours of class instruction for every hour of private instruction.
> Techniques need to be worked in a live fashion, against opponents of various sizes, speeds, and skill levels.


Precisely John. Privates have always been touted as a sales tool to suppliment cash flow of the group classes. However that being said, there can be some merit to privates. In the beginning, especially when students are being taught basics with little to no interaction privates serve a significant purpose in a one-on-one environment.

However, in the teaching of physically interactive skills and mechanisms, (especially those that require subtle tactile absorbsion), my teacher always spoke of the necessity for what he called the "Three Person perspective" to fully maximize learning capability. Without the third person perspective absent in private lessons, at least a third of the learning experience is absent, and probably more.

Imagine in athletics trying to teach someone any physical contact sport. A student must not only participate in both sides of the physical equation, but he must be allowed to observe it being done correctly. Without the live third person perspective this isn't possible. The "Third Person Perspective extends itself not only to the student but the teacher as well.

I may perform an action on you to allow you to feel its effectiveness. You may perform the same on me, but I will be unable to see what is wrong and correct it because I am on the receiving end. As a teacher, I too need that third perspective in order to correct the student.

So you see without the thrid person perspective being available to all involved, there is a significant portion of the learning process ommitted, and less than optimal results is guaranteed.

I have no strict private students. My disclaimer is anyone who is desireous of privates is informed that only a third of their lessons may be private. The other two-thirds require the group experienece to be successful. For what and how I teach, strictly privates would be a straight up rip-off. You cannot learn that way. Any good "coach" will tell you that.


----------



## KenpoDave (Sep 16, 2007)

Doc said:


> Precisely John. Privates have always been touted as a sales tool to suppliment cash flow of the group classes. However that being said, there can be some merit to privates. In the beginning, especially when students are being taught basics with little to no interaction privates serve a significant purpose in a one-on-one environment.
> 
> However, in the teaching of physically interactive skills and mechanisms, (especially those that require subtle tactile absorbsion), my teacher always spoke of the necessity for what he called the "Three Person perspective" to fully maximize learning capability. Without the third person perspective absent in private lessons, at least a third of the learning experience is absent, and probably more.
> 
> ...


 
Remember, the Tracy's model is based on 1 private lesson each week and at least 2 group workouts each week.

Typically, when this question arises, it is, "Which is better, privates or groups?"  It is typically hotly debated.  But it is the wrong question.  Privates and groups together are better than either alone.


----------



## Doc (Sep 16, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Remember, the Tracy's model is based on 1 private lesson each week and at least 2 group workouts each week.
> 
> Typically, when this question arises, it is, "Which is better, privates or groups?"  It is typically hotly debated.  But it is the wrong question.  Privates and groups together are better than either alone.



Al knew what he was doing, and for the record; Parker followed the same business model of privates and groups, initiated by Al.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 16, 2007)

Knowing that I learn better one-on-one, when I first started I took privates. I would attend sparring on Mondays and my private on Wednesdays and other than that, practice at home. I started drifting into the Thursday night group class and was amazed at how much better I retained what I learned after working with the rest of the class. 7-17 times faster, that is a fairly fantastic claim, if nothing else.


----------



## bdparsons (Sep 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Let us examine this.
> A Kenpo instructor, can "teach" the technique Five Swords very quickly. There are four (or five) basics that compose the technique.​
> 
> A - Step back into a Right Neutral Bow​
> ...




Psst... isn't this Delayed Sword? (Does somebody need a private lesson?):ultracool

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute
​


----------



## Doc (Sep 16, 2007)

bdparsons said:


> Psst... isn't this Delayed Sword? (Does somebody need a private lesson?):ultracool
> 
> Respects,
> Bill Parsons
> ...


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 27, 2007)

bdparsons said:


> Psst... isn't this Delayed Sword? (Does somebody need a private lesson?):ultracool
> 
> Respects,
> Bill Parsons
> ...


Bwahahahahaha! Or to put it another way:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's advertising!  I think we can all agree to some degree that a private lesson may be more valuable than limited exposure in a group class.  Well,  maybe not, but most of us can... to some degree. LOL!

Of course, it depends on the individual, but I have found that, personally, I tend to do better with a combination of private lessons and group.


----------



## Danjo (Sep 27, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Good point. Remember 38% of all statistics are made up
> 
> B


 
Plus, I heard it was 17.4 times faster.


----------



## Sigung86 (Sep 27, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Plus, I heard it was 17.4 times faster.


 
17.4736 to be exact!  :roflmao:


----------



## Danjo (Sep 27, 2007)

Sigung86 said:


> 17.4736 to be exact! :roflmao:


 
Doh! Well, that's why you have the rank.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Sep 28, 2007)

I'll jump in the "private+group" lot. I had been training for about 18 years before taking private lessons. Granted, my training had been in too many disciplines to remember, and I'd developed a lot of gaps and idiosyncrasies in my martial arts. private lessons helped my get rid of those. My foundation has become a lot stronger because of it. I still go to three or four group lessons a week and practice at least 12 hours a week, though, so I'm sure that has a lot to do with it as well. But back before I was taking private lessons I was doing as much if not more practice with less results. So for me it's worth the money.


----------



## Danjo (Sep 28, 2007)

Josh Oakley said:


> I'll jump in the "private+group" lot. I had been training for about 18 years before taking private lessons. Granted, my training had been in too many disciplines to remember, and I'd developed a lot of gaps and idiosyncrasies in my martial arts. private lessons helped my get rid of those. My foundation has become a lot stronger because of it. I still go to three or four group lessons a week and practice at least 12 hours a week, though, so I'm sure that has a lot to do with it as well. But back before I was taking private lessons I was doing as much if not more practice with less results. So for me it's worth the money.


 
Josh, your bio says you were born in 1982 and you trained for 18 years before taking private lessons. So you started training when exactly?

Also, your SKK red belt rank: is that one of those non-rank ranks that you get from the instructor's academy? If so, what is your actual rank?


----------



## still learning (Sep 28, 2007)

Hello,  Private lessons or Group  classes....Yes ! One on one you will learn quicker and lessons is only focus on you alone, where in a group it is harder to point out all the weakness and strenghts of the individuals in a group.

BUT: anyone can learn faster 7X or more if they practice everyday and everychance they can on their own time.  

Those private lessons many times is only for 1-2 hours maybe two to three times a week.  Same as group classes.

Remember in the old days of Okinawa...they train everyday for couple of hours doing the same things over and over and over.....NOT LIKE TODAY's TRAINING.

The more you put into it (martial art training)...the faster it becomes a part of you.

Pro's sports players,MMA, and other'snow...they have to practice everyday or practice harder and more often than others to become the BEST!

Tiger Woods is a good example of someone who is always on the course practicing constantly.  Harder than most other pro's too!

ANYONE CAN GET BETTER!  ...even 7X better than most people if they go all out on there practice and training, and more often too!.

Bruce Lee at one point was training his body over 8 hours a day...to become like Bruce Lee is to train like Bruce Lee or harder!

Private lessons is always better way to train.  Usually more costly.

Group classes or normal class training is good too,  Just that you need to practice at home, everyday and for long hours focusing on what you are learning...doing same things over and over and over....you too will improve 7X faster than your own classmates. (most people do not train at home or do very little training at all at home).

Aloha


----------



## still learning (Sep 28, 2007)

Hello, One more thing....those who sparr alot, with alot of contact, at every class....lots of black eyes, bruise, and so on at usually learn faster at fighting.  (especially if they practice like real).

Our Professor use to mention (in his younger days of training) they would lock the classroom doors, spar and spar and spar.....most of the students went home hurting....learn to fight like real.....is too fight like real....YOU will learn quickly what works and what does NOT.

Boxer knows it take a few months of getting hit constantly before the bodies "do not hurt anymore"....less pain is felt.  Pain tolerance is built up!

Many times it is how you train too!   ...private lessons or NOT!

Aloha


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 23, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Josh, your bio says you were born in 1982 and you trained for 18 years before taking private lessons. So you started training when exactly?
> 
> Also, your SKK red belt rank: is that one of those non-rank ranks that you get from the instructor's academy? If so, what is your actual rank?



When I was five. There was a 2 year period in my early teens when I didn't train or do much of anything. Family turmoil is all I will say. But keep in mind I didn't point out the length of training as being one of my strengths, but as one of my weaknesses. 

Yes, the red is a no rank rank. I go test for green in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Danjo (Oct 23, 2007)

Josh Oakley said:


> When I was five. There was a 2 year period in my early teens when I didn't train or do much of anything. Family turmoil is all I will say. But keep in mind I didn't point out the length of training as being one of my strengths, but as one of my weaknesses.
> 
> Yes, the red is a no rank rank. I go test for green in a couple of weeks.


 
My point is that you're in an organization that sells privates as a major part of their revenue. Given that you're a "red belt" it tells me that you are being indoctrinated into theirs sales pitch mentality in their "Instructor's Academy". Hence, your opinions about the value of privates are based on something other than objectivity.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 28, 2007)

Danjo said:


> My point is that you're in an organization that sells privates as a major part of their revenue. Given that you're a "red belt" it tells me that you are being indoctrinated into theirs sales pitch mentality in their "Instructor's Academy". Hence, your opinions about the value of privates are based on something other than objectivity.


 
Eh... that's a bit shaky, seeing as I didn't start out as a red belt. I was one private lessons, and discovered the value as just a student. Now, being human, my oppinion is necessarily subjective, but I have had experiences in both martial arts and education in general to state my oppinion with some confidence. 

I understand that I do in fact have something to gain by talking about the value of private lessons, but that, in and of itself does not invalidate my claim. _Ad hominem_ arguments are fallacious. Yes I'm a red belt, and yes, I'm being indoctrinated, as it were, to the company line. But that doesn't have an effect on the validity of my claim. 

Private guitar lessons made me better at guitar than group lessons, but group lessons helped teach me to play with others. Private lessons in martial arts have drastically increased my abilities, and the group lessons work well in tandem with the private lessons. So in my subjective yet informed oppinion, I had come to the conclusion that private lessons were of great benefit to me long before it occurred to me to start teaching.


----------



## Danjo (Oct 29, 2007)

Josh Oakley said:


> Eh... that's a bit shaky, seeing as I didn't start out as a red belt. I was one private lessons, and discovered the value as just a student. Now, being human, my oppinion is necessarily subjective, but I have had experiences in both martial arts and education in general to state my oppinion with some confidence.
> 
> I understand that I do in fact have something to gain by talking about the value of private lessons, but that, in and of itself does not invalidate my claim. _Ad hominem_ arguments are fallacious. Yes I'm a red belt, and yes, I'm being indoctrinated, as it were, to the company line. But that doesn't have an effect on the validity of my claim.
> 
> Private guitar lessons made me better at guitar than group lessons, but group lessons helped teach me to play with others. Private lessons in martial arts have drastically increased my abilities, and the group lessons work well in tandem with the private lessons. So in my subjective yet informed oppinion, I had come to the conclusion that private lessons were of great benefit to me long before it occurred to me to start teaching.


 
Ad hominem arguments are only invalid when it is dealing with something objective. As you said, your opinions are subjective, and they are partly based on what you're being told by your organization. Thus the source of the information in this thread is your opinions about something and ad hominem is therefore perfectly legitimate given that the source and arguer are inextricably inerconnected.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 1, 2007)

However, my oppinion is about something objective: the value of private lessons coupled with (not in opposition to) group classes. Keep in mind that an argument, ANY argument, is necessarily subjective, statements and support of the statements themselves determine validity, not the source. In any event, volumns have been written on informal fallacies, and I don't need to personally shoot down the curcumstantial ad hominim as fallacious. 

     But again, it's not in the academy that I decided private lessons with group lessons were a better training model. I can set up further examples from music, mathematics, science, etc. that support my claim. And I did, when I was deciding if I wanted to pay $185 a month to take private lessons.  (I was used to paying $35). When it comes down to it, people learn the same no matter the subject. They learn from being in a group and they learn one on one. And they learn faster and more fully when doing both. That's why colleges pay for on campus tutors to be available for their students. That's why there's a whole tutoring industry, for that matter. That's how people can make a living teaching musical instruments or as voice coaches. Give me a month, and I'll write a full paper on it. Heck I'll probably do it anyway. 

     Don't base your argument on one piece of evidence: the fact that I'm a red belt. Other than putting the cart before the horse and trying somehow to defy logic to make a fallacy valid, your argment is too narrow in scope. You have no idea what my experience is, or what my degree is in. I could have a GED or a doctorate in Education, and you don't know(just so you know: neither). But you decided my oppinion on private lessons-- and for some reason, _only_ private lessons, though I am arguing for the "private and group" category-- based on my involvement in the USSD instructors, and I would assume based on previous comments you've made based on my involvement in USSD.

If you're going to make a counter-argument to my take on private instruction in conjunction with group classes my suggestion is you broaden your scope.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 1, 2007)

Josh Oakley said:


> However, my oppinion is about something objective: the value of private lessons coupled with (not in opposition to) group classes. Keep in mind that an argument, ANY argument, is necessarily subjective, statements and support of the statements themselves determine validity, not the source. In any event, volumns have been written on informal fallacies, and I don't need to personally shoot down the curcumstantial ad hominim as fallacious.
> 
> But again, it's not in the academy that I decided private lessons with group lessons were a better training model. I can set up further examples from music, mathematics, science, etc. that support my claim. And I did, when I was deciding if I wanted to pay $185 a month to take private lessons. (I was used to paying $35). When it comes down to it, people learn the same no matter the subject. They learn from being in a group and they learn one on one. And they learn faster and more fully when doing both. That's why colleges pay for on campus tutors to be available for their students. That's why there's a whole tutoring industry, for that matter. That's how people can make a living teaching musical instruments or as voice coaches. Give me a month, and I'll write a full paper on it. Heck I'll probably do it anyway.
> 
> ...


 
When I worked at a used car lot as a detailer, we had a running joke about how each salesman would invariably utter the phrase, _"I was thinking of buying that one myself."_ Every time a person was considering one of the least desirable cars on the lot. The point is, that because they were in charge of selling something two things were true: 1) They couldn't be trusted for an objective opinion on the cars they were selling and 2) It was their job to try to find the desirable qualities in a given car and pump those things up. _"Just look at that interior!" _was a favorite for a car that didn't really run very well, or one that had 150,000 miles on it.

By strapping on a red belt in your organization, you've become a salesman of private lessons. You've been trained to point out their value to the customers and you probably even believe most of what you say about their value (which is innately subjective BTW since "value" equals the point when what one person is willing to charge meets what the other is willing to pay). As a salesman, your testimony regarding these private lessons is automatically suspect. No offense is meant toward you. I am merely pointing out a fact and saying that one would hold your opinion with higher esteem if you weren't in charge of selling these things by your organization. Hence, the ad hominem argument, in this case is valid.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 1, 2007)

Is it your position that private lessons don't hold value?  Or are you really taking issue with Josh's connection to USSD?


----------



## 14 Kempo (Nov 1, 2007)

Personally, I find value in most of my private lessons. More value now with my present instructor and also because I rarely have a private lesson that is really that, private. I work out with others. One on one lesson can be very good as well. They can be used to isolate, lock-in on, areas of interest. I do not agree with those organizations that use private lessons as basically the only place to learn 'the required' material. 

The numbers, 7-17x, are BS ... until someone shows me the data collected that proves the numbers, don't try to use them on me. Yes, I believe a person can learn faster with private lessons, but stating a number is pure bull (until proven otherwise, a footnote referring to the data used should be insisted upon ... LOL). I take private lessons and will continue to do so, until I feel the value is no longer there. I left my previous instructor for that very reason, I no longer felt I was getting value for my dollar and time spent.

Just my two cents ...


----------



## Danjo (Nov 2, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Is it your position that private lessons don't hold value? Or are you really taking issue with Josh's connection to USSD?


 
Actually I don't have a big problem with private lessons as such. I'm merely trying to point out who we all are here so that it's clear who is saying what, and where they are coming from. I think that most of us agree that the hyperbolic claim of 7-17 times faster is more than a bit over the top.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Actually I don't have a big problem with private lessons as such. I'm merely trying to point out who we all are here so that it's clear who is saying what, and where they are coming from. I think that most of us agree that the hyperbolic claim of 7-17 times faster is more than a bit over the top.


 

well, yeah, I think it's pretty difficult to attach real numbers to the claim, but I also think it's a reasonable claim that private lessons can accelerate one's learning, if done along with group training.  I personally prefer small group training over either.  I think you get to work with several people, but it's small enough that it's almost like getting a private, or you do in fact get some private attention from the instructor while other students are working on other things.

Much of my kung fu training has been strictly thru privates.  This is because my sifu teaches mainly tai chi to the larger group, and modern wushu to the kids.  I've studied tai chi with him, but I am also interested in the other traditional things that he doesn't teach on a regular basis to a regular group, and I don't want to do modern wushu.  So he has agreed to teach them to me privately on the side.  If I didn't do this, I wouldn't have the opportunity to learn this stuff at all.  I wish I had other classmates who were interested in learning this stuff, but I don't, so much of it I am stuck practicing on my own.  It's not perfect, but it beats the alternative, and he just doesn't have the time to start another complete session strictly to teach this stuff.  There probably wouldn't be enough interest to justify the effort anyway, and to be honest, his own interest now lies more with tai chi and bagua as he gets older.

So I think there are legitimate circumstances where private lessons are the best solution.

I don't think privates should be pushed strictly to boost income, forcing people to take them if they don't need them.  I don't think the critical material should be only available in privates.  A dedicated student should be able to learn the system strictly thru group sessions, if that is the primary training method offered.  But I can certainly see value in having privates to get some quality attention with the finer details and such.  

I don't know if USSD has shady practices with private lessions.  I don't really have a dog in that race.  But I think many schools offer private lessons as an option and I don't see anything wrong with it in the general sense.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 2, 2007)

Let's put this in perspective a bit. If it takes the average person 3 to 5 years to get to black belt, then it would take you as little as 64 to 107 days to get one with private lessons using the formula of 7-17 times faster. I think between 2 to five months is a bit quick even for the McDojos don't you?

The USSD sells private lessons at a very high price. IMO much higher than they are worth. Any benefit that they might give you is far outweighed by that. Plus, they are as often as not taught by one of the "Red Belts" rather than one of the black belts. How much benefit is there in that?


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Let's put this in perspective a bit. If it takes the average person 3 to 5 years to get to black belt, then it would take you as little as 64 to 107 days to get one with private lessons using the formula of 7-17 times faster. I think between 2 to five months is a bit quick even for the McDojos don't you?


 
yes, that is probably too fast, but it also assumes an inappropriate focus on RANK vs. actually learning something.  I prefer to think of private lessons as a way to gain deeper and more precise understanding.  This may include faster learning, but it also takes time for that learning to translate into physical skills.  So while the intellectual learning could be 3 or 7 or 17 or 107 times as fast (i'm just making up numbers), it still takes time to develop the skill.  I guess it's possible that rank progression could also be faster, but I think not all that much faster.  As I stated, I think it's pretty difficult to attach real numbers to this.  But it doesn't invalidate the value of private lessons, so long as they are done in an appropriate manner and the big picture is kept in perspective.



> The USSD sells private lessons at a very high price. IMO much higher than they are worth. Any benefit that they might give you is far outweighed by that. Plus, they are as often as not taught by one of the "Red Belts" rather than one of the black belts. How much benefit is there in that?


 
I don't know much about the USSD, again as I stated, I don't have a dog in that race.  I don't know what their business/teaching practices are, and I don't know if these practices are consistent among all of their schools.  Maybe some incorporate questionable practices, maybe others don't, i dunno, don't really care.

I think the bottom line is that yes, private lessons can be beneficial and help a student learn more deeply and perhaps develop more quickly.  I don't think you can attach real numbers to how fast that is.  If the student perceives a value in the lessons, and is comfortable with the price, then they will do it.  It's up to the individual to decide for himself.  I don't see the point in going on a crusade against a specific group for what they may or may not be doing.  If you don't like them, that's your choice as well, but arguing about it on the forums isn't going to change what they do.

I could go on a rampage and start dissecting all the self promotions that have happened within the greater kenpo community, and try to put every single one of the seniors under a microscope and try and hold them to task for it.  How far do you think that's gonna get me?  How long do you think I'm gonna remain welcome here in the forums?  It doesn't matter to me, it's none of my business, and whatever I say about it will have no impact on any of them.  

So choose your battles wisely and recognize when it isn't worth it and it doesn't matter.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 2, 2007)

But you can get a black belt in 7 to 10 business day from here 
:uhyeah:

Private lessons do not necessarily increase the speed with which it takes to get a black belt or understand or become a master. It gives you one on one time with your teacher (hopefully) and if that teacher is good at teaching and you (the student) are good at understanding and at the point you are ready to understand it MIGHT speed things up a little bit but not 7 to 17 times faster. 

I have had all of my Sanda in private lessons and on occasion my taiji sifu asks me to wait until after everyone leaves and he shows me some things as well. But, as far as Sanda goes I could have private lessons for the next 20 years but if I do not go home a train afterwards of thing about what I was taught or what was said those private lessons are fairly useless. Same goes for my Taiji sifu. I can remember my taiji sifu stopping me and showing me something to do with the form and asking me if I understand, he did this 3 times and I still did not understand. Years later in discussions with him he said sometimes the student is not ready and does not have enough understanding of the form, posture, or style to make any sense of what is being shown to them. But if they keep training eventually it will make sense. 2 years later, (now 10 years ago) that little tidbit of information all of a sudden made sense. 

Private lessons are great if the teacher is good and if the student is serious. But if a student approaches private lessons like a short cut to mastery then they will likely never get there and if the teacher is not good at teaching or lacks the knowledge to teach things properly, again it is very likely the student will never attain anything of worth.

Consider Xingyiquan; most real teachers of Xingyi are going to make you stand in Santi Shi for at least 20 minutes per side and THEN call you a beginner. How do you speed that up in private lessons :idunno:


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 5, 2007)

Danjo said:


> When I worked at a used car lot as a detailer, we had a running joke about how each salesman would invariably utter the phrase, _"I was thinking of buying that one myself."_ Every time a person was considering one of the least desirable cars on the lot. The point is, that because they were in charge of selling something two things were true: 1) They couldn't be trusted for an objective opinion on the cars they were selling and 2) It was their job to try to find the desirable qualities in a given car and pump those things up. _"Just look at that interior!" _was a favorite for a car that didn't really run very well, or one that had 150,000 miles on it.
> 
> By strapping on a red belt in your organization, you've become a salesman of private lessons. You've been trained to point out their value to the customers and you probably even believe most of what you say about their value (which is innately subjective BTW since "value" equals the point when what one person is willing to charge meets what the other is willing to pay). As a salesman, your testimony regarding these private lessons is automatically suspect. No offense is meant toward you. I am merely pointing out a fact and saying that one would hold your opinion with higher esteem if you weren't in charge of selling these things by your organization. Hence, the ad hominem argument, in this case is valid.



Despite the fact I was saying this stuff a year and a half ago when I was a student? And I could agree with you if I were actually trying to sell you or anyone else on this forum. Very few of you even live in my state, many of you are well above me in rank. And those who aren't are already practicing martial artists. I'd be a pretty lousy "salesman of private lessons"  if I were actually trying to sell in this group. 

But hey, sure, let's just automatically discount anything anyone says because they sell it. There goes the oppinion of any martial arts instructor on this forum, if they teach for pay, because their claim is automatically suspect based on their vocation. Are we holding this true for every instructor getting paid to teach, or just the USSD?

But again. Who exactly would I be selling to on this forum? You? John Bishop? Doc Chapel? WHO? Because it would be really stupid of me to put that I'm a red belt in my profile if that were the case. Especially If I were to post on a site with so many people who had bad experiences with USSD and think we charge too much as it is. Heck, might as well not post an oppinion on anything, now that I'm a red belt. 

C'mon, man. There's prudence, and then there's paranoia.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 6, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Is it your position that private lessons don't hold value? Or are you really taking issue with Josh's connection to USSD?


 
Ahh, the real point of Dan's argument comes to the surface...


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 6, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Let's put this in perspective a bit. If it takes the average person 3 to 5 years to get to black belt, then it would take you as little as 64 to 107 days to get one with private lessons using the formula of 7-17 times faster. I think between 2 to five months is a bit quick even for the McDojos don't you?


 
Since we are talking perspective, remember that in the model, Tracy's Kenpo, it is one private each week, and unlimited groups.  So, 107 private lessons is 2 years and 3 weeks of training.  64 privates is 1 year, 3 months.

We are not talking private lessons every day.  So for perspective, if the average person, attending two group classes a week, can make it in 3-5 years, why it it "pure BS" to claim that the addition of a private each week can shorten that span to 1.25-2 years?


----------



## Danjo (Nov 6, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Since we are talking perspective, remember that in the model, Tracy's Kenpo, it is one private each week, and unlimited groups. So, 107 private lessons is 2 years and 3 weeks of training. 64 privates is 1 year, 3 months.
> 
> We are not talking private lessons every day. So for perspective, if the average person, attending two group classes a week, can make it in 3-5 years, why it it "pure BS" to claim that the addition of a private each week can shorten that span to 1.25-2 years?


 
1.25 years to black belt in Tracy's? Hey, whatever works for your organization is whatever works for your organization. But 7 times faster would be .71 years according to that formula.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 6, 2007)

I'm wondering if I buy a Kenpo training DVD and play it at 30X, willl I learn 30 times faster   :uhyeah:

OK, I'll go now


----------



## Blindside (Nov 6, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> We are not talking private lessons every day. So for perspective, if the average person, attending two group classes a week, can make it in 3-5 years, why it it "pure BS" to claim that the addition of a private each week can shorten that span to 1.25-2 years?


 
Doing the math says reducing 3 to 1.25 is 2.4 times as fast, 5 to 2 is 2.5 times as fast, not exactly the claimed 7-17 times.  I agree that privates accellerate the learning process, the number of 7-17 is just silly though.

Lamont


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 6, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Doing the math says reducing 3 to 1.25 is 2.4 times as fast, 5 to 2 is 2.5 times as fast, not exactly the claimed 7-17 times. I agree that privates accellerate the learning process, the number of 7-17 is just silly though.
> 
> Lamont


 
It all depends on whether you are talking number of classes, number of days, or number of years.

See, none of you has likely contacted Al Tracy to find out how he came up with those numbers.  You assume he is wrong/lying/silly/full of it.  Statistics, frankly, can say many different things and still be right.  Perhaps you should call him.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 7, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> It all depends on whether you are talking number of classes, number of days, or number of years.
> 
> See, none of you has likely contacted Al Tracy to find out how he came up with those numbers. You assume he is wrong/lying/silly/full of it. Statistics, frankly, can say many different things and still be right. Perhaps you should call him.


 
It's up to him to defend the statement with evidence since he made it in the first place. It's not up to us to hunt him down and find out how he figured it out. Since you're one of the Tracy students, why don't you ask him for us and then come back and share the info?


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Danjo said:


> It's up to him to defend the statement with evidence since he made it in the first place.


 
To whom?  He doesn't read these boards.  He does answer his e-mails and phone calls.  Unless he is approached, there is nothing for him to defend.  But, using the same argument, I would like to see some evidence from the folks who claim that it can't/is not being done, is BS, is silly, etc...evidence that shows that it cannot be done.



> It's not up to us to hunt him down and find out how he figured it out.


 
Of course not.  Unless you want the answer.  But it's so much more fun to just talk about it.  



> Since you're one of the Tracy students, why don't you ask him for us and then come back and share the info?


 
I did.  I came up with 6.6-19 times faster.  Rounding would make it 7-19 times faster, which actually puts Mr. Tracy's numbers a little conservative.  http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=851367&postcount=15


----------



## Blindside (Nov 7, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> I did. I came up with 6.6-19 times faster. Rounding would make it 7-19 times faster, which actually puts Mr. Tracy's numbers a little conservative. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=851367&postcount=15


 
Your math is.... odd.

2 hours of group training at 4.3 wks/month at 60 months = 516 hours of training.  We'll use this as the arbitrary baseline "time of training required" for black.

2 hours of group training + 1 .5 hr private/wk at 36 months = 387 hours training = 1.3x as fast as baseline

2 hours of group training + 1 .5 hr private/wk at 22 months (your time) = 236 hours training = 2.2 times as fast as baseline

2 hours of group training + 1 .5 hr private/wk at 12 months = 129 hours of training = 4x as fast as baseline.

Increasing the number of private lessons just increases the number of training hours and reduces the number of multipliers of effectiveness of the private lesson.  So again, I don't buy the 7-17x number.

Lamont


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Your math is.... odd.
> 
> 2 hours of group training at 4.3 wks/month at 60 months = 516 hours of training. We'll use this as the arbitrary baseline "time of training required" for black.
> 
> ...


 
Well, our math is different because you have added two hours a week of group instruction.  In a strict sense, that does not really apply to the model, but that is OK.  It has become obvious that most don't understand the model, and are not really even trying to.  And that is fine.  The numbers are based on a model and applied to a system that most of you don't teach.  It may not apply to EPAKK or Kajukenbo.  But it is true...students CAN learn 7-17 times faster.  I have seen it.  I have done it.  

The goal here, apparently, is to use this statement to make claims about Al Tracy.  Big surprise there.  But business is his thing.  His business model is tried and true.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Your math is.... odd.
> 
> 2 hours of group training at 4.3 wks/month at 60 months = 516 hours of training. We'll use this as the arbitrary baseline "time of training required" for black.
> 
> ...


 
Using your numbers and removing your assumption:

1 .5 hr private/wk at 36 months = 77 hours of training = 6.7x as fast as baseline.
1 .5 hr private/wk at 12 months = 26 hours of training = 19.8x as fast as baseline.

Remember, privates are instructional, groups are workouts.  Now, if you choose to call them instructional, that is fine.  Should we include studying the manuals and watching videos as instructional time as well?  What about workouts at home?  Unsupervised mat time at the dojo?  Tips from masters on the internet?

Anyway, I have explained the model and shown the numbers.  It is what it is.  And everyone is still ignoring that all important word in the phrase that I pointed out way back at the beginning...


----------



## Blindside (Nov 7, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Using your numbers and removing your assumption:
> 
> 1 half hour a week at 36 months equals 77.4 hours of training. 6.6 times as fast as the baseline.
> 
> Remember, privates are instructional, groups are workouts.


 
Actually, if you remove that assumption, then no one in the baseline model ever gets black because they never get instruction.  You can't call the baseline of group classes to be the equivelent of X numbers of private lessons, then only include private lessons in the comparison models.  That is fuzzy math at its finest, I have no problem with Al Tracy, we are a Tracy lineage school, we instruct through a similar model. I am only questioning the oddball math.  

Lamont


----------



## Danjo (Nov 7, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> our math is different.


 
There's a slogan for your organization.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 7, 2007)

Danjo said:


> There's a slogan for your organization.


 
Danjo, 

you seem to have issues with several kenpo organizations, and perhaps orgs from other arts as well, for all I know.  I suggest you take your issues to the heads of those orgs yourself and see if you can get the answers that will make you happy.  Argue with them if they are willing to tolerate you, if it's so important to you, rather than bitching about them here on the forums.  I don't think your happiness and satisfaction are high on the list of priorities for too many people here.  They have been willing to indulge your questions and give you the benefit of the doubt, but at some point it seems like your real purpose is to just pick at things until they fester, in hopes of stirring up some controversy for the sake of controversy.  

If you've got some legitimate questions, fair enough.  But comments like this one illustrate your immaturity and underscore your true motives.  Grow up, sir.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 7, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Danjo,
> 
> you seem to have issues with several kenpo organizations, and perhaps orgs from other arts as well, for all I know. I suggest you take your issues to the heads of those orgs yourself and see if you can get the answers that will make you happy. Argue with them if they are willing to tolerate you, if it's so important to you, rather than bitching about them here on the forums. I don't think your happiness and satisfaction are high on the list of priorities for too many people here. They have been willing to indulge your questions and give you the benefit of the doubt, but at some point it seems like your real purpose is to just pick at things until they fester, in hopes of stirring up some controversy for the sake of controversy.
> 
> If you've got some legitimate questions, fair enough. But comments like this one illustrate your immaturity and underscore your true motives. Grow up, sir.


 
Relax. That last one was just me being a smartass.


----------



## SL4Drew (Nov 7, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> I did. I came up with 6.6-19 times faster. Rounding would make it 7-19 times faster, which actually puts Mr. Tracy's numbers a little conservative. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=851367&postcount=15


 
From what I read, you said that most make black in 3 years, which amounts to 156 private half hour lessons. The way I am reading that is in 78 total hours of instruction, someone can achieve a black belt level of competency. If that's the ONLY time a student puts into it, I frankly don't see how that's possible. It seems like it falls to the student to do significant training outside of that time. As a result, I'm having a hard time with this hard division between instruction time and practice/training time. I really don't see how they can be so divided.

In my experience, the average person can't accept 'downloads' of information. Kenpo isn't simply a mental exercise, the student has to physically perform. I can tell the student what I want and maybe watch the student do it a few times, but until that muscle memory hardens, the student can do all manner of things to screw it up. So if I want them to perform things in a specific and precise manner, in my experience, most students require more than you show them a couple of times and move on to the next thing, which you show a couple of times and move on, and so on. They may conceptually get it in a few seconds, but most take more than a few reps to get it right.

In other activities such as football, basketball, golf, gymnastics, and the like, the trainer/coach is doing more than downloading information, they are supervising performance. They make little adjustments and corrections throughout. Here, you're talking hundreds of techniques and dozens of forms/sets/kata, then add to that basics and perhaps sparring. Then consider making adjustments for supposedly higher levels of skill. I just don't see how 78 hours is near enough to coach an average someone off the street to a relatively high level of proficiency.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 7, 2007)

I do not nor have I ever trained Kenpo, I thought about it a few times but just never trained it nor is it likely I will so take my comment here anyway you like but this whole thing seems just a bit scary to me. 

Speeding up training via private lessons&#8230; why? You cannot throw out numbers or even come up with rock solid equations as to how much faster you can make things happen because there is a BIG variable here.. the student. 

Not all students learn at the same pace. You can give 7 private lessons a week and top that off with 2 hours a of group lessons and by the end of the year not all the students will be the same level. And some of them will be worse off than if you taught them at a slower pace.

This is to me like saying I have to drive 90 miles an hour because I am almost out of gas and I need to get to the gas station quicker&#8230; It just doesn&#8217;t work that way you still have cover the same amount of miles.

Could be I am a CMA guy and to me EVERYTHING take time&#8230; a lot of time in CMA. But I simply do not like it at all when people start talking about accelerated training in martial arts, things get missed and things end up watered down.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 7, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I do not nor have I ever trained Kenpo, I thought about it a few times but just never trained it nor is it likely I will so take my comment here anyway you like but this whole thing seems just a bit scary to me.
> 
> Speeding up training via private lessons why? You cannot throw out numbers or even come up with rock solid equations as to how much fast you can make things happen because there is a BIG variable here.. the student.
> 
> ...


 
You've pretty much nailed the whole problem here. It is the idea of speeding things up via private lessons. It just smacks of McDojoism. Why the rush? If privates are used to enhance training and get a bit more personal feedback etc. then great. But if they are used to "Speed things up" then it's bs and visions of assembly lines come into view. The whole point of this is why was the equation of 7-17x faster even a concern in the first place except to sell people on the idea that if they paid for privates, they would get a fast black belt?


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Actually, if you remove that assumption, then no one in the baseline model ever gets black because they never get instruction.


 
No, that is incorrect.  In group only models, the ONLY instruction comes from the groups.  In our model, it does not.



> You can't call the baseline of group classes to be the equivelent of X numbers of private lessons, then only include private lessons in the comparison models.


 
Huh?!?  That is what is being compared, the potential ablility to learn in private lessons compared to the average time it takes to learn in groups alone.  "With private instruction, students can learn 7-17 times faster than with group classes alone."



> That is fuzzy math at its finest, I have no problem with Al Tracy, we are a Tracy lineage school, we instruct through a similar model. I am only questioning the oddball math.


 
It's statistics.  It is a comparison of potential vs. a stated average.  You are missing the big picture here.  Within the statement, there is an enormous IF.  My first year in kenpo, I was in college.  I was at the studio 4-5 hours a day until I started working there.  Then, it was 40 hours a week.  At the end of the first year, I had put nearly 2,000 hours into kenpo, and received less than 26 hours of instruction.  I can't count groups as instruction time, even though I did 13 of them a week, because I led them all.  

IF someone has that kind of time, and that kind of obsession, then the potential exists.  Not everyone does.  But that does not make the statement wrong.

IF someone puts in the time outside of instruction to get the stuff down, the potential is there.  If they don't, the statement is not wrong.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 7, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Relax. That last one was just me being a smartass.


 

alright then.  sometimes it's hard to tell for sure.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Danjo said:


> You've pretty much nailed the whole problem here. It is the idea of speeding things up via private lessons. It just smacks of McDojoism. Why the rush? If privates are used to enhance training and get a bit more personal feedback etc. then great. But if they are used to "Speed things up" then it's bs and visions of assembly lines come into view. The whole point of this is why was the equation of 7-17x faster even a concern in the first place except to sell people on the idea that if they paid for privates, they would get a fast black belt?


 
You're still not getting it.  It's not about a faster black belt.  It is about faster learning.  I am trying really hard to make this understandable, and, unfortunately, I am now going to really confuse the issue...

Here goes...in Tracy's, the average time for someone to get a black belt is 3-5 years.

The kicker is, and this really is the crux of the matter, our teaching model allows the student to spend more time, much more time, working the material, and less time spent being instructed.  In groups, you may get some specific attention, you may get none, but in a private, you get concentrated attention for 30 minutes.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 7, 2007)

Danjo said:


> You've pretty much nailed the whole problem here. It is the idea of speeding things up via private lessons. It just smacks of McDojoism. Why the rush? If privates are used to enhance training and get a bit more personal feedback etc. then great. But if they are used to "Speed things up" then it's bs and visions of assembly lines come into view. The whole point of this is why was the equation of 7-17x faster even a concern in the first place except to sell people on the idea that if they paid for privates, they would get a fast black belt?


 
I just don't see how anyone can put a number on training and say by X amount of time multiplied by X number of private lessons plus X number of group lessons you will be a black belt and not realize that this is not good for the student or the style. 

It is good for a factory but not a martial art.

But then I am a CMA guy and we don't care about belts so :idunno:.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 7, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> It's not about a faster black belt. It is about faster learning.


 
But isn't the goal here to get a Black belt faster?


----------



## Danjo (Nov 7, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> alright then. sometimes it's hard to tell for sure.


 
Peace.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 7, 2007)

I'll weigh in here one final time and then I think I don't really have anything to add to the discussion.

I think private lessions have value, especially if the group sessions are large.  Privates give the student a chance for some quality one-on-one time with the teacher where the material can be covered in explicit detail.  Hopefully the student will gain a deeper understanding of the material because there is a concentrated focus which is not always possible with the distractions of a large group.  In addition to gaining a deeper understanding, I suspect this can also speed up the pace at which a student can learn.

But keep in mind, learning is more intellectual, and it still takes time and work and practice before that intellectual knowledge becomes physical skill.  In reality, there may not be any speeding up of that final process.  Or there may be.  It depends largely on the student.

I don't think the focus is on getting rank faster.  It's just that the learning side can be done more quickly with privates, but rank is not given until the physical skills, along with the intellectual learning, merit the rank.  If someone is using this idea to try and process people thru the ranks more quickly, without properly assessing merit, then that is a problem and represents an abuse of the method.  I suspect there may be those among many orgs that do this, I don't think any org is free from shysters.  It's sort of an unfortunate reality, when an org grows to a certain size, there will be a few bad apples in the group.  Size itself can bring it's own problems with it.  So keep that in perspective.

I don't like attaching solid numbers to these concepts.  I don't think it's possible to actually measure the difference, and as Xue pointed out, the variable is the student himself and how well does he handle the entire learning process.  Just putting a student thru a methodology is no guarantee that you will get predictable results after a certain period of time.  And it leads to the misunderstanding that the idea is to process as many people as possible to black belt as quickly as possible, and that is not the point.  I can certainly see how this can look to an outsider, and some of the points raised in this thread really don't surprise me.  

Because of the student as variable, you really cannot measure the difference at all.  The only way to do so accurately would be to teach a student using one methodology and see how quickly he progresses, then erase his memory and remove his skills, and teach him using another methodology, and compare.  Obviously, this won't work.  You cannot really compare two different students either, once again because of the variable nature of the student himself.  But over time, you may begin to see general trends develop depending on which students take private lessons, and which do not.  It's not scientific comparison, it's only anecdotal, but it may have merit and can support one position or the other.

So I don't like giving actual numbers to this kind of concept.  Suffice it to say that under the right circumstances, private lessons can be very very helpful, and probably can accelerate a students development to a certain, unspecifiable degree.  But it can be abused and misused and it can be misleading as well.

There's my two cents.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 7, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I'll weigh in here one final time and then I think I don't really have anything to add to the discussion.
> 
> I think private lessions have value, especially if the group sessions are large. Privates give the student a chance for some quality one-on-one time with the teacher where the material can be covered in explicit detail. Hopefully the student will gain a deeper understanding of the material because there is a concentrated focus which is not always possible with the distractions of a large group. In addition to gaining a deeper understanding, I suspect this can also speed up the pace at which a student can learn.
> 
> ...


 
 Wow. That's a lot for two cents! LOL.

I agree with what you wrote here.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 7, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Wow. That's a lot for two cents! LOL.
> 
> I agree with what you wrote here.


 
i'm having a fire sale.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 7, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> I'll weigh in here one final time and then I think I don't really have anything to add to the discussion.
> 
> I think private lessions have value, especially if the group sessions are large. Privates give the student a chance for some quality one-on-one time with the teacher where the material can be covered in explicit detail. Hopefully the student will gain a deeper understanding of the material because there is a concentrated focus which is not always possible with the distractions of a large group. In addition to gaining a deeper understanding, I suspect this can also speed up the pace at which a student can learn.
> 
> ...


 
I too agree


----------



## Blindside (Nov 7, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Huh?!? That is what is being compared, the potential ablility to learn in private lessons compared to the average time it takes to learn in groups alone.


 
A group class does not constitute all instruction time, as your comparison assumes, and that huge assumption is the source of the number difference.  Obviously those who teach through the group model don't spend all their time in instruction, much of it is in drills or other methods of reviewing or practicing what is given in instruction.  Lets say that in the average one hour group class an individual gets 5 minutes of instruction time, and the rest of the time is spend working the material.  Two group classes per week and that person is getting 10 minutes of actual instruction and 110 minutes of working/practicing/drilling.  The one private, two group model student is getting 30 minutes of instruction and 120 minutes of working/practicing/drilling.  So again the comparison in time of instruction does not come out to 6x and certainly not 17x, it is more like 3x.  If that student doesn't learn faster there is something wrong, he is getting more instruction and is training more often.

Lamont


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> But isn't the goal here to get a Black belt faster?


 
No.  The goal is to allow each student the freedom to learn and progress at the rate that suits them the best.  


The assumption on this entire thread seems to be that the statement somehow implies that students learning under this instructional model learn 7-17 times faster.  It is a potential.  The model allows for students to progress at their own rates, and face it, there are some people out there that have abilities that make the rest of us drool.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Blindside said:


> *Lets say that* in the average one hour group class an individual gets 5 minutes of instruction time, and the rest of the time is spend working the material.


 
Sigh.

Never mind.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

SL4Drew said:


> From what I read, you said that most make black in 3 years, which amounts to 156 private half hour lessons. The way I am reading that is in 78 total hours of instruction, someone can achieve a black belt level of competency. If that's the ONLY time a student puts into it, I frankly don't see how that's possible.


 
In my experience, it is not.  In my system, IF THE ONLY time a student puts into it is a private and two groups a week, getting a black belt is not really possible at all.


----------



## Carol (Nov 7, 2007)

Lets be fair though.  

If the Tracys had said "Learn Faster With Private Lessons" and _not _quantified their statement with a number that sets expectations for how fast one can learn....then someone could take issue with that as well "They just say its _faster_.  They don't say how much _faster_.  If a student learns 90 days worth of material in 88 days, that's still _faster_."


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 7, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Lets be fair though.
> 
> If the Tracys had said "Learn Faster With Private Lessons" and _not _quantified their statement with a number that sets expectations for how fast one can learn....then someone could take issue with that as well "They just say its _faster_. They don't say how much _faster_. If a student learns 90 days worth of material in 88 days, that's still _faster_."


 
Yes, that is true.  But Al Tracy doesn't throw numbers around randomly.  And there is still that important word in the statement that everyone keeps skipping over in their assumptions...CAN.

I've used the model.  It works.  The numbers are right.  Let me leave it at this:


On average, it takes a person 3-5 years to obtain a black belt in a martial art.
"With private lessons, students can learn 7-17 times faster than with groups alone."
In Tracy's, it takes an average of 3-5 years to get a black belt.
Contrary to popular assumption, this DOES NOT mean that we are turning out black belts 7-17 times faster than everyone else.  If you really want to understand, give it a try.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 8, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Yes, that is true. But Al Tracy doesn't throw numbers around randomly. And there is still that important word in the statement that everyone keeps skipping over in their assumptions...CAN.
> 
> I've used the model. It works. The numbers are right. Let me leave it at this:
> 
> ...


 
Forgive me for asking this if this has already been covered;

But if the assumption is that students learn 7 to 17 times faster and they are not advanced any faster then what is the purpose of this?

Also is this required the private lesson part that is?

And if it is required does it now cost the student more money that it would of before with just group lessons?

And if it is not required are students that take group lessons and only group lessons given the same opportunity and consideration when it comes to promotion?


----------



## Danjo (Nov 8, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> But if the assumption is that students learn 7 to 17 times faster and they are not advanced any faster then what is the purpose of this?


 
Bingo.


----------



## MeatWad2 (Nov 8, 2007)

Q-Man said:


> "You can learn 7x-17x times faster with private lessons."
> 
> I've read this comment on several different Kenpo/Kempo websites. I have not noticed it on any non-Kenpo/Kempo sites. Can anyone tell me if this is true and how they came to the "7x-17x times faster" part? thanks


 
I don't know how the statistic came about, but I can tell you it's a business ploy.  It's how instructors sell different programs...by pitching you on privates.  A basic business strategy is to try and go for the max amount you can get, and then move down to the next lowest program.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 8, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Forgive me for asking this if this has already been covered;
> 
> But if the assumption is that students learn 7 to 17 times faster and they are not advanced any faster then what is the purpose of this?


 
That is the assumption being held to on this thread.  The assumption of the model is that students CAN learn 7-17 times faster...



> Also is this required the private lesson part that is?


 
Yes.  If people are interested in coming to our school to learn the Tracy System, privates are required.  



> And if it is required does it now cost the student more money that it would of before with just group lessons?


 
No.  In my town, the rates that we charge for our program are very similar to schools that teach only groups.



> And if it is not required are students that take group lessons and only group lessons given the same opportunity and consideration when it comes to promotion?


 
Doesn't really apply, but to give you an answer, but our group classes are workouts.  There have been a few people who wanted to come in and just do groups and sparring and not pursue rank in the system.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 8, 2007)

MeatWad2 said:


> I don't know how the statistic came about, but I can tell you it's a business ploy. It's how instructors sell different programs...by pitching you on privates. A basic business strategy is to try and go for the max amount you can get, and then move down to the next lowest program.


 
LOL.  There is no next lowest program as far as price is concerned.  At least, not at my school.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 8, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> That is the assumption being held to on this thread. The assumption of the model is that students CAN learn 7-17 times faster....


 
ahhhh ok so they can...... whats the point then?

I can drive 60 miles in 1 hour or 2 hours or 6 hours so? 

Not meaning to sound sarcastic hear but I don't understand why you would want to train someone 7 to 17 times faster.




KenpoDave said:


> Doesn't really apply, but to give you an answer, but our group classes are workouts. There have been a few people who wanted to come in and just do groups and sparring and not pursue rank in the system.


 
Actually then it kind of does apply then. If you do group lessons you then can't get rank is how it sounds. And if someone did come and say just wanted to work out and do only group lessons do they pay more, less, or the same as the private lesson student?

Also, I know this was discussed before but I do not remember the answer.

Private lessons how many hours a week are you talking?

Group lessons, how many hours a week?

Can some one just train private lessons from white belt to black?


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 8, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Yes. If people are interested in coming to our school to learn the Tracy System, privates are required.


 
I will point out that this is not true in all Tracy schools.

My instructor does not use private lessons.  Our group is small, so we tend to get fairly individual attention anyway, but there are not separate private lessons.  The same was true in the school I trained with in the 1980s as well.

I think in the past, when my current instructor had a larger school, before I began studying with him, he probably did include private lessons.

I will also point out that under the three Tracy instructors that I have trained with between 1984 and now, the tuition was very very reasonable.  The school I am in now is charging quite a bit less than most of the other martial arts schools in my area, I was actually surprised at how low it is.  But he is not making his living by teaching martial arts.  He has a day job like the rest of us, as did my prior teachers.  Nobody has ever pressured me to buy any merchandise from Tracy Headquarters, of any kind.  I did buy the curriculum reference outline, but that is it.  No videos, nothing else, and I've never met someone who actually tried to learn the system from the videos.  They are really meant to be a reference tool for people who have actually learned the material for real.  

I don't know what financial relationship exists between Tracy Headquarters and my instructors.  My instructor has indicated that during the gas crisis in the 1970s, Al Tracy released all the Franchise schools so they could survive the financial lean times.  So I guess nobody is paying franchise fees anymore.  I was a kid during the 1970s, so I don't really remember what was happening during that time. Anyway, perhaps there is a membership fee that instructors pay or something, but honestly I don't know how it works, how much it is, or even if it exists at all.  I have never been privy to that knowledge.  But I don't think the instructors, nor Mr. Tracy, are getting wealthy off my tuition, it just isn't that much.

So for anyone trying to paint a picture of Tracy schools being all about high tuition and fees and selling materials and stuff to get rich off the students, it just has never been my experience.  All kinds of martial arts schools try to do that.  They have special clubs to rope in the kids, extra belt stripes to generate fees for testing and whatnot.  I am sure every style has people who try to take advantage of every opportunity to make more money off their students.  Maybe some people in Tracys do it as well, but I've never seen it.  

Another thing my instructor has told me is that Al Tracy gets very very sensitive about any accusations that rank is ever bought or sold.  He told me that the one time he ever witnessed Al actually strip somebody of rank, was when he found out the guy was charging testing fees.  He absolutely forbids it among his affiliated schools.  So whatever tuition program is set up by the school, there are no extra fees for rank testing.  I haven't even seen my instructor charge students for the price of their new belt when he gives it to him.  My wife has tested twice, and he's never asked us to reimburse him for the cost of the belts.

So, for what it's worth, not everything is about making money, or at least not everyone tries to capitalize on every possible money making opportunity.  Sure, a martial arts school can be run as a successful business, many people do this for better or for worse.  But not everyone pursues it in this way so just be careful about making blanket accusations about every school in an organization.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not meaning to sound sarcastic hear but I don't understand why you would want to train someone 7 to 17 times faster.


 
It is not a desire to train people faster.  It is a desire to train people at whatever pace allows them to excel.  As an instructor, I have experienced the gamut from people who could learn and retain the material of a belt in one day (no, before you ask, they did not have near the requisite skill required to test the material, but the retention was there) and I have had people take privates 5 days a week and still take longer than most to earn a new level of rank.



> Actually then it kind of does apply then. If you do group lessons you then can't get rank is how it sounds. And if someone did come and say just wanted to work out and do only group lessons do they pay more, less, or the same as the private lesson student?


 
My school is not set up to teach the system through group lessons.  I have never had someone wanting to do groups only, but I have had people wanting to do privates only.  The exception is a student who finds himself unable to continue for financial reasons.  I allow those students to continue attending the workouts until they can get back on their feet.  I do not charge them for this.



> Private lessons how many hours a week are you talking?


 
1 half hour session each week is typical.



> Group lessons, how many hours a week?


 
There are no group lessons.  We do have family members that share a private lesson, so I guess that could be considered a group lesson.  If you are speaking of group classes, then we offer 6 a week, one hour each.  7 if you count the children's class.



> Can some one just train private lessons from white belt to black?


 
Yes.  It is rare.  There are people whose schedules do not fit into the group times.  These people, if committed, will often be at the studio at other times of the day looking for partners to train with.  Often, several will form their own "class" by meeting at the studio together to train.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 9, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> It is not a desire to train people faster. It is a desire to train people at whatever pace allows them to excel. As an instructor, I have experienced the gamut from people who could learn and retain the material of a belt in one day (no, before you ask, they did not have near the requisite skill required to test the material, but the retention was there) and I have had people take privates 5 days a week and still take longer than most to earn a new level of rank.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
OK

At this point I am willing to admit I do not fully understand the point of "Learn 7-17x faster with private lessons" or how you or anyone can come up with the numbers "7-17". But I am also willing to say you have answered my questions and I am happy to leave it at that.

Like I said in the beginning I am a CMA guy and everything takes time in CMA also Im a MA dinosaur so that could be why I simply do not get the reasoning here. 

I will leave this to the kenpo people

Thanks
My best
XS


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> OK
> 
> At this point I am willing to admit I do not fully understand the point of "Learn 7-17x faster with private lessons" or how you or anyone can come up with the numbers "7-17". But I am also willing to say you have answered my questions and I am happy to leave it at that.
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough.  Thanks.  These were the same questions I asked of my instructor when I first entered his school after receiving the flyer in the mail.  I have tried to explain it as best I can here, but I think you have to be (#1) be involved in the program, and (#2) have been involved in a different program to really understand it.

Our methods work quite well for thousands of people.  Other methods work well for thousands of other people.  At the end of the day, what matters is that my students find value in the best that I have to offer.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 9, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Let me leave it at this:
> 
> 
> On average, it takes a person 3-5 years to obtain a black belt in a martial art.
> ...


 
So if the average time to black belt in Tracy's is 3 to 5 years, and the privates are required, and the privates make you learn 7-17x faster, then  it means that without those privates it would take someone 21-51 years to get to black belt in Tracy's. Yikes that's a long time.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 9, 2007)

Danjo said:


> So if the average time to black belt in Tracy's is 3 to 5 years, and the privates are required, and the privates make you learn 7-17x faster, then it means that without those privates it would take someone 21-51 years to get to black belt in Tracy's. Yikes that's a long time.


 
If that was all there was to getting a black belt.

If it takes the average person 17 minutes to learn a block, and the private helps them to learn it in one minute, they are still learning it in the same day. So I guess there's no telling how much faster it will be to get to black belt in that school.

Private lessons generally help a student's finer understanding. I don't think it is a guarantee to BB quicker.

But I aint a Tracy guy, so I dunno...


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 9, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> My school is not set up to teach the system through group lessons. I have never had someone wanting to do groups only, but I have had people wanting to do privates only. The exception is a student who finds himself unable to continue for financial reasons. I allow those students to continue attending the workouts until they can get back on their feet. I do not charge them for this.
> ...
> There are no group lessons. We do have family members that share a private lesson, so I guess that could be considered a group lesson. If you are speaking of group classes, then we offer 6 a week, one hour each. 7 if you count the children's class.


 
I'm just plain confused...  You say there are no group lessons, but there are group classes?

I know that individual instruction (I don't have scheduled private lessons, but I'm always happy to schedule a workout with students or classmates at a mutually convenient time) can be very beneficial for students.  In a one-on-one setting, I can focus on a particular issue a student has, or I can give them a chance to work on something that just hasn't fit into the regular class material for some reason.  But I don't get the "are system isn't set up to be taught without private lessons" idea.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 9, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> I'm just plain confused... You say there are no group lessons, but there are group classes?
> 
> I know that individual instruction (I don't have scheduled private lessons, but I'm always happy to schedule a workout with students or classmates at a mutually convenient time) can be very beneficial for students. In a one-on-one setting, I can focus on a particular issue a student has, or I can give them a chance to work on something that just hasn't fit into the regular class material for some reason. But I don't get the "are system isn't set up to be taught without private lessons" idea.


 
Generally instruction of new material is always conducted in the private.  Drilling, sparring, SD scenarios, etc are conducted in group classes.  But that isn't "instruction," that is practicing what you are already learned in different ways.  

Does that clarify?  It does work quite well, we use a similar system, for us, we do a two hour group class, the last half hour is for individual material where each student learns specifically what they need.  We have fairly small classes and something like 5 black belts in the class, so in essence every student gets a small 10 to 15 minute private lesson at every group class.  

Lamont


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

jks9199 said:


> "are system isn't set up to be taught without private lessons" idea.


 
That's not what I said.  My school is not set up in such a way that we can teach the entire system in group classes.  Some Tracy's instructors do it that way.  I do not.

Lamont's post clarifies it pretty well.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

Monadnock said:


> If that was all there was to getting a black belt.
> 
> If it takes the average person 17 minutes to learn a block, and the private helps them to learn it in one minute, they are still learning it in the same day. So I guess there's no telling how much faster it will be to get to black belt in that school.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks.  You seem to understand what I am trying to convey.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

Danjo said:


> So if the average time to black belt in Tracy's is 3 to 5 years


 
We're good so far...



> , and (if) the privates are required,


 
not always, but let's see where you take it...



> and (if) the privates *make* you learn 7-17x faster


 
Dang.  You were doing so well.  I'll have to go back and read the actual statement, but I am pretty sure that privates making you learn 7-17 times faster is not there, nor is it implied.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 9, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> Dang. You were doing so well. I'll have to go back and read the actual statement, but I am pretty sure that privates making you learn 7-17 times faster is not there, nor is it implied.


 

Uh, yeah it is. It doesn't say you can learn 3-5 times faster, or 1-2x faster. It posits 7 times faster as the minimum which implies that 7 times faster is the low end of how much faster you will learn if you take private lessons.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Uh, yeah it is. It doesn't say you can learn 3-5 times faster, or 1-2x faster. It posits 7 times faster as the minimum which implies that 7 times faster is the low end of how much faster you *will* learn if you take private lessons.


 
There you go making stuff up again.  You keep inserting words like "make" and "will."  There is a potential here of learning 7-17 times faster.

What it doesn't say or imply, Dan, is that with private lessons, one *will* learn faster, or that private lessons *make* one learn faster.  Our program allows students to study at their own pace.  

There are programs out there that have certain testing times.  For example, one school in our town has tests 4 times a year.  Students who learn faster than their peers have to wait until the whole class is ready.  Students who are only slightly slower than their peers may miss one test, be ready two weeks later, and have to wait 3 months for the next test.  And in those programs, those that are ready do not get to begin learning the newer material because they are not yet eligible for the "purple belt class" or whatever.

It is a program that has been successful for close to 40 years.  Thousands of people have gone through it.  The phrase in question has been around for a very long time.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 9, 2007)

Blindside said:


> Generally instruction of new material is always conducted in the private. Drilling, sparring, SD scenarios, etc are conducted in group classes. But that isn't "instruction," that is practicing what you are already learned in different ways.
> 
> Does that clarify? It does work quite well, we use a similar system, for us, we do a two hour group class, the last half hour is for individual material where each student learns specifically what they need. We have fairly small classes and something like 5 black belts in the class, so in essence every student gets a small 10 to 15 minute private lesson at every group class.
> 
> Lamont


 


KenpoDave said:


> That's not what I said. My school is not set up in such a way that we can teach the entire system in group classes. Some Tracy's instructors do it that way. I do not.
> 
> Lamont's post clarifies it pretty well.


 
OK, I get it now.  Instruction is done in privates/very small groups, drill and practice is done regular group classes.  It just wasn't real clear to me the difference you folks were drawing between instruction and practice.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 9, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> It is a program that has been successful for close to 40 years. Thousands of people have gone through it. The phrase in question has been around for a very long time.


 
This isn't meant as an attack on your system, or your training methods, so please don't take it that way.

But that justification doesn't hold much water.  For many years, people were sure that bloodletting to let the bad humours out was good medical practice.  Lots of people went through it, and quite a few survived.  That doesn't mean they were right or it remains a good justification.

I think one-on-one instruction is very important, whether it's the instructor taking a few moments to correct a student during a group class, or in private training sessions.  But I'd hesitate at any numerical claims about learning speed; there are just too many variables.  Why not simply tell a student things like "we teach new material in the private sessions so that we can concentrate on you and make sure you understand it" or "private lessons allow us to concentrate on your particular needs more effectively"?


----------



## Danjo (Nov 9, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> There you go making stuff up again. You keep inserting words like "make" and "will." There is a potential here of learning 7-17 times faster.
> 
> What it doesn't say or imply, Dan, is that with private lessons, one *will* learn faster, or that private lessons *make* one learn faster. Our program allows students to study at their own pace.
> 
> ...


 
But privates won't allow you to learn 2,3,4,5, or 6 times faster? It's either 7-17 or nothing? See that's the crux of this whole silly thing. Why not say that they can accelerate one's learning up to 17 times faster? That way, it gives no minimum. However, by starting the scale at 7 times faster, it is directly implying that this minimum level will occur with the introduction of private lessons. You're the one that said Al doesn't pull numbers out of thin air. Why does it start at 7?

The phrases "The Earth is flat" and "The Sun circles the Earth." had been around a long time also. That made them accurate how?

Also, you're the one that said that a black belt in 1.25 years wasn't too fast, and now you're back tracking saying that the students that are ready to test are arbitrarily held back for the slower students to be ready. That begs the question: "Why the privates then?" What is the benifit of learning faster if you just have to wait around for the rest of the slow-pokes anyways?


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Also, you're the one that said that a black belt in 1.25 years wasn't too fast, *and now you're back tracking saying that the students that are ready to test are arbitrarily held back for the slower students to be ready. *That begs the question: "Why the privates then?" What is the benifit of learning faster if you just have to wait around for the rest of the slow-pokes anyways?


 
No, Dan, again, you're making stuff up.  I have heard of and taken martial arts in OTHER programs that arbitrarily hold students back until the next test date.  Ours allows students to progress at their own rate.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 9, 2007)

Danjo said:


> See that's the crux of this whole silly thing. Why not say that they can accelerate one's learning up to 17 times faster?


 
Wouldn't matter.  You would still make up words and change what was said.  That is really the crux of this whole silly thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 10, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> There you go making stuff up again. You keep inserting words like "make" and "will." There is a potential here of learning 7-17 times faster.


 
I know I said I was out of this but as I follow this from the sidelines I find I am getting more confused.

If it is not "will" or if you are not saying with private lessons you will learn 7 - 17 times faster or it will make you learn 7 - 17 times faster then you are left with private lessons you might learn 7 to 17 times faster and if that is it "might" again what is the point of 7 - 17 times faster. It might not as well it might be that it is 6.235 to 11.6 times faster. I am now thoroughly confused about this s 7 - 17


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 10, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I know I said I was out of this but as I follow this from the sidelines I find I am getting more confused.
> 
> If it is not "will" or if you are not saying with private lessons you will learn 7 - 17 times faster or it will make you learn 7 - 17 times faster then you are left with private lessons you might learn 7 to 17 times faster and if that is it "might" again what is the point of 7 - 17 times faster. It might not as well it might be that it is 6.235 to 11.6 times faster. I am now thoroughly confused about this s 7 - 17


 
I did the math a while ago.  I think it was post 15.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 10, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> I did the math a while ago. I think it was post 15.


 
And I'm sure it makes sense to you inside your own head. However, unless it can make sense to others, it's meaningless. Everything makes sense from the inside, you should hear the perverts talk. There is no real explaination for those numbers versus other numbers.

and as to making stuff up, here is what you said regarding faster learning students: _*" Students who learn faster than their peers have to wait until the whole class is ready."*_

Now, here is what I said, "...*the students that are ready to test are arbitrarily held back for the slower students to be ready"*

I'm saying the same thing, not making things up.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 10, 2007)

Danjo said:


> and as to making stuff up, here is what you said regarding faster learning students: _*" Students who learn faster than their peers have to wait until the whole class is ready."*_
> 
> Now, here is what I said, "...*the students that are ready to test are arbitrarily held back for the slower students to be ready"*
> 
> I'm saying the same thing, not making things up.


 
Go back and reread post #97.  He was referring to ANOTHER school in town, not his own, and not a Tracy school.  This was in reference to somebody else's program.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 10, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> I did the math a while ago. I think it was post 15.


 
I am not asking about the math I am asking about what it actually means. You say it is not saying it will increase but might that is what I am getting at and if it is might what is the point of 7-17?

And if you want to point to the math it is basically pointless, You can do all the math you want but to make a statement of 7-17 it saying you have done a study of this and I do not see any mention of a control group as compared to youR private lessons that could give you any data that says it is 7 to 17 time faster, better, or whatever the reason for this is.

What is the point of 7-17? And please do not points to the math it is not proof of anything nor does it answer my question.

Learn 7-17 times faster with private lessons is what the point of this whole post seems to be. But you say it does not mean someone "will" learn  7-17 times faster and you say it will not "make" someone learn 7-17 times faster and you say it does not speed up the training so at best it is it "might" work this way and by that logic I can also say it might not. 

So what "exactly" is the point of the statement? What does it really mean and why was it actually made?


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 11, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> So what "exactly" is the point of the statement? What does it really mean and why was it actually made?


 
When the Tracy's introduced the private lessons into their program, people coming from other systems were learning more material than they had at their previous schools.  Tracy's students were learning the same material faster and retaining it better.  Putting variables together such as time spent in lessons and amount of material learned at the old school vs. the new school, these numbers were arrived at.

The point of the statement was to let students who had trained previously in other group only programs that in Tracy's schools, they would not arbitrarily be held to a group testing schedule.  They were free to learn and progress at whatever rate allowed them to succeed.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 11, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> When the Tracy's introduced the private lessons into their program, people coming from other systems were learning more material than they had at their previous schools. Tracy's students were learning the same material faster and retaining it better. Putting variables together such as time spent in lessons and amount of material learned at the old school vs. the new school, these numbers were arrived at.
> 
> The point of the statement was to let students who had trained previously in other group only programs that in Tracy's schools, they would not arbitrarily be held to a group testing schedule. They were free to learn and progress at whatever rate allowed them to succeed.


 
Thanks


----------



## Danjo (Nov 11, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> Go back and reread post #97. He was referring to ANOTHER school in town, not his own, and not a Tracy school. This was in reference to somebody else's program.


 
My bad. On closer reading, you're obviously correct. I thought he was referring to another Tracy school and explaining how that even though privates make you learn 7-17 times faster, it didn't get you to black belt any faster.

It still leaves the original question then about how to you learn 7-17 times faster, progress at your own rate and still not get to black belt faster than 3-5 years?


----------



## Danjo (Nov 11, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> When the Tracy's introduced the private lessons into their program, people coming from other systems were learning more material than they had at their previous schools. Tracy's students were learning the same material faster and retaining it better. Putting variables together such as time spent in lessons and amount of material learned at the old school vs. the new school, these numbers were arrived at.
> 
> The point of the statement was to let students who had trained previously in other group only programs that in Tracy's schools, they would not arbitrarily be held to a group testing schedule. They were free to learn and progress at whatever rate allowed them to succeed.


 
Are you then saying that Tracy students have 7-17 times as much material as other systems out there? If that's the case, and with private lessons they get to black belt in the same period of time as the people at the other schools do, then they must practice what material they have less correct? There is an old Chinese saying that goes something like, *"I fear the kick that has been practiced 10,000 times more than the 10,000 kicks that have been practiced once." *Which means that there is an optimum amount of material that one can absorb and perfect in a certain period of time. What system, for instance, has 1/17th the amount of material that Tracy's Kenpo has? Whichever one it is, if they take the same amount of time to get to black belt, they will have practiced their techniques 17 times more than the Tracy black belt has no?


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 11, 2007)

Danjo said:


> Are you then saying that Tracy students have 7-17 times as much material as other systems out there?


 
Nope.


----------



## Rickg (Nov 11, 2007)

I have had my share of private lessons and of course group classes.   Really what I have found is that my skill level only increases at a good pace when I practice on my own on a regular basis in between classes wheither they are private or in a group class.  Then it is good for me to work with other students of diffrent levels to practice my technique.  
  Really the only advantage I have found for private lessons is when I am learning Kata/forms.  Then the Instructor can teach me the form or kata a little faster and can correct me so that I do not form bad habbits in doing the technique's of the form which I am apt to do when practicing on my own.


----------



## KenpoDave (Nov 11, 2007)

Rickg said:


> I have had my share of private lessons and of course group classes. Really what I have found is that my skill level only increases at a good pace when I practice on my own on a regular basis in between classes wheither they are private or in a group class. Then it is good for me to work with other students of diffrent levels to practice my technique.
> Really the only advantage I have found for private lessons is when I am learning Kata/forms. Then the Instructor can teach me the form or kata a little faster and can correct me so that I do not form bad habbits in doing the technique's of the form which I am apt to do when practicing on my own.


 
You have touched on a very important point, at least in my opinion, and that is the kind of time that individuals devote to their training between classes.  Thank you.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 13, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> LOL.  There is no next lowest program as far as price is concerned.  At least, not at my school.




Same for my school.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 13, 2007)

Danjo said:


> But privates won't allow you to learn 2,3,4,5, or 6 times faster? It's either 7-17 or nothing? See that's the crux of this whole silly thing. Why not say that they can accelerate one's learning up to 17 times faster? That way, it gives no minimum. However, by starting the scale at 7 times faster, it is directly implying that this minimum level will occur with the introduction of private lessons. You're the one that said Al doesn't pull numbers out of thin air. Why does it start at 7?
> 
> The phrases "The Earth is flat" and "The Sun circles the Earth." had been around a long time also. That made them accurate how?
> 
> Also, you're the one that said that a black belt in 1.25 years wasn't too fast, and now you're back tracking saying that the students that are ready to test are arbitrarily held back for the slower students to be ready. That begs the question: "Why the privates then?" What is the benifit of learning faster if you just have to wait around for the rest of the slow-pokes anyways?



Is the point of learning in martial arts about getting a belt? 

The benefit of learning faster is (hopefully) an increased ability to defend yourself faster. Whether that would translate into a black belt, who cares. Plus, belts weren't included in the original topic of debate, but morphed into it. 

But frankly, if someone has the time to train, and the physical ability, and the understanding of the art, a black belt in 1.25 years shouldn't be out of the question, really. Granted, it would be, in my opinion, an extreme case. It's hard to picture having the requisite training time and still have a job, and be married.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 13, 2007)

Josh Oakley said:


> Is the point of learning in martial arts about getting a belt?
> 
> The benefit of learning faster is (hopefully) an increased ability to defend yourself faster. Whether that would translate into a black belt, who cares. Plus, belts weren't included in the original topic of debate, but morphed into it.
> 
> But frankly, if someone has the time to train, and the physical ability, and the understanding of the art, a black belt in 1.25 years shouldn't be out of the question, really. Granted, it would be, in my opinion, an extreme case. It's hard to picture having the requisite training time and still have a job, and be married.


 
If it were about learning to defend yourself faster, then all that would be taught in privates would be self defense techniques, not kata and forms. 

Belts are a recognition of progress ideally, so the two would go together unless you didn't recognize progress with rank or gave rank without progress.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 13, 2007)

Danjo said:


> If it were about learning to defend yourself faster, then all that would be taught in privates would be self defense techniques, not kata and forms.


 
is it your opinion that forms and kata have no connection to self defense?  I know there are a lot of people on the forums here, both within and outside of the kenpo community, who disagree with that idea.  It seems there is always a thread going on where this is being debated, if you search around a bit you will probably find one.  



> Belts are a recognition of progress ideally, so the two would go together unless you didn't recognize progress with rank or gave rank without progress.


 
well, the key word there is "ideally", which doesn't always match with reality, regardless of who the school is affiliated with, or what system they are teaching.

That being said, in Tracy kenpo, a person who reaches Orange Belt, just two progressions, has plenty of material to successfully defend himself, if he just works on it and gets good at it.  He really doesn't need more than that.  We've got a guy in our school, a Purple Belt, just one step above Orange, and I believe he could defend himself quite well if need be.  But then there are black belts out there who cannot defend themselves, so it really comes down to the individual and how well he can work with what he has.

So with regard to rank and ability to defend oneself, they don't necessarily go hand in hand, and they don't need to, at least not on the low end of the ranks.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 13, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> is it your opinion that forms and kata have no connection to self defense? I know there are a lot of people on the forums here, both within and outside of the kenpo community, who disagree with that idea. It seems there is always a thread going on where this is being debated, if you search around a bit you will probably find one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So then the privates should stop after Orange Belt then if the goal is only to learn to defend oneself faster eh? Once that was accomplished, no more need for speed.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 13, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> is it your opinion that forms and kata have no connection to self defense? I know there are a lot of people on the forums here, both within and outside of the kenpo community, who disagree with that idea. It seems there is always a thread going on where this is being debated, if you search around a bit you will probably find one.


 
The point was learning to defend oneself fast, not whether forms contributed to one's over all ability to defend oneself. I think that there are few that will argue convincingly that forms are the fastest road to self defense.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 13, 2007)

Danjo said:


> So then the privates should stop after Orange Belt then if the goal is only to learn to defend oneself faster eh? Once that was accomplished, no more need for speed.


 
no, there is always more to learn, but that's a personal choice.  

But if one was ONLY interested in self defense, to the expense of anything else, just a bare bones method that gives you good options for many scenarios, sure, you could stop learning any of the formal curriculum past Orange.  I would personally suggest you go thru Purple, it'll give you that extra edge, but yes, you could stop learning more of the curriculum at that point, and just focus on what you know and get really good at it, and it would be enough.

Outside of kenpo, my kung fu sifu says that our first three hand-strikes in Tibetan White Crane, chien choi, pau choi, and khap choi, are enough if all you want to do is fight.  If you get really good at those three types of punches, if you get fast with them and you can switch them up quickly, you could fight really well.  But of course the complete system is far more than those three punches.

It's a myth to think that you need to learn a complete system and have high rank, if all you are interested in is the ability to defend yourself or fight successfully.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 15, 2007)

Danjo said:


> If it were about learning to defend yourself faster, then all that would be taught in privates would be self defense techniques, not kata and forms.
> 
> Belts are a recognition of progress ideally, so the two would go together unless you didn't recognize progress with rank or gave rank without progress.



Which is why I went for two years in San Soo without ever putting on a belt. Not that there was no progress, but because I didn't give two craps about belts. The only critiques I had against San Soo were the only school in my whole start proved difficult to attend due to proximity, and that if I missed a class or two it was difficult or sometimes impossible to play catch up. Now I'm with a school that is close by, similar in method to San Soo, and teaches the curriculum through the private lessons. I pay more for it but I get more out of it. 

*Disclaimer: Unless you live in Kent, WA or the surrounding area, I'm not trying to sell anything to you.*

As for belts in USSD. I go because I like and learn from the challenges they put in front of me. Yes, belts are a recognition of progress... ideally. Then again, ideally there would be no need for martial arts in the first place. "Ideally" is not a state of existence, nor has it ever been.

And watching my wife get into martial arts, I'll make the stance for katas. Pinan 1 helped my wife learn to defend herself a lot better, along with the defense techniques. 

And you're setting up another unnecessary dichotomy here. Techniques and forms work better than either alone. Rather than A or B, I'm choosing A+B.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 15, 2007)

Danjo said:


> The point was learning to defend oneself fast, not whether forms contributed to one's over all ability to defend oneself. I think that there are few that will argue convincingly that forms are the fastest road to self defense.


 
yes, that was the topic of the thread.  You brought forms and kata into the equation.

the Fastest Road is something that cannot be objectively determined.  There are just too many variables involved.  What gives quick results for one person may not give the same results for another.  People are different that way, and often progression in a skill such as a martial art is not objectively measureable.

However, kata is a very valuable tool that does teach self defense, if you understand kata properly.  Notice, I said "A TOOL,' and not "THE TOOL."  Nobody who understands kata properly would suggest that kata alone will do the job adequately.  But it is a piece of the bigger picture, and it has its place within training.  I am sure people here in the forums like Exile would be happy to discuss this further with you.  He is a big proponent of kata done properly, and feels it can give tremendous benefit to your training.  I tend to agree with him.

I will argue that the use of kata, when used along with other training methods, actually does increase your speed in learning self defense, versus eliminating kata from your schedule.  Kata is a method of practicing your material when you do not have a partner to practice with.  If you limit yourself to only hands-on training with a live partner, then your training sessions are limited to only those times when a partner can join you to train.  I don't know about you, but that is certainly not an every day opportunity for me.  So on those days when I don't have a partner to work with, I practice kata, as well as hit the heavy bag, work on basics, and self-defense techs solo, to perfect the physical movement, as well as the concepts in my head.  This kind of training will speed your development much more quickly than defaulting into a day off, simply because your training partner is busy and cannot join you.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 16, 2007)

Josh Oakley said:


> And watching my wife get into martial arts, I'll make the stance for katas. Pinan 1 helped my wife learn to defend herself a lot better, along with the defense techniques.


 
Wow, did she get in a fight before and after she learned Pinan 1 and noticed marked improvement?



Josh Oakley said:


> And you're setting up another unnecessary dichotomy here. Techniques and forms work better than either alone. Rather than A or B, I'm choosing A+B.


 
I'm not setting up a false dichotomy at all. You stated that the purpose of privates was to increase your ability to defend oneself faster, not to advance to black belt faster. I said that if that were the case then the privates would teach self defense techs not kata. Because while kata may have some connection to improved ability to defend yourself, it's not the fastest road. Even the CMA guys will admit that. THen again, they are not looking for speed training.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 16, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> yes, that was the topic of the thread. You brought forms and kata into the equation.


 
That's because kata are what is taught in most private lessons that I've seen. Since the stated purpose of Tracy's "7-17x" faster was explained by the USSD redbelt Josh Oakley as meaning learning to defend yourself faster, not progress in rank faster, it seems silly to try and say that kata are the fastet way to learning self defense. I think you're going to find yourself alone in that position.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 16, 2007)

Danjo said:


> I'm not setting up a false dichotomy at all. You stated that the purpose of privates was to increase your ability to defend oneself faster, not to advance to black belt faster. I said that if that were the case then the privates would teach self defense techs not kata. Because while kata may have some connection to improved ability to defend yourself, it's not the fastest road. *Even the CMA guys will admit that*. THen again, they are not looking for speed training.


 
Actually yes&#8230; and no....kinda... sorta.... maybe. 

The problem from my CMA perspective is I cannot separate them and gain anything that is still CMA.

It is all kind of integrated, but I cannot speak for all CMA only those I train. You need a root, stance training, as well as an understanding of the forms and their applications and then you get into free style in traditional CMA. There is no speeding it up there is just time in training. Some will get it faster some will not. My perspective has been my problem with this "7-17x faster" post from the beginning.

You can speed it up if you train Sanda. But Sanda is another animal all together, no forms. There is a lot of training; learning how to hit, how to kick, how to respond and drills; palm strikes, forearm strikes etc and learning combinations. But no forms and there is a lot of defense/attack tech but still no forms but you still need basics to apply anything properly and even though you can learn to use Sanda to defend yourself quicker than a TCMA you still cannot speed that process up and still have it be Sanda.

Without a combination of forms and/or drills as well as sparing you get nothing that is still the art you are training faster. I said this in another post; forms without sparing are hollow and sparing without forms is a brawl. The same can be said of sparing without learning the basics of striking and basic combinations, without the it is again just a brawl. 

And you don't need private lessons or group lessons to learn to brawl


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2007)

Danjo said:


> That's because kata are what is taught in most private lessons that I've seen. Since the stated purpose of Tracy's "7-17x" faster was explained by the USSD redbelt Josh Oakley as meaning learning to defend yourself faster, not progress in rank faster, it seems silly to try and say that kata are the fastet way to learning self defense. I think you're going to find yourself alone in that position.


 
well, Josh is apparently giving his perspective on where the value of private lessons lie.  In my opinion, privates will help you learn your art faster, and different things may be taught during privates.  Maybe it's self defenst techs.  Maybe it's kata.  Maybe it's focusing on improving sloppy basics.  I am sure that many different things can be, and are, taught during private lessons, and this may change from lesson to lesson.  The point is, that individual attention and feedback allows you to learn the topic of the lesson more quickly than if you have 30 people all crowding around to see what is being taught, and the inherent distractions that go along with it.

Hopefully, an acceleration of the ability to defend oneself will be a part of this process.  I think that is the goal, along with learning the system.  

As I've stated before, I don't like attaching specific numbers to this process, so I'm not gonna try and defend that point.  And I did not state that I feel kata is the fastest way to learn to defend yourself.  If you recall, I feel it's difficult to objectively measure things like progression of skill in a martial art.  There are just too many variables at play, and at best it's just somebody's judgement and personal evaluation to say "this guy's skills have improved."  But you cannot lay down a yardstick and measure it with any real precision.

But I do believe kata is an important tool, and the inclusion of kata, along with other training methods, does provide an avenue for skills to develop more fully, and possibly more quickly.  That is, if the kata you are practicing are well designed and not just showmanship stuff, and if you understand the lessons they teach you.  And yes, kata is a legitimate thing to be taught in private lessons.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 16, 2007)

It seems to me that the main objection in this thread lies with the specific claim of "7-17 time faster."

I can certainly understand the skepticism that this claim provokes.  

But does anyone really dispute the notion that getting some private instruction, along with group training sessions, will probably speed up your learning process and improve the quality of your understanding?  I'm not attaching this to getting rank, and I'm laying aside any issues of marketing and business.  I'm just talking about the general learning process itself.  Does anyone dispute this?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 16, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> It seems to me that the main objection in this thread lies with the specific claim of "7-17 time faster."
> 
> I can certainly understand the skepticism that this claim provokes.
> 
> But does anyone really dispute the notion that getting some private instruction, along with group training sessions, will probably speed up your learning process and improve the quality of your understanding? I'm not attaching this to getting rank, and I'm laying aside any issues of marketing and business. I'm just talking about the general learning process itself. Does anyone dispute this?


 
If the title was &#8220;gain more from private lessons&#8221; or &#8220;private lessons are a good thing&#8221; or &#8220;private instruction, along with group training sessions, speed up the learning process&#8221; or any combination or similar wording that did not include &#8220;7-17x faster&#8221; or any other arbitrary number as a qualifier I am betting there would have been less objection/discussion.

I know I certainly would have been less confused and/or concerned.


----------



## Danjo (Nov 16, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> If the title was gain more from private lessons or private lessons are a good thing or private instruction, along with group training sessions, speed up the learning process or any combination or similar wording that did not include 7-17x faster or any other arbitrary number as a qualifier I am betting there would have been less objection/discussion.
> 
> I know I certainly would have been less confused and/or concerned.


 
That's my point also.

As to the Sanda, I understood that to be a form of kickboxing with some throws. Either way, I wasn't talking about basics, but rather the idea that Kata is the fastest way to learn to defend yourself. 

Anyways, it sounds like we're pretty much agreed that: 1) forms are good, but not the fastest way to learn to defend yourself. 2) Privates lessons have some value depending on what's taught and by whom (i.e., a real instructor, not an underbelt) and 3) the 7-17x faster thing is bizzare and non-sensical.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 16, 2007)

Danjo said:


> That's my point also.
> 
> As to the Sanda, I understood that to be a form of kickboxing with some throws. Either way, I wasn't talking about basics, but rather the idea that Kata is the fastest way to learn to defend yourself.
> 
> Anyways, it sounds like we're pretty much agreed that: 1) forms are good, but not the fastest way to learn to defend yourself. 2) Privates lessons have some value depending on what's taught and by whom (i.e., a real instructor, not an underbelt) and 3) the 7-17x faster thing is bizzare and non-sensical.


 

Yes I beleive we pretty much agree

just as a note; Sanda is Kicking and punching, Shuaijiao and Qinna. However the amount of Shuaijiao and Qinna are different between the sport version (Cung Le) and the police military version that I do. But I see your point and therefore Sanda was not exactly the best example here if yuo are talking forms (kata)


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 21, 2007)

Jim Hanna said:


> ...
> but I can say that that statement is true for the Tracy's curriculum.
> 
> The beauty of private lessons are that you (the student) can go at your own speed. That's one of the reasons I initially began kenpo. I was hungry and wanted to learn. I was taking TKD and had to wait for everyone to catch up in order to take a test at a predetermined date. With the private lesson philosophy (in the Tracy schools), a student tests individually when he or she is ready--and there is no belt testing fee.
> ...


 
Hello Mr. Hanna,
That original quote came from me in 1987 to Al Tracy in a conversation when he was giving a seminar at my studio in Oregon.

Al noticed in my yellow pages I'd stated, "Learn 7-15 times Faster with Private Lessons!".

This information came about because of my studies in Education (I was a Credentialized and State Certified High School Teacher for many years), and because of the reasearch I'd just finished doing for writing up my Doctorate Dissertation on "Cognitive Restructuring Techniques For Martial Arts Athletes". 

And, by increasing the private lessons, giving 2 privates a week, and three privates a week even make that more of an accelerated learning process.

Especially if you have them tape each private, and that evening they write notes and draw diagrams from those notes. Then the student is fast feeding massive amounts of information into his brain and body by use of visual external, auditory external, propioceptives, tactile, digital, visual internal, visceral (emotional content), and auditory internal.

Doing the privates and the notes and diagrams in the above manner will use repetition and submodalites of the VAKOG to imprint proper master keys quickly and easily.

Anyone who's been  in Educational Psychology knows that. Anyone that has studied Sports Psychology knows that.

The only ones that say it's all bull are the ones that are very ignorant of the educational facts, and have never tried private lessons, or if they did, they had no clue on how to teach the 3 basic parts of every waza that include:

1. Physical moves
2. Mental strategies and tactics
3. Emotional strategies and tactics for you and to use on the Uke

Let me switch topics a bit. On listening to audios and to learn from them properly, those who sell you those audio state "spaced repetition for at least 17 times".

Which is easily reduced to two times if you do it the following way. First, listen all the way though, paying attention to what you like and don't like.

Then listen, pause and take notes on what you like and don't like. Then "fix" the parts you don't like with what you do like.

Re-read those notes when done, and you will have total memory for about 2 weeks. In 2 weeks re-read those notes again and you will have almost total memory for 6 months.

Ed Reese has a book out on the above Educations Speed Methods.

Thank you Jim.

As always, a very informed post with much good information in it.

Group. So "I" caused all the yellow page ads with that information. Wasn't that nice of me? I have no clue on who changed the 7-15 to 7-17. I assume it was a type someone made and never caught it.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette
www.realspeedhitting.com


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 21, 2007)

KenpoDave said:


> I have always seen..."With private lessons, students can learn 7-17 times faster than with group classes alone."
> 
> "students CAN learn..." It's not a hard and fast rule, it is a potential. With privates, students are not held to the rate of the rest of the class. It is good for those who are gifted, and better for those who are not.
> 
> The key, as I understand it, is to take a private each week, and attend at least two group classes each week. I have seen students who only attend the privates fall behind, or plateau very easily.


 
A great point Dave.

Privates need to be taught a certain way, AND they need to go to the groups and to the sparring classes.

One of the great things (my opinion of course) is that NOTE TAKING IS MANDATORY! I mean for every class, private, group and sparring.

If they don't take notes I do not want to waste my time or my skills teaching them...because it will leak out of their head faster than a cow pisses.

Attendence NEVER means that anyone learns a damn thing.

Sweating NEVER means that anyone learns a damn thing.

Being able to do 100 pushups or run five miles or do 100 situps has virtually nothing to do with their Kenpo Karate skill level.

See my other post for more on this.

And if anyone wants any specifics, feel free to ask.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette
www.mentaltrainingsecrets.com


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> If your instructor were to benefit from a lesson in giving private instruction, why would there not be similiar benefit by giving the instructor a lesson in group instruction?
> 
> I am a professional trainer of adult students. And I hope that I am always on alert for new methods and techniques that allow me to present information with more clarity. (This past week, I observed a colleague training ~ and I picked up several tips from her presentation style)
> 
> ...


 
Actually what you finished with "the student has to do the work" is NOT what is taught teachers. And, I will admit, when I was young and ignorant (from ages 18-44) I also thought that no matter what I was taught.

I was missing a couple of things.

1. How to motivate them.
2. How to find their criterias, both negative and positive.
3. How to make it fun for them.(I did NOT say easy)
4. How to give them pride of achievement.

Blab, blab, blab.

When YOU, the trainer, do YOUR job right, which means a lot more than knowing Lone Kimono, THEN the student will think of his lessons with as much enthusiasm as he considers good sex.

And, yes, I do agree totally that there are very important tools to teaching groups also.

Thank you for your nice post.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 21, 2007)

Doc said:


> However, in the teaching of physically interactive skills and mechanisms, (especially those that require subtle tactile absorbsion), my teacher always spoke of the necessity for what he called the "Three Person perspective" to fully maximize learning capability. Without the third person perspective absent in private lessons, at least a third of the learning experience is absent, and probably more.
> 
> Imagine in athletics trying to teach someone any physical contact sport. A student must not only participate in both sides of the physical equation, but he must be allowed to observe it being done correctly. Without the live third person perspective this isn't possible. The "Third Person Perspective extends itself not only to the student but the teacher as well.
> .


 
This is very interesting, because you JUST DESCRIBED how I do my privates and how I've done them for years!

And you reasoning is based scientifically upon the three positions from NLP training.

At least that is where I learned it back in 1980.

Some are asking, "How does DOC get 3 students?" Easy. Here's an example.

Say a student has a 5 o'clock private. We allow the student at 4:30 to be Uke. And we allow the student at 5:30 to be Uke.  We only need one Uke, but if two show up, we have then alternate.

So it's:
1. The actual student getting the lesson.
2. The Uke, who is a kinesthetic sounding board for the Tori.
3. And the Teacher, who gives the student the basic three's.

Thank you Dr. Ron.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 21, 2007)

still learning said:


> The more you put into it (martial art training)...the faster it becomes a part of you.
> 
> Pro's sports players,MMA, and other'snow...they have to practice everyday or practice harder and more often than others to become the BEST!
> 
> ...


 
Very nice points.

I suggest that everyone here read the book by John Wooden.

It is great on training, great on winning, and even better on values, honesty and "doing your best no matter what".

Thank you.
Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## tellner (Dec 21, 2007)

"Can" and "up to" are the foundations on which huge Potemkin villages are built. Especially since "up to" clearly includes the number zero.

Context is everything here. 


There are some things which just require flight time. If you haven't put in the hours and worked those things out all the private instruction in the world won't help.
There are times when a student doesn't need the extra correction and personal attention. What he or she needs at the moment is practice with a wide variety of people to learn how to adapt the same material to different opponents. Like everything else there are cycles.
There are some people who just don't respond well to that style of instruction and others who thrive on it.
There's a point of diminishing returns with everything, even the best of instruction.
Without naming names, there are styles where private lessons are just as rote and standardized as the (assembly line) group classes. To justify the extra time expense the individual lesson has to be individualized. Otherwise it's just a shoddy way of extracting extra cash from the students.
The teacher has to be able to do that sort of teaching effectively. Very few MA teachers get any sort of instruction in how to teach let alone the differences in different sorts of classes.


----------



## Yari (Dec 21, 2007)

I havn't read all the post, but skimed through it. 

A saying I usally say: It takes 9 months to produce a baby.... no matter how many come with input, nurse it and recieve it.

You can part your MA into dirrefent groups: 

          1) Self Defence
          2) Body movement/improvement
          3) Self udnerstanding / philosophy / social understanding

Different areas take different times to be able to be proficient in. An each individual has his own 9 months to get there.

A coach/mentor/teacher is of great vaule, and can help, but it will take "9 months" for the individual to get to the point.

Regards
Yari


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Dec 21, 2007)

Yari said:


> I havn't read all the post, but skimed through it.
> 
> A saying I usally say: It takes 9 months to produce a baby.... no matter how many come with input, nurse it and recieve it.


 
Sorry,

Your metaphor is NOT isomorphic to the topic.

And NEITHER is it accurate.

It is your opinion based upon lack of data, both in teaching and in giving birth.

My last grandchild was born 6+ weeks early, somewhere around 7 to 7 1/2 months. NOT at 9 months.

My first child was born at 11 months and 1 week, give or take a day. NOT at 9 months.

So they were born approximately 4 months apart from each other, which is a reality that just does not fit your opinion, your generalization or your  metaphor.

Private training under a competant trainer does have it's place for accelerated learning of the martial arts.

Now I really don't give a rat's *** if anyone else cares about those tremendous possibilites you can give your students over the old, worn-out, and old-fashioned 2 1/2 sweat shops.

If you choose not to learn how to teach private lesson in an effective way, I DON'T CARE and neither does anyone else UNLESS they are your boss, then they'll fire you if they've studied the potentials time wise, marketing wise, the psychological reasons and accelerated learning wise.

We all hopefully live by what we have determined the way it is we want to live.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## Kacey (Dec 22, 2007)

[playnice]Karen Cohn[/playnice]


----------



## Yari (Jan 2, 2008)

Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> Sorry,
> 
> Your metaphor is NOT isomorphic to the topic.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I wasn't speaking about 9 months exatly(it's a picture- using an average common assumption). I was just using to say that some things take the time that they take, no matter how many resourses you throw at it. 

I dont think that using "9 months", and that it doesn't fit to those who have giving birth before or after 9 months, makes the statment invalid.

I don't think your comment on my lacking of teaching is valid either. But is hard to discuss on these forums, since I myself will be bias in that case ;-)

But thank you for your comments.

/yari


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 2, 2008)

Yari said:


> Well, I wasn't speaking about 9 months exatly(it's a picture- using an average common assumption). I was just using to say that some things take the time that they take, no matter how many resourses you throw at it.
> 
> I dont think that using "9 months", and that it doesn't fit to those who have giving birth before or after 9 months, makes the statment invalid.
> 
> ...


 
So, does this work?

I dont think that using "7-17 times faster", and that it doesn't fit to those who have reached their goal before or after 7-17 times faster, makes the statment invalid.


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Jan 2, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> So, does this work?
> 
> I dont think that using "7-17 times faster", and that it doesn't fit to those who have reached their goal before or after 7-17 times faster, makes the statment invalid.


 
Well, 

I don't like those numbers, 7-17.

They feel wrong, as if "not" valid, and made-up. So I don't use them.

I DO LIKE "up to 7-15 times faster". So I use them.

They are also valid according to educational statistics, student retention and student longivity (I did a post on that topic but it was deemed to harsh for martialtalk).

It does have a "weasel word/concept" (up to) so if you get a retard, he can't sue you.

And it feels as if valid.

Back when I came out with "Secrets of Speed Hitting: How-to-hit a man 11 times, or more, in one second or less!", we chose the number "11" NOT because it was true (it isn't, it is MORE than 11 X's in one second), but because it was MORE BELIEVABLE!

So, the target market's perceptions also must be taken into account regarding any advertisment copy you write.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette
www.realspeedhitting.com


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Jan 2, 2008)

Yari said:


> Well, I wasn't speaking about 9 months exatly(it's a picture- using an average common assumption). I was just using to say that some things take the time that they take, no matter how many resourses you throw at it.
> 
> I dont think that using "9 months", and that it doesn't fit to those who have giving birth before or after 9 months, makes the statment invalid.
> 
> ...


 
You are welcome Yari,

And I did NOT say what you said I said. I said "It is your opinion based upon lack of data, both in teaching and in giving birth."

You don't look like a woman, but a man.
And I was referencing "DATA", as in the concept of "educational information".

So if you do have the "educational data/information" which supports your premise, I'd love to read it.

Have a great new year.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## Yari (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> You don't look like a woman, but a man.


 
Yeap, I'm a man, been that all my life. 



> And I was referencing "DATA", as in the concept of "educational information".
> 
> So if you do have the "educational data/information" which supports your premise, I'd love to read it.


 
I think maybe were talking about the same thing but from different angels.
What I get from you is that your looking for data to support my claim. Cold hard facts, and without that I get the impression that you mean my statement would be invalid.

But I'm not trying to use my statement as a data, but as a "picture". 

I'm thinking in the means of trying to show a picture of a cup, just to give an idea of what I mean. I know that the picture doesn't show all the cups in the world, but I belive it is representativ, because it shows what I think is valid when I'm talking about it.

That you don't agree, is OK for me. But I can't agree on the fact that becasue I'm showing a picture, and not a real cup, my picture is not valid.

On the other hand, that discussion is getting off-course compared to the thread. For the threads sake we don't have to agree on this, but let our values just hang in there for others to validate and use. Thats fine for me.




> Have a great new year.
> 
> Dr. John M. La Tourrette


 
You too!

Best Regards
Yari


----------



## PatMunk (Jan 3, 2008)

Well after reading this thread I've noticed that most don't understand what is being said when they read the 7-17 times faster.

You can't apply the statement when comparing different systems. It only applies to comparing the same system, teaching privates + groups or groups only. You can't apply the statement when comparing a system with 600 +  techniques with a system with 154 techniques. Even though if both reached the goal at about the same time that would be about 6 times faster.

Educators have known for many years that teaching smaller classes is best ... If not their argument for smaller class sizes would not hold water.

What you have to do is apply the statement to your system. How much faster could one learn your system with Private + Group training compared to those only taking group classes.

As Dr,. La Tourrette stated, I also can remember when it was written 7 - 15 times faster .. I'm not sure when it was changed to 7 - 17 .... Legally it wouldn't make any difference if it said 7 - 90 times faster as long as students learned your system 7 times faster. the top end number wouldn't matter.

I hear people say well show me the numbers ... to this I'll reply .. Why do you need to see scientific numbers to support the statement? What about all of the instructors who after teaching for over 40 years, 30 years etc. teaching day in and day out. What weight would their experience teaching both have. Where do you think the scientific numbers would come from. If you would believe their findings once compiled into a report ... why wouldn't you believe them if they stated the same facts without the report.

Different systems have different requirements for Black Belt. Different number of techniques, different number of Katas, and I don't think comparing time in training to black belt is the correct angle to look.

Look to your system... How is it taught ... If your system is taught in groups only ... take a new student give them a 30 minute private lesson a week, following the proper guidelines of teaching private classes + let them go to the same number of groups and look how fast they will advance compared to those in the the group only classes. It should be evident to anyone what the results would be.

All this lengthly post is saying is don't apply the statement to a comparison of different systems, but apply it to one system, any system, and compare the training of that one system.


----------



## Danjo (Jan 3, 2008)

PatMunk said:


> Well after reading this thread I've noticed that most don't understand what is being said when they read the 7-17 times faster.
> 
> You can't apply the statement when comparing different systems. It only applies to comparing the same system, teaching privates + groups or groups only. You can't apply the statement when comparing a system with 600 + techniques with a system with 154 techniques. Even though if both reached the goal at about the same time that would be about 6 times faster.
> 
> Educators have known for many years that teaching smaller classes is best ... If not their argument for smaller class sizes would not hold water.


 

I agree that smaller class size is a better way to go as far as education goes. But that is talking about the ability to ensure that each student gets the attention that they need from the instructor due to having fewer kids to focus on. You can assign more papers and have a greater chance to grade them with care etc. and thus measure the student's progress if there are fewer of them to grade etc. etc.

What it isn't talking about is speed. The smaller class sizes allows the teacher to tailor the instruction better over the same period of time (i.e., a semester) than they would be able to to a larger group of people. Sort of like how Prof. Bishop has advanced students stay to workout for the last half hour of class at our school. With fewer people of higher rank, you can work on more advanced things than with the class that has everyone from white belts to black belts in it. But no one is claiming that smaller class sizes allow one to get through college or high school faster than they would otherwise. It's the quality, not speed that is improved.

The same is true for the martial arts IMO. Smaller groups are more condusive to better instruction, but it doesn't get them to black belt faster per se. If someone is going to get there 17 times faster, then they're going to be sacrificing quality. There's always an optimal amount of speed to quality ratio. If you go too fast, you will lose quality. The fastest blocks won't stop a solid punch because there's no structure behind it and the fastest punches won't do much damage for the same reason. They look pretty and are great for tournaments when you're trying to score points, but they have no value in a real fight because it will only annoy a real resisting attacker who is trying to punch your lights out. But the structure and solidity has to be practiced and developed over time. Otheriwise you have people with an empty shell, it may look pretty, but it serves no useful purpose. I would put more faith in the average student that trained in a school where he got to green belt in two years, than in the average student that got to black belt in 18 months because he got private lessons. You just can't beat solid basics and the knowledge that comes from years of proper training and it seems that that statistic is trying to entice people that want something quick, rather than something of quality.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 3, 2008)

PatMunk said:


> I hear people say well show me the numbers ... to this I'll reply .. Why do you need to see scientific numbers to support the statement? What about all of the instructors who after teaching for over 40 years, 30 years etc. teaching day in and day out. What weight would their experience teaching both have. Where do you think the scientific numbers would come from. If you would believe their findings once compiled into a report ... why wouldn't you believe them if they stated the same facts without the report.


 
ok show me the instructor*s* then they can explain how *they* came up with this. 

I do not doubt additional lessons and private lessons can speed up the process in some cases it is throwing out arbitrary numbers 7, 14, 15, 17 that I have a problem with and if you are throwing out such numbers you REALLY should have the data to back them up. Not just because I say so or that guy says so or we discussed it and this is what we came up with. What about all the students that did not learn faster or got fed up with the speed and pressure and left or students that needed extra help beyond the provided classes, they dont even appear to being discussed. From what I have been reading we are basing this on the possibility that some learned faster. 

If you want to say it speeds up the process then ok that is fine but if you want to throw out numbers expect to be asked how you got those numbers.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 3, 2008)

PatMunk said:


> I hear people say well show me the numbers ... to this I'll reply .. Why do you need to see scientific numbers to support the statement? What about all of the instructors who after teaching for over 40 years, 30 years etc. teaching day in and day out. What weight would their experience teaching both have. Where do you think the scientific numbers would come from. If you would believe their findings once compiled into a report ... why wouldn't you believe them if they stated the same facts without the report.


 
If the claim was simply "you learn faster with private lessons" I don't think anyone would have an issue with it.  But as soon as someone claims a specific number, like 7, there should be something backing it up.  I'm a scientist, I don't take other scientist's word that effect Y happens as a result of action X, I need to see a paper with their reasoning, their methods, their results, and their conclusions.  This gives me an understanding of their approach and why they concluded what they did.  I certainly can use those scientist's life experience to advise me in my own research, but it doesn't carry much weight in terms of justification of a point.  

Lamont


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 3, 2008)

Dr John M La Tourrette said:


> Well,
> 
> I don't like those numbers, 7-17.
> 
> ...


 
I agree.  I was just inserting the numbers relevant to the thread into the given analogy of validity.  His point as I read it being that what may not be valid for everyone does not invalidate it for everyone.  It seems to me that in using that analogy, he actually made the point.


----------



## KenpoDave (Jan 3, 2008)

Danjo said:


> The fastest blocks won't stop a solid punch because there's no structure behind it and the fastest punches won't do much damage for the same reason.


 
I know this is not the topic being discussed, but the above is wrong.  It is not possible to apply full power at less than full speed.  It is possible, however, to go full speed with no power.

A person may be able to apply more power by slowing down, because that person has not learned to integrate the proper end point timing at higher speeds, but full power requires full speed.

I have run across many people who fit into the above statement.  But it is not that the block is too fast, or the punch is too fast, it is "operator error."


----------



## tellner (Jan 3, 2008)

From a Monty Python routine about the Welsh Martial Art of Llap-Goch:



> *[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]Only a FOUR-SECOND WORK-OUT Each Day![/SIZE][/FONT]*   and you will be ready to HARM people
> DEVELOP UP TO 38 BICEPS
> GROW UP TO 12" TALLER
> LOSE UP TO 40" OF FAT IN YOUR FIRST WORK-OUT!
> ...



Agree with most of the above. If you say 7-17 times faster when the number is actually seven and you have no evidence that the 17 happens you are a liar. Saying "Well, technically seven is a number between seven and seventeen" doesn't make it any less a lie.


----------



## Dr John M La Tourrette (Jan 3, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> I agree. I was just inserting the numbers relevant to the thread into the given analogy of validity. His point as I read it being that what may not be valid for everyone does not invalidate it for everyone. It seems to me that in using that analogy, he actually made the point.


 
You are totally correct Dave.
And I do like some of the other responses...

...and I just delete some of the rest of the responses because they are only interested in nit-picking. I've got more important things to do than pick pimples with someone that wants to squirt pimples. (I just posted a picture)

Point, private lessons are better for teaching new data.

Point, it's has been studied and compared  in the educational field.

Point, so I'm going to keep doing private lessons, backed up by groups and sparring specialty classes because the clients learn much better, much faster, and at a much better depth of understanding.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 5, 2008)

KenpoDave said:


> You are probably right. Even if the whole body is moving the direction of the strike, and the end point timing is right, there is likely an antagonistic muscle hanging on somewhere, or the other hand chambering by moving the other direction.
> 
> But, I never said it was. Simply that, for their to be full power, the variables in the equation must also be "full."


 
Actually you did say that



KenpoDave said:


> Full power = *total mass* x top speed.
> 
> .


 



KenpoDave said:


> I agree. But you cannot slow down and hit full power. The key is in perfect mechanics and perfect timing. I doubt that the realization of real "full power strikes" is attainable. That is one of the reasons that 40 years later, people still hit the bag everyday.


 
good body mechanics, proper alignment and relaxation not necessarily full speed. But then I doubt we will agree here and that is fine.


----------



## MJS (Jan 5, 2008)

Folks,

You may notice some posts missing.  I split the discussion on speed and power to this thread.  Please continue that discussion there and keep this for the discussion on the private lessons.

Mike


----------

