# More vs Less Training Time



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2019)

Lets say a student of the martial arts goes to class three times a week for an hour each time. That would be three hours a week. If that same student were to go only once a week for an hour that would of course be one hour a week. For a student who is able to go three hours a week, they will no doubt progress further in their art in a week if they do train for three hours a week instead of just one hour a week. 

Anyway, there can be all sorts of reasons why a student might only train one hour a week instead of three. Maybe their schedule only allows one hour a week, maybe they are only doing it for fun and feel one hour a week is adequate. But the fact remains that they will go further in a week's time if they do three hours a week instead of just one. In one week they will have learned what they would've learned in three weeks if they were to do only one hour a week. 

So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Sep 20, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a student of the martial arts goes to class three times a week for an hour each time. That would be three hours a week. If that same student were to go only once a week for an hour that would of course be one hour a week. For a student who is able to go three hours a week, they will no doubt progress further in their art in a week if they do train for three hours a week instead of just one hour a week.
> 
> Anyway, there can be all sorts of reasons why a student might only train one hour a week instead of three. Maybe their schedule only allows one hour a week, maybe they are only doing it for fun and feel one hour a week is adequate. But the fact remains that they will go further in a week's time if they do three hours a week instead of just one. In one week they will have learned what they would've learned in three weeks if they were to do only one hour a week.
> 
> So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?


"Impatient" ?  Based on what you wrote it is difficult for me to give any feedback but if we are talking broad strokes here, all things created equally, more time on the floor is better than less time.   However, the caveat to that is and always will be that quality will trump quantity in most aspects of training.   Sure there are many students that you can qualify as "impatient" but wanting to spend more time on the floor is generally not something I identify as being "impatient".


----------



## Headhunter (Sep 20, 2019)

So if someone chooses to train more than once a week they're impatient?....hmm well that's a...unique way of looking at it


----------



## daviddz (Sep 20, 2019)

It really depends on the student’s goals. 

If they are only interested in getting exercise so they can loose weight and get in shape, 1 hour a week just isn’t going to cut it.

If the student is going because their children are also taking a martial art, and they just want to better understand what their child is doing, then it might be plenty.

My daughter goes 4 and 5 days a week,because she really enjoys it. To her, it is just fun.  I see it being much more than that for her, so I encourage her.  

Since she started doing martial arts, it got me back into it as well.  So I am also at the dojo 4 and 5 times a week.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jobo (Sep 20, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a student of the martial arts goes to class three times a week for an hour each time. That would be three hours a week. If that same student were to go only once a week for an hour that would of course be one hour a week. For a student who is able to go three hours a week, they will no doubt progress further in their art in a week if they do train for three hours a week instead of just one hour a week.
> 
> Anyway, there can be all sorts of reasons why a student might only train one hour a week instead of three. Maybe their schedule only allows one hour a week, maybe they are only doing it for fun and feel one hour a week is adequate. But the fact remains that they will go further in a week's time if they do three hours a week instead of just one. In one week they will have learned what they would've learned in three weeks if they were to do only one hour a week.
> 
> So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?


it may seem counter intuitive,  but sometimes, quite a lot of the time less is more, theres no guarantee that three times a week is better than two, or twice is better 5han once,  so therefore no guarantee that three is better than one. it depends on an awful lot of factors both personal and how the class is structured.

I find once a week, then a few lots of 10 mins scattered through the rest of the week to cement/ practise what iv3 learnt to be optimum. and just about tops out my boredom threshold

any more than that and the extra times is negated by the fact I'd rather be somewhere else doing something a lit less repetitive  and general involving women. then I come back refreshed and keen the week after. that and it interferes with my fitness program


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a student of the martial arts goes to class three times a week for an hour each time. That would be three hours a week. If that same student were to go only once a week for an hour that would of course be one hour a week. For a student who is able to go three hours a week, they will no doubt progress further in their art in a week if they do train for three hours a week instead of just one hour a week.
> 
> Anyway, there can be all sorts of reasons why a student might only train one hour a week instead of three. Maybe their schedule only allows one hour a week, maybe they are only doing it for fun and feel one hour a week is adequate. But the fact remains that they will go further in a week's time if they do three hours a week instead of just one. In one week they will have learned what they would've learned in three weeks if they were to do only one hour a week.
> 
> So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?



1 hour vs. 3 hours a week, it's kind of hard to see that distinction.  I don't know of many that train 1 hour a week, and the one I have that does, it is really hard to learn things in because you have a week to forget it.  I've found 3 hours to be the sweet spot for improving.  Even if someone trains more, I don't think they are "impatient", but I do think they will burn out.  I've seen it happen more often than not.

Of course, I may not be the best person to ask.  I've been told I'm impatient because I ask too many questions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 20, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a student of the martial arts goes to class three times a week for an hour each time. That would be three hours a week. If that same student were to go only once a week for an hour that would of course be one hour a week. For a student who is able to go three hours a week, they will no doubt progress further in their art in a week if they do train for three hours a week instead of just one hour a week.
> 
> Anyway, there can be all sorts of reasons why a student might only train one hour a week instead of three. Maybe their schedule only allows one hour a week, maybe they are only doing it for fun and feel one hour a week is adequate. But the fact remains that they will go further in a week's time if they do three hours a week instead of just one. In one week they will have learned what they would've learned in three weeks if they were to do only one hour a week.
> 
> So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?


I don't think there's anything inherently impatient about that. They may simply be more interested, have more time available, etc.

I'll also point out that someone training 3 hours a week will generally learn more in a week than the same person training 1 hour a week. Training just once a week (as is the current case for my classes), there's much time to forget information and movement between classes. Every class is spent partly just trying to rebuild what was forgotten. Take those same students and have them train an hour Mon/Wed/Fri, and they'll have much better recall at the beginning of each hour. They will also get more fitness benefits from whatever moving and stretching is done.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think there's anything inherently impatient about that. They may simply be more interested, have more time available, etc.
> 
> I'll also point out that someone training 3 hours a week will generally learn more in a week than the same person training 1 hour a week. Training just once a week (as is the current case for my classes), there's much time to forget information and movement between classes. Every class is spent partly just trying to rebuild what was forgotten. Take those same students and have them train an hour Mon/Wed/Fri, and they'll have much better recall at the beginning of each hour. They will also get more fitness benefits from whatever moving and stretching is done.



Mon/Wed/Fri is perfect, or any other variant where there's a similar spread (Mon/Wed/Sat or Tue/Thur/Sat).  I think 3 days a week is the point for most people at which they do less re-learning of the forgotten material.  I noticed a big difference going from 2 to 3 days, not much going from 3 to 4 or 4 to 6.  You will build muscle memory faster the more you train, but 3 days seems to be the "sweet spot" where you get the biggest benefit by increasing your days.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> Mon/Wed/Fri is perfect, or any other variant where there's a similar spread (Mon/Wed/Sat or Tue/Thur/Sat).  I think 3 days a week is the point for most people at which they do less re-learning of the forgotten material.  I noticed a big difference going from 2 to 3 days, not much going from 3 to 4 or 4 to 6.  You will build muscle memory faster the more you train, but 3 days seems to be the "sweet spot" where you get the biggest benefit by increasing your days.


Agreed. Training 2 days a week for the same 3 hours usually results in a big gap between two days. Folks train something like Mon/Wed, then have 5 days to forget things before their next class. Add in a Friday or Saturday class, and suddenly they only have 2 days off at any given time.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Training 2 days a week for the same 3 hours usually results in a big gap between two days. Folks train something like Mon/Wed, then have 5 days to forget things before their next class. Add in a Friday or Saturday class, and suddenly they only have 2 days off at any given time.



And if they miss a day, they're not gone a whole week.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 20, 2019)

Three hours a week is actually not much training.  In the beginning that may be fine, but as one progresses and has more to work on, it won’t be enough for actual progress.

Is is possible to overtrain and suffer from burnout, or to simply have diminishing returns due to exhaustion and needing rest time and time to mentally process the training.  We have discussed that issue in the past.  But three hours a week is a long way from that threshold.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Three hours a week is actually not much training.  In the beginning that may be fine, but as one progresses and has more to work on, it won’t be enough for actual progress.
> 
> Is is possible to overtrain and suffer from burnout, or to simply have diminishing returns due to exhaustion and needing rest time and time to mentally process the training.  We have discussed that issue in the past.  But three hours a week is a long way from that threshold.



I think this is talking about class time, not about total time practicing.

Although I agree, if it's total time then both numbers are woefully insufficient.


----------



## W.Bridges (Sep 20, 2019)

I don't believe you would get much from just 1 hour a week. 3 hours a week is good if that is just in the class room. At the TKD school my son and I attend is only two days a week wish it was more days a week. I still do 3 hours of class room training do to one of the days there is also an advance class right after the all belt class. We both practice at home through the week.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> Mon/Wed/Fri is perfect, or any other variant where there's a similar spread (Mon/Wed/Sat or Tue/Thur/Sat).  I think 3 days a week is the point for most people at which they do less re-learning of the forgotten material.  I noticed a big difference going from 2 to 3 days, not much going from 3 to 4 or 4 to 6.  You will build muscle memory faster the more you train, but 3 days seems to be the "sweet spot" where you get the biggest benefit by increasing your days.


I really think mathematically so much stuff would be easier if weeks were 6 days long rather than 7


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I really think mathematically so much stuff would be easier if weeks were 6 days long rather than 7



I've had similar discussions on music theory forums regarding scales.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> but I do think they will burn out.



Depends on the person and the situation.  I know many that have been training well over 3 hours a week for years.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 20, 2019)

Is this the 53rd, or 54th time you've asked this same question, thinking you'll get a different answer? I've lost count.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

CB Jones said:


> Depends on the person and the situation.  I know many that have been training well over 3 hours a week for years.



I was mainly referring to the people who jump into the deep end before testing the water.  The white belt that signs up for every additional class he can because martial arts is fun!  And then quickly realizes it's not as fun when he's not a black belt in 6 months.

Most of the people who go 4+ days a week at my dojang started out at 2 days a week and kept adding on over time.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Is this the 53rd, or 54th time you've asked this same question, thinking you'll get a different answer? I've lost count.



Eh, it's new to me.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2019)

Yokozuna514 said:


> "Impatient" ?  Based on what you wrote it is difficult for me to give any feedback but if we are talking broad strokes here, all things created equally, more time on the floor is better than less time.   However, the caveat to that is and always will be that quality will trump quantity in most aspects of training.   Sure there are many students that you can qualify as "impatient" but wanting to spend more time on the floor is generally not something I identify as being "impatient".


I would have to agree, that if excessive quantity results in a decrease in quality than it is the quantity that should be reduced until the quality is back at its peak, however, I don't believe in most cases training three hours a week instead of one will reduce the quality of that training at all. 

As for wanting to spend more time on the floor, if a student's reason for doing so is because they want to reach a certain skill level in fewer weeks, would that be impatient?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2019)

Headhunter said:


> So if someone chooses to train more than once a week they're impatient?....hmm well that's a...unique way of looking at it


That's a really extreme way of looking at it but the point is, if a student trains more hours per week instead of less hours per week, does that make the student impatient? After all, in most cases training more hours a week will enable you to improve your skill in fewer weeks than if you train less hours a week.


----------



## AndreaLola (Sep 20, 2019)

I wouldnt think it would make them impatient if they are doing it because they genuinely feel that they are enjoying themselves.  

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 20, 2019)

In my experience, once per week just keeps the rust off, twice is necessary for slow progression, and three or more is necessary for fast progression.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to train three days per week if that's an option.


----------



## Mitlov (Sep 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I really think mathematically so much stuff would be easier if weeks were 6 days long rather than 7


 I'll bet you're one of those jerks who "uses the metric system" too


----------



## donald1 (Sep 20, 2019)

I like training four times a week. Monday, Wednesday,  friday, and Saturday.  Atleast 1 hour. 

Personally I like doing atleast a little every day. Basic stretches and excersizes and maybe some tai chi. Nothing too strenuous.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2019)

jobo said:


> it may seem counter intuitive,  but sometimes, quite a lot of the time less is more, theres no guarantee that three times a week is better than two, or twice is better 5han once,  so therefore no guarantee that three is better than one. it depends on an awful lot of factors both personal and how the class is structured.
> 
> I find once a week, then a few lots of 10 mins scattered through the rest of the week to cement/ practise what iv3 learnt to be optimum. and just about tops out my boredom threshold
> 
> any more than that and the extra times is negated by the fact I'd rather be somewhere else doing something a lit less repetitive  and general involving women. then I come back refreshed and keen the week after. that and it interferes with my fitness program


I was using small numbers because I wanted to avoid what you're describing, about excessive training resulting in less improvement. Training only one hour a week or only three hours a week, you're not going to experience diminishing returns in most cases. If you were, say, training forty hours a week, 8 hours a day, then you would most likely be experiencing diminishing returns and you would want to cut back, otherwise you will most likely burn yourself out and not progress at all and you could very likely hurt yourself. But most people can handle three hours a week, there might be some exceptions such as people with certain medical conditions or people who are really out of shape but the vast majority of people can train three hours a week and not hurt themselves or have diminishing returns. 

Of course, how the class is structured and how your training is structured also plays a role. Doing one solid hour is going to produce better results than doing ten minutes here and there for a total of one hour. Doing five hours straight, unless you haven't worked up to it, is not a good idea and will very likely burn you out.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> 1 hour vs. 3 hours a week, it's kind of hard to see that distinction.  I don't know of many that train 1 hour a week, and the one I have that does, it is really hard to learn things in because you have a week to forget it.  I've found 3 hours to be the sweet spot for improving.  Even if someone trains more, I don't think they are "impatient", but I do think they will burn out.  I've seen it happen more often than not.
> 
> Of course, I may not be the best person to ask.  I've been told I'm impatient because I ask too many questions.


Depending on the week, I will sometimes only do 1 hour a week of Goju Ryu Karate. That is because I am also training in Gracie Jiu Jitsu and I already have a big background in a different style of Karate and I also go to the gym and lift weights. The Goju Ryu I just do to add more to my knowledge and to adopt some of their techniques to my style. For instance, from my experience Goju Ryu has some of the best blocks and a really solid defense.

As for somebody burning out, that can be a problem if you really train to an excessive amount but one hour a week or three hours a week will not burn out most people. That's why Im using small numbers as I explained in post #26.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 20, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Three hours a week is actually not much training.  In the beginning that may be fine, but as one progresses and has more to work on, it won’t be enough for actual progress.
> 
> Is is possible to overtrain and suffer from burnout, or to simply have diminishing returns due to exhaustion and needing rest time and time to mentally process the training.  We have discussed that issue in the past.  But three hours a week is a long way from that threshold.


No three hours is not much, at least its not much for somebody when they get more advanced, but as I said in previous posts, the reason why Im using small numbers for the training hours is to avoid getting into too much discussion about burnout. There is a point where more is less but for most people it would not be three hours a week.

If you were to train six hours a week, in say, three days a week for two hours each time, that might not be a good idea for a beginner or somebody out of shape.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> Mon/Wed/Fri is perfect, or any other variant where there's a similar spread (Mon/Wed/Sat or Tue/Thur/Sat).  I think 3 days a week is the point for most people at which they do less re-learning of the forgotten material.  I noticed a big difference going from 2 to 3 days, not much going from 3 to 4 or 4 to 6.  You will build muscle memory faster the more you train, but 3 days seems to be the "sweet spot" where you get the biggest benefit by increasing your days.


Keep in mind that theoretically you should be practicing still on your off days. That prevents having to relearn the material. I've been going only about once a week the last few months, but I practice every night, so I'm not having to relearn anything and still see progress. 

Granted, I think you work mostly with kids/teens, so I'd be shocked if their actually practicing when they're not there (I know I claimed to do that but would skip out more than my share fair as a lad).


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Keep in mind that theoretically you should be practicing still on your off days. That prevents having to relearn the material. I've been going only about once a week the last few months, but I practice every night, so I'm not having to relearn anything and still see progress.
> 
> Granted, I think you work mostly with kids/teens, so I'd be shocked if their actually practicing when they're not there (I know I claimed to do that but would skip out more than my share fair as a lad).



While true, you can only remember so much at a time to go home and practice.  It's a lot easier when you go through it all again while it's fresh in your memory.


----------



## pdg (Sep 20, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> No three hours is not much, at least its not much for somebody when they get more advanced,



3 hours is not much for a beginner either, at least not if it's spread out.


Where are you getting this thing about it making someone impatient anyway?

Impatient implies wanting to move 'up' quicker than you are able - training more (within your limits) is more a sign of dedication and enthusiasm.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 20, 2019)

skribs said:


> While true, you can only remember so much at a time to go home and practice.  It's a lot easier when you go through it all again while it's fresh in your memory.


I think this also depends on how long you've been training for. As a beginner, you need to be getting guidance on everything, so not a whole lot can be done by yourself. By the time you're more experienced, you should be able to do most of the solo forms/drills/techs by yourself, without losing it. If not the new stuff (if there even is new stuff that you learned..sometimes there's not), then at the very least improving on your fundamentals.

If you spend an hour a night just going over fundamentals (and only fundamentals outside class), no matter how experienced you are, you're going to see some improvement.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 20, 2019)

I know some top fighters.

And they all dedicate real time and effort in to third training.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 20, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say a student of the martial arts goes to class three times a week for an hour each time. That would be three hours a week. If that same student were to go only once a week for an hour that would of course be one hour a week. For a student who is able to go three hours a week, they will no doubt progress further in their art in a week if they do train for three hours a week instead of just one hour a week.
> 
> Anyway, there can be all sorts of reasons why a student might only train one hour a week instead of three. Maybe their schedule only allows one hour a week, maybe they are only doing it for fun and feel one hour a week is adequate. But the fact remains that they will go further in a week's time if they do three hours a week instead of just one. In one week they will have learned what they would've learned in three weeks if they were to do only one hour a week.
> 
> So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?


LOL...
I've got people who train Everyday...Everyday.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 20, 2019)

pdg said:


> Where are you getting this thing about it making someone impatient anyway?


I believe it goes back to some earlier threads where he was talking about training more in order to progress faster and someone (I don’t remember who) was making comments about that indicating a lack of patience. They were probably weren’t talking about 1 vs 3 hours of practice though.

At my current level, 3 hours per week is just enough to keep the rust off. With 6 hours per week I can make a bit of progress. I feel like I do my best with 8-12 hours per week. I have a hard time maintaining any more than that without getting overly sore and burned out.


----------



## skribs (Sep 20, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I believe it goes back to some earlier threads where he was talking about training more in order to progress faster and someone (I don’t remember who) was making comments about that indicating a lack of patience. They were probably weren’t talking about 1 vs 3 hours of practice though.
> 
> At my current level, 3 hours per week is just enough to keep the rust off. With 6 hours per week I can make a bit of progress. I feel like I do my best with 8-12 hours per week. I have a hard time maintaining any more than that without getting overly sore and burned out.



I recently had to cut back, for a different reason.  I'm down from teaching 17 hours/week to teaching 5, because I kept getting sick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> That's a really extreme way of looking at it but the point is, if a student trains more hours per week instead of less hours per week, does that make the student impatient? After all, in most cases training more hours a week will enable you to improve your skill in fewer weeks than if you train less hours a week.


In most cases - in my experience - someone training more hours simply has more enthusiasm and/or dedication. Their training is a higher priority, which is a neutral statement in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Keep in mind that theoretically you should be practicing still on your off days. That prevents having to relearn the material. I've been going only about once a week the last few months, but I practice every night, so I'm not having to relearn anything and still see progress.
> 
> Granted, I think you work mostly with kids/teens, so I'd be shocked if their actually practicing when they're not there (I know I claimed to do that but would skip out more than my share fair as a lad).


Most adults don't seem to do any training outside of class, either. With grappling, I can kind of understand it, but I find it true of strikes and all other drills, as well.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> I was using small numbers because I wanted to avoid what you're describing, about excessive training resulting in less improvement. Training only one hour a week or only three hours a week, you're not going to experience diminishing returns in most cases. If you were, say, training forty hours a week, 8 hours a day, then you would most likely be experiencing diminishing returns and you would want to cut back, otherwise you will most likely burn yourself out and not progress at all and you could very likely hurt yourself. But most people can handle three hours a week, there might be some exceptions such as people with certain medical conditions or people who are really out of shape but the vast majority of people can train three hours a week and not hurt themselves or have diminishing returns.
> 
> Of course, how the class is structured and how your training is structured also plays a role. Doing one solid hour is going to produce better results than doing ten minutes here and there for a total of one hour. Doing five hours straight, unless you haven't worked up to it, is not a good idea and will very likely burn you out.


hmm, how are you measuring improvement?  if you mean kata, then maybe, if your talking g about punching or kicking power, speed of reactions co ordination and other important things then it's a, ot less tied to hours of practise and much more a progression that cant really be hurried   , they require Neurological  and physical changes that take their own sweet time,  to that extent then 10 mins here and there to keep the adaptations happening are quite ,likely optimal  and certainly no worse as only a few minutes of your hour class five times a week are making any differance. so at best you e waisted 3 hours of your week,

added to which if you have sufficient free time to donate five nights a week to ma training, there is something distinctly missing in your life and you need to work on your people skills rather than conce trzting on how to hurt them


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

*NOTICE TO ALL USERS:*

Insults and baiting are contrary to the MartialTalk user guidelines. Keep it civil and moderately on-topic.

----------
*Gerry Seymour*
MartialTalk Moderator
@gpseymour


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 21, 2019)

I would not deem it impatient, would you think a reservist was impatient if they decided to choose the option which puts all their training in one block instead of spreading it out?   (if they get such a choie anyway)

Better to get it done with ASAP if you want to do it/need to do it.        I think there are plenty of people who do MA which would do it all day every day if they could economically support it and find a place which does it all day every day.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 23, 2019)

Attending more class could mean someone’s impatient, but it doesn’t mean that in and of itself. If someone’s attending more classes for the sole purpose of promoting faster, then sure.

I’d attend 4 classes a week if I could. With 6 and 8 year old kids, it’s just not realistic to do that and be present as a husband and father. If I was running the dojo as a source of income, obviously that’s a different story.

If I attended every class I wanted to, it wouldn’t be out of impatience. It would be for many personal reasons - I want to improve my skills, I want to get into better shape, I love training, I love that feeling after I’m done training, and it’s a great escape from daily life. I trained 4-5 nights/days per week in college. I had significantly more free time and far less responsibilities. It didn’t interfere with what I truly had to do. I was chasing rank a bit back then, but training that much wasn’t my sole purpose. If I could train that often again without it interfering with my true priorities in life, I’d do it without a single regret. 

I was supposed to start testing for 1st dan two weeks ago. I put it off until the spring because I started a new job a few weeks ago and don’t want to take the time off. Due to my new schedule and the testing schedule, I’d have to take about 5 days off from work over 6 weeks. I don’t want to be the guy who just started and is already taking a bunch of time off, regardless of if I can take it, paid time off, etc. If I was able to train 4-5 times a week, I’d still have delayed testing. 

The motives for training more often determine if someone’s impatient, not solely the frequency. There are plenty of people in arts without rank who train as often as possible.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 23, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Keep in mind that theoretically you should be practicing still on your off days. That prevents having to relearn the material. I've been going only about once a week the last few months, but I practice every night, so I'm not having to relearn anything and still see progress.
> 
> Granted, I think you work mostly with kids/teens, so I'd be shocked if their actually practicing when they're not there (I know I claimed to do that but would skip out more than my share fair as a lad).


Right, I am not taking "homework" into account, where you train on your own at home, as that would make the discussion more complicated. Besides, doing too much homework as a beginner can be detrimental in that you can develop bad habits. As a beginner much of your training should be done under the supervision of an instructor so you don't practice the wrong way to do it.

For sake of discussion and for sake of simplicity in my example, our hypothetical student who chooses to train one hour instead of three hours a week, or three hours instead of one hour a week, that's class time. Lets say the student does the same amount of homework in both cases. Again, I am using small numbers for sake of simplicity. Using bigger numbers for the training hours can bring into question the issue of overtraining which would make the discussion that much more complicated. So in my example the student is a beginner in which case you wouldn't want to do too much homework and you wouldn't want to overtrain. But in all fairness, even most beginning students can handle three hours a week so lets say that our imaginary student in this case can handle that amount without overdoing it.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Right, I am not taking "homework" into account, where you train on your own at home, as that would make the discussion more complicated. Besides, doing too much homework as a beginner can be detrimental in that you can develop bad habits. As a beginner much of your training should be done under the supervision of an instructor so you don't practice the wrong way to do it.



This sounds like an excuse.  You should be practicing what your instructor taught you and building that muscle memory so you can learn more next class.

We have a girl in my school, around 10 years old, and she's quickly becoming one of my favorite students.  She doesn't grasp all of the concepts right away, and she struggles mightily with a lot of things when she gets a new belt.  But the thing about her is, I give her one piece of advice every class, and every class she comes in and I can tell she has practiced and destroyed whatever advice I gave her.  That leaves her ready to accept the next piece next time.

Most of the other students don't do this.  I don't know if they just don't practice at all, or if they "practice" by just playing around, but a lot of the other students it takes longer for them to iron out these details.  If I give a kid advice on something, and next class they're still working at it, I let them struggle with it for a couple weeks before I bring it up again.  Some kids, I bring up the same thing every couple of weeks, and it's clear they are not practicing at home with the presence of mind to fix this issue.  They take forever to progress in their skills and in their belts.

A beginner should be practicing what they were taught, so they can be ready to learn the next lesson.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Right, I am not taking "homework" into account, where you train on your own at home, as that would make the discussion more complicated. Besides, doing too much homework as a beginner can be detrimental in that you can develop bad habits. As a beginner much of your training should be done under the supervision of an instructor so you don't practice the wrong way to do it.
> 
> For sake of discussion and for sake of simplicity in my example, our hypothetical student who chooses to train one hour instead of three hours a week, or three hours instead of one hour a week, that's class time. Lets say the student does the same amount of homework in both cases. Again, I am using small numbers for sake of simplicity. Using bigger numbers for the training hours can bring into question the issue of overtraining which would make the discussion that much more complicated. So in my example the student is a beginner in which case you wouldn't want to do too much homework and you wouldn't want to overtrain. But in all fairness, even most beginning students can handle three hours a week so lets say that our imaginary student in this case can handle that amount without overdoing it.



Yeah, still not impatient.

I still don't recall you answering my counter question though, so I'll ask it again.

Where did this suggestion of impatience come from anyway?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 23, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Is this the 53rd, or 54th time you've asked this same question, thinking you'll get a different answer? I've lost count.


Its the first time.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> Where are you getting this thing about it making someone impatient anyway?
> 
> Impatient implies wanting to move 'up' quicker than you are able - training more (within your limits) is more a sign of dedication and enthusiasm.



Well because in most cases a student is going to progress faster if they train three hours a week instead of just one. Wanting to move faster some might see as a product of impatience.

A student wants to get from point A to point B where point B is reaching a certain level of knowledge and skill within their marital art. If the student trains three hours a week a week its safe to say that the student will reach point B sooner than if they were to instead just train one hour a week. 

By training three hours a week the student will reach point B sooner, it won't take the student less time, but they will get their sooner. 

By wanting to get their sooner and taking necessary action to get their sooner (training three hours a week instead of just one) some might say the student is being impatient.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> Yeah, still not impatient.
> 
> I still don't recall you answering my counter question though, so I'll ask it again.
> 
> Where did this suggestion of impatience come from anyway?



See post #47


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well because in most cases a student is going to progress faster if they train three hours a week instead of just one. Wanting to move faster some might see as a product of impatience.
> 
> A student wants to get from point A to point B where point B is reaching a certain level of knowledge and skill within their marital art. If the student trains three hours a week a week its safe to say that the student will reach point B sooner than if they were to instead just train one hour a week.
> 
> ...



I think it depends on context.  If I want to get to my friend's house quicker, so I run instead of walk, that doesn't mean I'm impatient, it just means I want to travel faster.  If I want to get to my friend's house quicker, so I shirk my chores so I can leave early, and shove old ladies aside because they're in my way, I'm impatient.

If I train more so I can learn more, I'm not impatient.  If I train more because I need X hours to qualify for my belt, that's impatience, but also more a flaw in the system where you progress based on time instead of tests.


----------



## pdg (Sep 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> By wanting to get their sooner and taking necessary action to get their sooner (training three hours a week instead of just one) some might say the student is being impatient.



I have never seen that be suggested, apart from by you.

One reason it's not impatient is because, all else being equal, it actually takes the same amount of time to get there.

If at one hour a week it takes 12 weeks, that's 12 hours.

3 hours a week it takes 4 weeks, that's 12 hours.


On the other hand, someone doing 1 hour a week but expecting to progress at the same pace as someone else doing 3 hours - that might be impatient. Or deluded...


And then there's something else. As a beginner I could grade once every 6 months if I did 1 hour a week.

If I did two hours, I could grade every 3 months.

If I did 7 hours, I could grade every 3 months - but likely perform better.

Impatient?

Whatever.


----------



## skribs (Sep 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> I have never seen that be suggested, apart from by you.
> 
> One reason it's not impatient is because, all else being equal, it actually takes the same amount of time to get there.
> 
> ...



It could also be someone training twice as much and wondering why they're not progressing twice as fast (because part of it is how much you train, but part of it is experience that comes through time).  While I think someone who trains 2-3 times a week will progress more than 2-3 times as fast as someone who trains once a week, I also think that someone who trains 6 times a week will see diminishing returns, and maybe only progress 50% faster than that 3x person.  This is because you can only digest so much learning at once and it takes time to process.

There's also people who think because they go twice as much, they only half to practice half as hard, to get the same benefit.

In those contexts I can see it mattering.  But in the amount of time OP is suggesting, more practice would be better for everything.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> some might say the student is being impatient.



Ok and some might say they are just eager to learn...

Does it really matter what some might say?  Seems like it is splitting hairs.

At the minnimum you have a student that has a high level of interest....which I would think is a good "problem" to have.


----------



## daviddz (Sep 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> added to which if you have sufficient free time to donate five nights a week to ma training, there is something distinctly missing in your life and you need to work on your people skills rather than conce trzting on how to hurt them



Interesting point of view, but not entirely accurate.   I train  5 days a week at the dojo,  and it is something I do with my daughter, and my other half. It is a family activity.  I have also met some great people there.   There are a  lot of people skills that can be learned and practiced while training.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 24, 2019)

daviddz said:


> Interesting point of view, but not entirely accurate.   I train  5 days a week at the dojo,  and it is something I do with my daughter, and my other half. It is a family activity.  I have also met some great people there.   There are a  lot of people skills that can be learned and practiced while training.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


This is going to sound crazy, but Jobo has a good point with his post you quoted. However, there’s an exception to every rule. And yours seems like a valid exception.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 24, 2019)

skribs said:


> This sounds like an excuse.  You should be practicing what your instructor taught you and building that muscle memory so you can learn more next class.
> 
> We have a girl in my school, around 10 years old, and she's quickly becoming one of my favorite students.  She doesn't grasp all of the concepts right away, and she struggles mightily with a lot of things when she gets a new belt.  But the thing about her is, I give her one piece of advice every class, and every class she comes in and I can tell she has practiced and destroyed whatever advice I gave her.  That leaves her ready to accept the next piece next time.
> 
> ...


Yes and no. I won’t practice things I haven’t fully memorized yet. I learned that one the hard way during my first year of my first stint in karate. I was taught a new kata one day. A very simple kata, relatively speaking - Sanchin. The day I was taught it, I went home and practiced over and over. I did it a good 100 times. I felt pretty good about it. I went to class the next day and realized I practiced it wrong, having turned when I wasn’t supposed to and subsequently having the wrong foot forward for most of the kata. It must’ve taken me a good 500 times to fully get rid of the mistake from muscle memory. 

From the on, I won’t practice something new until I can comfortably go through it without being prompted.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Right, I am not taking "homework" into account, where you train on your own at home, as that would make the discussion more complicated. Besides, doing too much homework as a beginner can be detrimental in that you can develop bad habits. As a beginner much of your training should be done under the supervision of an instructor so you don't practice the wrong way to do it.
> 
> For sake of discussion and for sake of simplicity in my example, our hypothetical student who chooses to train one hour instead of three hours a week, or three hours instead of one hour a week, that's class time. Lets say the student does the same amount of homework in both cases. Again, I am using small numbers for sake of simplicity. Using bigger numbers for the training hours can bring into question the issue of overtraining which would make the discussion that much more complicated. So in my example the student is a beginner in which case you wouldn't want to do too much homework and you wouldn't want to overtrain. But in all fairness, even most beginning students can handle three hours a week so lets say that our imaginary student in this case can handle that amount without overdoing it.


I'd actually be quite happy if my brand new students practiced significantly outside class. The first things they get are pretty simple, and I expect them to learn them wrong. It's easier to correct a problem once it happens than to try to figure out what they're going to learn wrong. Thus, they're going to make significant mistakes if I'm watching. They're better off getting in some repetitions between classes, so I can get them corrected at each class.


----------



## jobo (Sep 24, 2019)

daviddz said:


> Interesting point of view, but not entirely accurate.   I train  5 days a week at the dojo,  and it is something I do with my daughter, and my other half. It is a family activity.  I have also met some great people there.   There are a  lot of people skills that can be learned and practiced while training.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


no not entirely accurate, nothing is ! if you have a martial arts family equally dedicated( obsessed) as you are then that makes you a significant exception, it's not at all common. but the other members may not actually be as dedicated as you think they are, or may not remain so indefinitely  and you could be storing up resentments/ disatisfactions that may come back to haunt later.

my father's obsessions were fishing and rugby, both of which he took me to as a young child, both of which I didn't mmine to much,but not at all in the frequency and the duration he indulged in. but I didn't have the courage to tell him as 9 yo, so I spent significant parts of my childhood bored out of my mind when I much sooner he did what I wanted to, in retrospect he considered himself an involved father, I considered him extremely selfish for not giving up some of his hobby times to indulge mine

either way, even if the others are indeed equally dedicated, your not doing them any favours in building a well rounded character with multiple interests and experiences


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> no not entirely accurate, nothing is ! if you have a martial arts family equally dedicated( obsessed) as you are then that makes you a significant exception, it's not at all common. but the other members may not actually be as dedicated as you think they are, or may not remain so indefinitely  and you could be storing up resentments/ disatisfactions that may come back to haunt later.
> 
> my father's obsessions were fishing and rugby, both of which he took me to as a young child, both of which I didn't mmine to much,but not at all in the frequency and the duration he indulged in. but I didn't have the courage to tell him as 9 yo, so I spent significant parts of my childhood bored out of my mind when I much sooner he did what I wanted to, in retrospect he considered himself an involved father, I considered him extremely selfish for not giving up some of his hobby times to indulge mine
> 
> either way, even if the others are indeed equally dedicated, your not doing them any favours in building a well rounded character with multiple interests and experiences


Really? You're going to give completely generic life advice about how much time someone should spend doing MA, when there's no problem in evidence?


----------



## jobo (Sep 24, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Really? You're going to give completely generic life advice about how much time someone should spend doing MA, when there's no problem in evidence?


it's an opinion piece,  I'd say exactly the same to anyone who has allowed an obsession to effect the ballance of their life, even if every one is happy, its unhealthy to follow one hobby to the exclusion of others, be that stamp collecting or soccer or chess or what ever. but their choice
with children its potentially damaging to lack a ballance of stimulus  and exposure  to different expexperience, parents should be telling them to stop playing so many computer game,  playing so much soccer or spending so much time doing ma, not encouraging them as it fits their agenda 

I
and I say that as someone who has a tendency to be come obsessive about thing, currently music,which I have to guard against at the very least it makes you a very dull companion


----------



## skribs (Sep 24, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Yes and no. I won’t practice things I haven’t fully memorized yet. I learned that one the hard way during my first year of my first stint in karate. I was taught a new kata one day. A very simple kata, relatively speaking - Sanchin. The day I was taught it, I went home and practiced over and over. I did it a good 100 times. I felt pretty good about it. I went to class the next day and realized I practiced it wrong, having turned when I wasn’t supposed to and subsequently having the wrong foot forward for most of the kata. It must’ve taken me a good 500 times to fully get rid of the mistake from muscle memory.
> 
> From the on, I won’t practice something new until I can comfortably go through it without being prompted.



This is why I tell people to practice new forms at home a couple steps at a time.  Or a lot of our students will have a parent video the form so they can study it at home.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 25, 2019)

skribs said:


> This sounds like an excuse.  You should be practicing what your instructor taught you and building that muscle memory so you can learn more next class.
> 
> We have a girl in my school, around 10 years old, and she's quickly becoming one of my favorite students.  She doesn't grasp all of the concepts right away, and she struggles mightily with a lot of things when she gets a new belt.  But the thing about her is, I give her one piece of advice every class, and every class she comes in and I can tell she has practiced and destroyed whatever advice I gave her.  That leaves her ready to accept the next piece next time.
> 
> ...


Right, well Im not factoring training time at home into the discussion because that would just make it more complicated. Too much training, including training at home, I would say especially training at home, can lead to burnout and that would just be something else to make the discussion more complicated so that's why Im using small numbers and not including training time at home in the discussion.


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Right, well Im not factoring training time at home into the discussion because that would just make it more complicated. Too much training, including training at home, I would say especially training at home, can lead to burnout and that would just be something else to make the discussion more complicated so that's why Im using small numbers and not including training time at home in the discussion.



Well, I don't know anyone that would say 1 hour of class a week is even enough.  I watch videos of BJJ guys, and one of the questions he answered is "how to improve when you can only go 2-3 times per week."  Our classes are twice a week, and we have people who do 3-4 classes a week, if not more.

The numbers you're providing, as "small" and "so large you must be impatient", most people define as either "why bother even going?" and "just right", or else define as "why bother even going?" and "I guess you can make some progress."

You also say you're not factoring in home training, but you also said at one point there should be NO home training.  So you are factoring in home training, just 0 hours of it.

It sounds like you want people to practice very little, or else you yourself want to practice very little, and you're asking if anyone else will back you up in justifying that meager schedule.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 25, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think it depends on context.  If I want to get to my friend's house quicker, so I run instead of walk, that doesn't mean I'm impatient, it just means I want to travel faster.  If I want to get to my friend's house quicker, so I shirk my chores so I can leave early, and shove old ladies aside because they're in my way, I'm impatient.
> 
> If I train more so I can learn more, I'm not impatient.  If I train more because I need X hours to qualify for my belt, that's impatience, but also more a flaw in the system where you progress based on time instead of tests.


On getting to your friend's house, some people on this forum, they've said stuff like this in the past, might say the by running to your friend's house instead of walking that you miss stuff on the journey, you miss various sights and experiences that you would've not missed had you walked. Sure, running will get you to your friend's house sooner, but you will miss out on the journey more than if you walked. 

Training more to meet the requirement of needing X hours to earn a belt, as long as you're not training so much that you're getting diminishing returns I don't see any problem with that. As it is though, I am not particularly talking about belts or rank Im talking about gaining knowledge and skill in an art. A student could be training in a style that doesn't have a formal ranking system and as long as they don't overdo it to the point where they experience burnout and diminishing returns, they will gain knowledge and skill sooner than if they train more instead of less.


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> On getting to your friend's house, some people on this forum, they've said stuff like this in the past, might say the by running to your friend's house instead of walking that you miss stuff on the journey, you miss various sights and experiences that you would've not missed had you walked. Sure, running will get you to your friend's house sooner, but you will miss out on the journey more than if you walked.
> 
> Training more to meet the requirement of needing X hours to earn a belt, as long as you're not training so much that you're getting diminishing returns I don't see any problem with that. As it is though, I am not particularly talking about belts or rank Im talking about gaining knowledge and skill in an art. A student could be training in a style that doesn't have a formal ranking system and as long as they don't overdo it to the point where they experience burnout and diminishing returns, they will gain knowledge and skill sooner than if they train more instead of less.



Except this is where the analogy falls apart.  If you train less, you have less experience, not more.


----------



## jobo (Sep 25, 2019)

skribs said:


> Except this is where the analogy falls apart.  If you train less, you have less experience, not more.


no, exspeiance is usually measure in time, therefore 12  months experience equals one years experience  not matter how many times you trained in that period


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 25, 2019)

pdg said:


> I have never seen that be suggested, apart from by you.
> 
> One reason it's not impatient is because, all else being equal, it actually takes the same amount of time to get there.
> 
> ...


Basically you've said what I've meant all along. 

Example A, lets say a student trains three hours a week and they do that for four weeks for a total of twelve hours. After twelve hours of training the student would've developed a certain amount of knowledge and skill and it took him four weeks to do it.

Example B, now lets say that same student were to train two hours a week, in that case it would take the student six weeks to get in twelve hours of training and to gain the same amount of knowledge and skill as in example A. 

Obviously when you take four weeks to do something, in this case gaining a certain amount of knowledge and skill, you're getting it done sooner than if you were to take six weeks but its not taking you any less time. Twelve hours is twelve hours whether its spread over four weeks or six weeks, so the time is the same but the result comes sooner in example A where the student is training three hours a week instead of two.

I could've used an example where the student only trains one hour a week in which case it would take the student twelve weeks to get in twelve hours of training, but as its been discussed in this thread one hour a week is usually not enough to retain what you're learning so that's why I didn't use such an example. It would only complicate the discussion and I want to keep it simple.


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2019)

jobo said:


> no, exspeiance is usually measure in time, therefore 12  months experience equals one years experience  not matter how many times you trained in that period



This is why in almost any certification, they measure hours instead of months.  Months are used as an approximation.  If you train 10 hours a week for a year, instead of 1 hour a week for a year, you will have trained 500 hours instead of 50 hours.  If you think someone training 500 hours is the same as someone training 50 hours, then I don't know what to say.


----------



## pdg (Sep 25, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Basically you've said what I've meant all along.
> 
> Example A, lets say a student trains three hours a week and they do that for four weeks for a total of twelve hours. After twelve hours of training the student would've developed a certain amount of knowledge and skill and it took him four weeks to do it.
> 
> ...



The very big difference in what we're saying though is that you suggest that the example A person is more impatient than the example B person because they get their 12 hours done in less calendar pages.

Which is patently nonsense imo.


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Basically you've said what I've meant all along.
> 
> Example A, lets say a student trains three hours a week and they do that for four weeks for a total of twelve hours. After twelve hours of training the student would've developed a certain amount of knowledge and skill and it took him four weeks to do it.
> 
> ...



It's not about how fast you learn, but how much.  You look at gaining a certain knowledge level in 6 weeks vs. 12 weeks.  Why not look at it as gaining half knowledge or double knowledge in 12 weeks?  Unless the person is going to quit once they've learned that piece of knowledge.

Let's use belts as an example.  Please note I'm not talking about belt-chasing, but typically a curriculum with belts has more advanced techniques and concepts at a higher belt, and saying "blue belt" and "red belt" is a lot easier to type than saying "person who knows 17 techniques at a medium level" vs. "someone who knows 22 techniques at a medium-high level".  

You're saying that if someone's goal is to learn at a purple belt level, if they train more, they will be at purple belt level twice as fast.  End of analysis.

I'm saying that in the time one person takes to get to purple belt level, someone who trains twice as much can get to blue belt level.  Then, the slower person gets their blue belt around the time the faster person gets their black belt.  And then the slower person gets their black belt, the faster person is 2nd or 3rd degree.

If the journey never ends, then training more isn't about how fast you get there, but how far you can go.


----------



## jobo (Sep 25, 2019)

skribs said:


> This is why in almost any certification, they measure hours instead of months.  Months are used as an approximation.  If you train 10 hours a week for a year, instead of 1 hour a week for a year, you will have trained 500 hours instead of 50 hours.  If you think someone training 500 hours is the same as someone training 50 hours, then I don't know what to say.


they measures hours for flying and diving, but that hardly the same thing, I did an aprentiship that was measured in years, that fact I didn't very little for 4 years wasnt at all a problem, in both cases you will have one years experience, that cant surely be in dispute ?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 25, 2019)

pdg said:


> The very big difference in what we're saying though is that you suggest that the example A person is more impatient than the example B person because they get their 12 hours done in less calendar pages.
> 
> Which is patently nonsense imo.


OK so we agree on that.


----------



## skribs (Sep 25, 2019)

jobo said:


> they measures hours for flying and diving, but that hardly the same thing, I did an aprentiship that was measured in years, that fact I didn't very little for 4 years wasnt at all a problem, in both cases you will have one years experience, that cant surely be in dispute ?



Most places that measure in months or years, have a standard by which they are measuring.  For example, if I say I have 10 years' experience in IT, they are assuming I have approximately 20,000 hours (based on a 40-hour work week).  

If I applied for a job and said I had 10 years experience in IT, and what that meant is that for 10 years, every month I'd spend 1 hour going around the shop and rebooting computers, and really I only have 120 hours of experience, I would probably be laid off for lying on my resume. 

Everything I've done where they measure things by years, there's a standard amount of hours/year you're supposed to have.


----------



## daviddz (Sep 26, 2019)

jobo said:


> no not entirely accurate, nothing is ! if you have a martial arts family equally dedicated( obsessed) as you are then that makes you a significant exception, it's not at all common. but the other members may not actually be as dedicated as you think they are, or may not remain so indefinitely  and you could be storing up resentments/ disatisfactions that may come back to haunt later.



Actually whole families training is more common than you might think.  There are several other families at the same dojo, where the whole family trains.  As for my family, it was my daughter who started first and then got me back into it, and then later her mother tried a few classes and wanted to continue.  

I fully expect that at some point my daughter will loose interest. And when she does, she can stop or do something else. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> Well, I don't know anyone that would say 1 hour of class a week is even enough.  I watch videos of BJJ guys, and one of the questions he answered is "how to improve when you can only go 2-3 times per week."  Our classes are twice a week, and we have people who do 3-4 classes a week, if not more.
> 
> The numbers you're providing, as "small" and "so large you must be impatient", most people define as either "why bother even going?" and "just right", or else define as "why bother even going?" and "I guess you can make some progress."
> 
> ...


It is possible to learn at 1 class a week. It's slow. Very slow. I started my program that way, worked up to 3 days a week, and am back down to 1 day a week (traveling too much for work, sporadically). Students still progress, but at significantly less than half the pace of when folks train 2x weekly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 27, 2019)

pdg said:


> The very big difference in what we're saying though is that you suggest that the example A person is more impatient than the example B person because they get their 12 hours done in less calendar pages.
> 
> Which is patently nonsense imo.


I didn't see that suggestion in his OP. I read it as him asking if anyone saw that as impatience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> they measures hours for flying and diving, but that hardly the same thing, I did an aprentiship that was measured in years, that fact I didn't very little for 4 years wasnt at all a problem, in both cases you will have one years experience, that cant surely be in dispute ?


So, that's one example of measurement in years, two with measurement in hours.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> Most places that measure in months or years, have a standard by which they are measuring.  For example, if I say I have 10 years' experience in IT, they are assuming I have approximately 20,000 hours (based on a 40-hour work week).
> 
> If I applied for a job and said I had 10 years experience in IT, and what that meant is that for 10 years, every month I'd spend 1 hour going around the shop and rebooting computers, and really I only have 120 hours of experience, I would probably be laid off for lying on my resume.
> 
> Everything I've done where they measure things by years, there's a standard amount of hours/year you're supposed to have.


Years become a shorthand, in other words. We do this in MA, though the translation isn't nearly as mathematical.


----------



## jobo (Sep 27, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, that's one example of measurement in years, two with measurement in hours.


there a million more where experience is measured in years, measuring in hours is very much the exception


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 27, 2019)

jobo said:


> there a million more where experience is measured in years, measuring in hours is very much the exception


Most cases I can think of, years are a shorthand for estimated hours. Almost anything measured in work years is assuming something on the order of 2,000 hours a year on the job.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> Well, I don't know anyone that would say 1 hour of class a week is even enough.  I watch videos of BJJ guys, and one of the questions he answered is "how to improve when you can only go 2-3 times per week."  Our classes are twice a week, and we have people who do 3-4 classes a week, if not more.


Right now I am only going to BJJ class once a week. Class time is about an hour and a half at the BJJ school I go to. I am reducing my classes to once a week mostly for financial reasons, right now I cannot afford to be in any of the programs where you go more than once a week.



skribs said:


> The numbers you're providing, as "small" and "so large you must be impatient", most people define as either "why bother even going?" and "just right", or else define as "why bother even going?" and "I guess you can make some progress."


Well the bottom line is that Im trying to ask, if a person trains more rather than less does that make that person impatient? 



skribs said:


> You also say you're not factoring in home training, but you also said at one point there should be NO home training.  So you are factoring in home training, just 0 hours of it.


Im just trying to avoid talking too much about home training because that would make stuff more complicated. For sake of discussion lets assume a student puts in an X amount of home training and that amount is the same whether or not a student trains in the school for 1 hour, 3 hours, 10 hours or whatever else.



skribs said:


> It sounds like you want people to practice very little, or else you yourself want to practice very little, and you're asking if anyone else will back you up in justifying that meager schedule.


I don't care how much or how little other people practice, that's up to them. As for me, I love to train, a lot. But in this discussion I am trying not to talk too much about myself or any of the other people on this forum. I am just trying to talk about a generic hypothetical martial arts student.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 27, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's not about how fast you learn, but how much.  You look at gaining a certain knowledge level in 6 weeks vs. 12 weeks.  Why not look at it as gaining half knowledge or double knowledge in 12 weeks?  Unless the person is going to quit once they've learned that piece of knowledge.
> 
> Let's use belts as an example.  Please note I'm not talking about belt-chasing, but typically a curriculum with belts has more advanced techniques and concepts at a higher belt, and saying "blue belt" and "red belt" is a lot easier to type than saying "person who knows 17 techniques at a medium level" vs. "someone who knows 22 techniques at a medium-high level".
> 
> ...


Im trying to avoid talking too much about rank in this discussion for a bunch of reasons. For one thing, with schools that use formal ranking systems, every school has their own system and their own standards for each rank. In your example you talk about blue belt and purple belt. In most of the systems that I've seen which have both those belts the blue belt comes before the purple belt but I did once see a system where the purple belt came before the blue belt. Also you mention the red belt. That varies from system to system. Usually it is a relatively high rank but as to how high, that can be different depending on the system. In some systems its a belt or two below the black belt. In other systems its above even the black belt. In BJJ for instance, the red belt is above the black belt and its the highest belt you can get. 

Then there are those schools which don't use the color of your belt but rather use various stripes and markings on your belt to symbolize your rank, but the color of your belt never changes. Some schools use patches on your uniform to denote rank instead of belts. And then there are those schools that don't even have a formal ranking system.

Also, I want this to be a discussion more about skill than rank. Sure, if you want to earn rank you will have to develop skill but there as I said, ranks and standards for ranks vary tremendously from school to school and there are those schools that don't have formal rank, so that's why I want this to be mostly a discussion about skill and not rank so much.


----------



## skribs (Sep 27, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Right now I am only going to BJJ class once a week. Class time is about an hour and a half at the BJJ school I go to. I am reducing my classes to once a week mostly for financial reasons, right now I cannot afford to be in any of the programs where you go more than once a week.



I am not going to fault anyone for reducing their training for realistic reasons.  Financial is a good one, career is a good one (if the times conflict).  I myself recently dropped the hours I teach per week from 17 to 5, because I kept getting sick and I needed some rest.

If your reason for reducing your time is "I don't want to appear impatient" that's a bad reason.  If it's for financial, health, or another reason beyond what you think of people's perceptions of you, then I can respect that.



> Well the bottom line is that Im trying to ask, if a person trains more rather than less does that make that person impatient?



No.



> Im just trying to avoid talking too much about home training because that would make stuff more complicated. For sake of discussion lets assume a student puts in an X amount of home training and that amount is the same whether or not a student trains in the school for 1 hour, 3 hours, 10 hours or whatever else.



On post #43 in this thread, you made this comment:
_"Right, I am not taking "homework" into account, where you train on your own at home, as that would make the discussion more complicated. Besides, doing too much homework as a beginner can be detrimental in that you can develop bad habits. As a beginner much of your training should be done under the supervision of an instructor so you don't practice the wrong way to do it."
_
So you've gone back and forth between not taking it into account because you don't want to complicate it, but also because you don't think it should be done.  Those are two separate claims you've made.

If you say you're not taking homework into account because you don't want to complicate the discussion, you've already asked a question that's over-complicated by making opinions and snap judgments the proper way to determine your training program.  But it is absolutely relevant if you want to discuss how much training is too much that people don't get burned out.



> I don't care how much or how little other people practice, that's up to them. As for me, I love to train, a lot. But in this discussion I am trying not to talk too much about myself or any of the other people on this forum. I am just trying to talk about a generic hypothetical martial arts student.



The generic hypothetical martial arts student trains more than once a week in class. 



PhotonGuy said:


> Im trying to avoid talking too much about rank in this discussion for a bunch of reasons. For one thing, with schools that use formal ranking systems, every school has their own system and their own standards for each rank. In your example you talk about blue belt and purple belt. In most of the systems that I've seen which have both those belts the blue belt comes before the purple belt but I did once see a system where the purple belt came before the blue belt. Also you mention the red belt. That varies from system to system. Usually it is a relatively high rank but as to how high, that can be different depending on the system. In some systems its a belt or two below the black belt. In other systems its above even the black belt. In BJJ for instance, the red belt is above the black belt and its the highest belt you can get.
> 
> Then there are those schools which don't use the color of your belt but rather use various stripes and markings on your belt to symbolize your rank, but the color of your belt never changes. Some schools use patches on your uniform to denote rank instead of belts. And then there are those schools that don't even have a formal ranking system.
> 
> Also, I want this to be a discussion more about skill than rank. Sure, if you want to earn rank you will have to develop skill but there as I said, ranks and standards for ranks vary tremendously from school to school and there are those schools that don't have formal rank, so that's why I want this to be mostly a discussion about skill and not rank so much.



You didn't even read my post, did you?  I *very clearly* explained that I was not talking about rank, but using rank as a simpler way of communicating what I was talking about.

Let me try this again.

Let's say I have a goal.  That goal may be to learn a form, to learn 5 new techniques, to get to a certain level of competency with a specific technique, or to be able to apply a specific concept.  Any of these goals may take 12 hours of class time before I really have them down.  _(Let's not argue the details of this paragraph, I'm making a word problem, just go with the accepted variables for the sake of the discussion)._

So if I train once a week, I may take 12 weeks to learn the new form, or the new techniques, or whatever it is I had the goal of learning.  If I train twice a week, it will take me 6 weeks to learn it, if I train thrice a week it will take 4 weeks.  _(Again, I realize it's not a linear curve, but again, bear with me for the sake of the discussion).
_
Now, what do I do once I've learned that concept, or form, or once I've gotten to a certain point with the technique.  Do I stop?  Have I reached the end of my journey?  No.  The journey still goes on.  Now, I can train a new thing.

You're looking at it as:
Time to learn X at 1 week/class: 12 weeks
Time to learn X at 2 week/class: 6 weeks

Most other martial artists look at it as:
Number of forms in 12 weeks: 1 at 1 class/week, 2 at 2 class/week.  Or, basic competency at 1 class/week, and intermediate competency at 2 class/week.
Number of techniques in 12 weeks: 5 at 1 class/week, 10 at 2 class/week.  Or, basic competency in 5 techniques at 1 class/week, or intermediate competency in 7 techniques at 2 class/week.
Competency increase in 12 weeks: from "basic" to "intermediate" at 1 class/week, or from "basic" to "advanced" at 2 classes per week.

You've got your X and Y axis screwed up.  It's not about how fast you learn, but how much you learn.  And the faster you learn, the more stuff you'll know later on.  That's not impatience.  That's giving yourself the most growth.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Sep 27, 2019)

I used to train 3 times a week but something came up so i train tuesday and Thursday only but its all good sometimes i go saturday when my sister and her family to go somewhere i love to train and love to teach and plus if you go 2 times a week with in a month you get perfect Attendance


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 28, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> not including training time at home in the discussion.


You come to school to learn. You go home to train.

Q: Why do we have to do sit up, push up, running around the room in our class? I can do all these at home by myself.
A: Most people don't do that at home.
Q: Do we suppose to come to class to learn and go home to train?
A: Most people come to school to train and go home to rest.


----------



## geezer (Sep 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You come to school to learn. You go home to train.
> 
> Q: Why do we have to do sit up, push up, running around the room in our class? I can do all these at home by myself.
> A: Most people don't do that at home.
> ...



My old Chinese sifu held the same opinion (expressed in Q #1 above) that since our time with him was limited (and costly), we should use class time to _learn_ and time outside of class to train, get fit and so forth.

Being a busy and somewhat lazy young American guy, I didn't always put in the time doing my homework. Same for most of my dai-hing. That's probably why most American instructors include conditioning and a lot of review of basics in their classes. 



BTW another thing that was culturally different about his method of instruction: He felt that it was his job just to present us with the material we needed to learn, and pay him for that. It was _entirely up to us_ to actually learn the material ...however much effort that might entail, inside or outside of class.

The American perspective on this is quite different. As a long-time teacher in the American education system, I have learned (the hard way) that here, it is the teacher's responsibility that the student learns the material. If the students fail to perform well, as measured by various tests, our ( the teachers) performance review and salaries suffer. If you are too tough on your students and they fail, well that's on you. Also, if you are tough and teach in an elective area, like I do (the fine arts) your enrollment numbers will fall, your classes will be cancelled and you'll be looking for a new job! Contrary to common belief, there's no tenure for teachers ...at least here in Arizona.

And you know what, it's not entirely the fault of bureaucracy. The same attitudes affect how private martial arts teachers have to teach to survive in our culture. Especially those who survive by teaching kids. Public school grade inflation translates to karate school belt inflation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 28, 2019)

geezer said:


> it is the teacher's responsibility that the student learns the material.


MA training include skill training and ability development. It's the teacher's responsibility to teach the skill. It's the student's responsibility to develop the ability. For example, there is no way that a teacher can force his students to punch/kick on heavy bag.

When I learned the "cracking" skill, my teacher asked me to go into the woods, used my upper arm to break 1,000 tree brenches. There is no way that I can do that during my class time.

In CMA, teacher leads you inside the door. The rest is all up to you.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> No.


Alright then we can agree that just because a person trains more often doesn't mean that person is impatient. Training more often will enable a practitioner to develop knowledge and skill sooner than if they trained less often. But just because the practitioner is training more often doesn't mean they're impatient.

Conclusion, getting something done sooner rather than later does not make a person impatient. 



skribs said:


> Let me try this again.
> 
> Let's say I have a goal.  That goal may be to learn a form, to learn 5 new techniques, to get to a certain level of competency with a specific technique, or to be able to apply a specific concept.  Any of these goals may take 12 hours of class time before I really have them down.  _(Let's not argue the details of this paragraph, I'm making a word problem, just go with the accepted variables for the sake of the discussion)._
> 
> ...


You've lost me a bit but I think I get the basic idea of what you're saying. The faster you learn the more you will know in an X amount of weeks. And the cycle is ongoing, at your same pace of learning you will know that much more in another X amount of weeks, and since in the martial arts there is always more to learn the cycle will keep going.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 28, 2019)

JR 137 said:


> Attending more class could mean someone’s impatient, but it doesn’t mean that in and of itself. If someone’s attending more classes for the sole purpose of promoting faster, then sure.
> 
> I’d attend 4 classes a week if I could. With 6 and 8 year old kids, it’s just not realistic to do that and be present as a husband and father. If I was running the dojo as a source of income, obviously that’s a different story.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your insight. You often make intelligent and insightful posts.
Anyway, while trying to not get into too much of a discussion about rank, if a person wants to promote faster they will also have to chase skill, not just rank. In some schools it is required that you attend an X amount of classes before you can promote but you are also not going to promote if you don't have adequate skill, skill is crucial for rank advancement. If a student trains more often than it stands to reason that they will develop more skill sooner rather than later. You've talked before about schools having a minimal length of time that you have to be at your current rank before you can promote and most schools do have that but if a student trains more often, puts in more hours per week, than chances are they will promote faster while still staying within the minimum time requirements for rank, than if they trained less often and put in less hours per week.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 28, 2019)

When I was competing we trained 4-5 hours/day 6 days/week. After three years I started feeling a little burn out. 
I have heard two very good themes regarding the OP's question. For the average person 3 formal classes/week is a good average. A person can always catch extra classes when time permits and if they have to occasionally miss a class during the week it will not be a big deal. Formal training has to be supported by individual training. @jobo mentioned taking 10-15 minutes/day which I feel is adequate for reinforcing learned skills. 
If a person is looking for major physical gains 3-5 hours/week will not be enough.  ​


----------



## geezer (Sep 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, teacher leads you inside the door. The rest is all up to you.



Yes, this is how my teacher taught. And by not being spoon-fed, we learned to really value his instruction.


----------



## geezer (Sep 28, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright then we can agree that just because a person trains more often doesn't mean that person is impatient.  Conclusion, getting something done sooner rather than later does not make a person impatient.



Um, yeah. Was there ever any doubt? What you've said is so obvious that it's kinda, well ...wierd?!

Really, Photon, this whole thread seems to revolve around deeper concerns you've expressed ever since you joined MT some six years ago. You repeatedly bring up concerns about whether it's OK to ask your teacher if you're ready to test for rank, or whether it's appropriate to ask what you can do to learn faster, and now, if training too often will make you appear impatient or greedy for rank.

Honestly, it all seems rather strange. Normally instructors _like_ to see a student train harder, learn fast and be eager to advance. Either the training culture at your school is really oppressive and inhibiting, or you personally need to confront some serious insecurities. Right now I'm wondering more about the school or schools you train at. Do people there talk freely about these things? Or, have you ever arranged time to meet with your instructor privately in his office and have an open discussion about these issues?

Just to be clear, martial arts school cultures vary a lot. Even among traditional, asian run schools there is a lot of diversity. My own background was with a traditional Chinese Sifu. He could be strict and aloof at times, but at other times disarmingly open and almost fatherly. We followed the family model. Sifu was the "teacher father" and we students or "to-dai" were all considered kung-fu brothers and sisters or "dai-hing". Martial courtesy was strict, but there was none of that militaristic "Yes Sir!" shouting you hear in some schools. And that suited me just fine. In my little group, I follow the same model, but without all the asian formality. If a student has an issue, I will try to make time after class to have a talk and hear them out.

So anyway, what's the story behind all this, Photon?


----------



## skribs (Sep 28, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> You've lost me a bit but I think I get the basic idea of what you're saying. The faster you learn the more you will know in an X amount of weeks. And the cycle is ongoing, at your same pace of learning you will know that much more in another X amount of weeks, and since in the martial arts there is always more to learn the cycle will keep going.



That's pretty much it.  Unless you plan to stop training after you learn X amount of stuff, then it's not about how fast you learn, but how much you learn.


----------



## jobo (Sep 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's pretty much it.  Unless you plan to stop training after you learn X amount of stuff, then it's not about how fast you learn, but how much you learn.


but it's not about knowinging/ learning it's ab out doin, you cant progress faster than your body condition can adaptchanges.  if you want to speed the process up, then it's time spent on provoking  adaptation that you need to invest rather than chasing knowledge of things you cant actually do in anything but a controlled enviroment


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> It could also be someone training twice as much and wondering why they're not progressing twice as fast (because part of it is how much you train, but part of it is experience that comes through time).  While I think someone who trains 2-3 times a week will progress more than 2-3 times as fast as someone who trains once a week, I also think that someone who trains 6 times a week will see diminishing returns, and maybe only progress 50% faster than that 3x person.  This is because you can only digest so much learning at once and it takes time to process.
> 
> There's also people who think because they go twice as much, they only half to practice half as hard, to get the same benefit.
> 
> In those contexts I can see it mattering.  But in the amount of time OP is suggesting, more practice would be better for everything.


For most people learning a MA I think it follows a bell curve but usually not as normal distribution. The curve will not have consistent inclination/declination. In the beginning the curve will be steep and progress will be slow. Increased input will provide brief gains but they usually cannot be sustained. As a person reaches a peak in proficiency and retention, declination in practice frequency has no adverse affects in proficiency. 
In other words, I put higher value in quality over quantity for learning skills. For improving endurance and muscle gain the opposite is largely true. 
A typical exception would be in distance running (which I suck at). If you only run distance on a flat track and then decide to run cross country you will struggle when you hit the hills.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 29, 2019)

geezer said:


> Yes, this is how my teacher taught. And by not being spoon-fed, we learned to really value his instruction.


Well you do have to work hard to learn your art, obviously your teacher isn't going to wave a magic wand and give you the knowledge and skill of the art, that's what spoon feeding would be, aside from the fact that they don't have magic wands that do that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2019)

It's so funny that during my time, we usually talk about "How many times do you train daily?" Today, we only talk about "How many times do you train weekly?"

Even when I worked full time in IBM, I still trained 3 times daily:

- Before going to work.
- During lunch hour.
- After came home from work.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 29, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's so funny that during my time, we usually talk about "How many times do you train daily?" Today, we only talk about "How many times do you train weekly?"
> 
> Even when I worked full time in IBM, I still trained 3 times daily:
> 
> ...


It is curious how we change over time. I have said before I honestly don't know how I maintained the pace when I was competing. I worked a straight 40 hour job (local L.E.) which was at night, we were already full time farming which I grew up doing, and I trained 4-5 hours/day. I could do pretty well on 5 hours sleep. And that was before I embraced coffee. 
I struggle to keep up with the first two now a days. Even though there is more automation in farming today, which makes it "easier", it is somewhat offset by most operations running more cattle or raising more crops. My business hours are more flexible but I can definitely feel a hard two or three hour training session for a couple of days now.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 30, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's so funny that during my time, we usually talk about "How many times do you train daily?" Today, we only talk about "How many times do you train weekly?"
> 
> Even when I worked full time in IBM, I still trained 3 times daily:
> 
> ...


It really depends on the person. For me, it would be how many times I train daily. For somebody whose taking up martial arts just as a hobby or for fun, it would be how many times they train weekly.

Not everybody trains like Bruce Lee, back then and now.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 30, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> It is curious how we change over time. I have said before I honestly don't know how I maintained the pace when I was competing. I worked a straight 40 hour job (local L.E.) which was at night, we were already full time farming which I grew up doing, and I trained 4-5 hours/day. I could do pretty well on 5 hours sleep. And that was before I embraced coffee.
> I struggle to keep up with the first two now a days. Even though there is more automation in farming today, which makes it "easier", it is somewhat offset by most operations running more cattle or raising more crops. My business hours are more flexible but I can definitely feel a hard two or three hour training session for a couple of days now.


If you were training 5 hours a day on the same days you worked, that would be 8 hours of working plus 5 hours of training for a total of 13 hours. You were sleeping 5 hours so that brings the total up to 18. So 18 hours in a 24 hour time period were spent working, training, and sleeping which would leave you with 6 hours left. You must've eaten and farmed during those 6 hours.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 30, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> If you were training 5 hours a day on the same days you worked, that would be 8 hours of working plus 5 hours of training for a total of 13 hours. You were sleeping 5 hours so that brings the total up to 18. So 18 hours in a 24 hour time period were spent working, training, and sleeping which would leave you with 6 hours left. You must've eaten and farmed during those 6 hours.


Sounds about right. There was always a heavy carb & protein load before working out. Other than that I did not follow a super strict diet. We have always been a meat and 2 or 3 vegetables per meal family and raised much of our own foods so I would say we always ate pretty good.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Dec 23, 2019)

So anyway I want to point out that getting something done sooner is different then taking less time. This doesn't just apply to martial arts training but to just about every aspect in life.

Lets say you want to paint a bedroom in your house. I am going to mention two situations in how you paint it.

Situation A, you start at 12:00 noon and you paint for the next three hours. It takes three hours to paint the room so at 3:00 PM you're finished.

Situation B, you start at 12:00 noon and after two hours painting, at 2:00 PM, you take an hour long break. Then at 3:00 PM you resume painting and you paint for another hour and finish at 4:00 PM.

Now in both situations it took the same amount of time to paint the room, three hours. However in Situation A you finish sooner than in Situation B even though it took you the same amount of time in both cases.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway I want to point out that getting something done sooner is different then taking less time. This doesn't just apply to martial arts training but to just about every aspect in life.
> 
> Lets say you want to paint a bedroom in your house. I am going to mention two situations in how you paint it.
> 
> ...


 its a bit more complicated than that, an hours break could very well increase the quality of the finished bedroom, if your getting tired and your co ordination is waning or your rushing to meet an arbitrary deadline of three o'clock you've set for no particular reason, very few people can maintain full concentration for much over an hour

its even more complicated if your considering a persons ability to learn, which is not at all like painting a bed room, time spent and progress made are only slightly correlated


----------



## skribs (Dec 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway I want to point out that getting something done sooner is different then taking less time. This doesn't just apply to martial arts training but to just about every aspect in life.
> 
> Lets say you want to paint a bedroom in your house. I am going to mention two situations in how you paint it.
> 
> ...



That's fine if you have that one room you need to paint.  But Martial Arts is a perpetual journey.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's fine if you have that one room you need to paint.  But Martial Arts is a perpetual journey.


so is decorating my house


----------



## skribs (Dec 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> so is decorating my house



I'm a bachelor.  My house was decorated before I moved into it.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> I'm a bachelor.  My house was decorated before I moved into it.


bachelors need to try harder as they a) cant blame the kids and b) should be turning up with young ladies at short notice who get very suspicious if you refuse to turn the lights on. you need to keep your house in a perpetual state of readiness for a visit from a supermodel.

i speak from experience as i have a real problem of demarcation of house and garage and they tend to go of a night of love making when they see you have grubby walls and a set of crankcases in the sink


----------



## skribs (Dec 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> bachelors need to try harder as they a) cant blame the kids and b) should be turning up with young ladies at short notice who get very suspicious if you refuse to turn the lights on. you need to keep your house in a perpetual state of readiness for a visit from a supermodel



Both of those would interfere with my gaming time.  Both the martial arts, or having a supermodel over.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> Both of those would interfere with my gaming time.  Both the martial arts, or having a supermodel over.


that's the danger with the virtual world that you don't actually get any real world but it does mean more super models for me


----------



## skribs (Dec 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> that's the danger with the virtual world that you don't actually get any real world but it does mean more super models for me



I've experienced the real world and the virtual world.  The virtual world is preferable.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've experienced the real world and the virtual world.  The virtual world is preferable.


no its not, its less scary and you can put people who disagree with you on ignore and largely pretend your someones else

but real super models in fact just plain old models knock the hell out of virtual ones


----------



## pdg (Dec 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've experienced the real world and the virtual world.  The virtual world is preferable.



You're not old enough to have experienced the real world...


----------



## pdg (Dec 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> but real super models in fact just plain old models knock the hell out of virtual ones



A chubby dwarf with a limp and a wooden eye who actually exists is better than a virtual supermodel...


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> A chubby dwarf with a limp and a wooden eye who actually exists is better than a virtual supermodel...


i bow to your experience on the matter,and would certainly draw the line at a wooden eye


----------



## pdg (Dec 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> i bow to your experience on the matter,and would certainly draw the line at a wooden eye



A wooden one is warmer than a metal one.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> A wooden one is warmer than a metal one.


yes i think your probably right, it would be

but yes even tubby dwarfs with a metal eye are better than a virtual one,


----------



## skribs (Dec 23, 2019)

pdg said:


> You're not old enough to have experienced the real world...



I've had friends die.  I've had times in my life where I'm eating Ramen for 2 meals a day because I can't afford to eat anything else.  I've worked myself ragged over the last 5 years working 14 hour days.

I don't know who the hell you think you are, but my god your horse is higher than the clouds.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> I've had friends die.  I've had times in my life where I'm eating Ramen for 2 meals a day because I can't afford to eat anything else.  I've worked myself ragged over the last 5 years working 14 hour days.
> 
> I don't know who the hell you think you are, but my god your horse is higher than the clouds.





skribs said:


> I've had friends die.  I've had times in my life where I'm eating Ramen for 2 meals a day because I can't afford to eat anything else.  I've worked myself ragged over the last 5 years working 14 hour days.
> 
> I don't know who the hell you think you are, but my god your horse is higher than the clouds.


i had to google ramen

turns out its noodles

that's not to bad, here a recipe to spice up up a little, the local noodle shop would charge you ten quid for that

Chow Mein Ramen Noodles

infact im thinking of buying some now


----------



## PhotonGuy (Dec 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> its a bit more complicated than that, an hours break could very well increase the quality of the finished bedroom, if your getting tired and your co ordination is waning or your rushing to meet an arbitrary deadline of three o'clock you've set for no particular reason, very few people can maintain full concentration for much over an hour
> 
> its even more complicated if your considering a persons ability to learn, which is not at all like painting a bed room, time spent and progress made are only slightly correlated


Yes it does get complicated when you take into account factors such as your own personal fatigue level and whether or not you need a break, but for sake of simplicity in my example its assumed that you don't need to take a break and that whether or not you do take a break does not affect in any way the quality of your paint job.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes it does get complicated when you take into account factors such as your own personal fatigue level and whether or not you need a break, but for sake of simplicity in my example its assumed that you don't need to take a break and that whether or not you do take a break does not affect in any way the quality of your paint job.


well you can assume that, to make your analogy work, but its not at all in line with reality, were breaks do indeed matter


----------



## Buka (Dec 23, 2019)

Now, now, fellas. High horses are a speciality of mine.

One the east coast, a high horse is...






I'm not sure if that's a supermodel atop or not. I mean, she doesn't look like she's from Krypton, but who knows?

However, here on Maui high horses are a different thing altogether. And with good reason...


----------



## skribs (Dec 23, 2019)

jobo said:


> i had to google ramen
> 
> turns out its noodles
> 
> ...



Ramen is cheap.  I was paying like 18 cents per meal.  That's how much I could afford.  My budget for food was less than $5 a day.


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2019)

skribs said:


> Ramen is cheap.  I was paying like 18 cents per meal.  That's how much I could afford.  My budget for food was less than $5 a day.


 my current budget for food is one dollar a day, (do you mean 5 dollars a week ?) which is why those tasty noodles look very attractive

nb that doesn't include my ice cream habit, that's another dollar, though in all honestly i could replace that with milk and sugar

i should add i spend more on fresh chicken breast for the dog


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 23, 2019)

Buka said:


> Now, now, fellas. High horses are a speciality of mine.
> 
> One the east coast, a high horse is...
> 
> ...


Funny, very, very funny!


----------



## Buka (Dec 24, 2019)

On the training time question, it will vary for a lot of reasons, available time being a big one.

I was fortunate. From the very first time I walked into a dojo I knew it was what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Classes were Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur nights and Saturday morning. I never missed one class for well over five years. By the eighties I was training forty hours a week. It was the most fun I’ve ever had.

And I don’t believe in diminishing returns. I just wish there were forty hours in a day.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Dec 24, 2019)

jobo said:


> well you can assume that, to make your analogy work, but its not at all in line with reality, were breaks do indeed matter


For big projects yes you would need breaks, but with smaller projects I've been able to concentrate on stuff for well over an hour. I've done painting jobs before as well as other jobs and projects where I've worked without breaks for over an hour, or over three hours. Especially if you really get into it, you can go for hours without breaks, at least in my experience.

The point is, there is a difference between getting something done sooner and taking more or less time to do something. If painting a room takes you three hours and you don't take any more breaks that what's necessary to maintain good quality of your painting job you will finish sooner than if you take more and/or longer breaks than what is necessary, but either way when you total up the time spent painting it comes to three hours total, but by taking less breaks you finish sooner than if you took more.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Dec 24, 2019)

Buka said:


> Now, now, fellas. High horses are a speciality of mine.
> 
> One the east coast, a high horse is...
> 
> ...


The point of your post? Its a bit random.


----------



## Buka (Dec 25, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> The point of your post? Its a bit random.



The point was a play on words. Humor if you will. “Supermodels” were mentioned four or five times by three different posters.

The “Krypton” reference was a play on the “super” in supermodels.

The “high horse” was a play on the term “high horse”.


----------



## jobo (Dec 25, 2019)

PhotonGuy said:


> The point of your post? Its a bit random.


I THINK ITS JOVIAL


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> I'm a bachelor.  My house was decorated before I moved into it.


But you might not be pleased with the way its decorated in which case you might do some redecorating of your own.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> That's fine if you have that one room you need to paint.  But Martial Arts is a perpetual journey.


Sure it is, but you do nonetheless reach different levels in the martial arts. You develop various levels of skill as you train and as you learn more and more in the world of martial arts. Getting a room painted you could say would be getting from point A to point B. In the martial arts you also get from point A to point B, of course then there's point C, point D, and so on. 

And also, just because you painted a room doesn't mean there isn't more rooms to paint or more decorating to do. As jojo pointed out, decorating your house can be a perpetual journey.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 22, 2020)

I recently painted a room. It took me four hours and I did take one break but that was only because I needed to get more paint.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 22, 2020)

pdg said:


> You're not old enough to have experienced the real world...


At what point do you get old enough to have experienced the real world? What's the criteria for that?


----------



## skribs (Jan 22, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> At what point do you get old enough to have experienced the real world? What's the criteria for that?



Based on conversations with him and others who also use that as a go-to argument, it's when I'm old enough that I agree with them.


----------



## Buka (Jan 22, 2020)

Real world...

Life is so much more more interesting within the fantasy inside my head.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 23, 2020)

So I found this video which shows how to paint a room faster using an 18 inch roller while doing just as good a job. By using an 18 inch roller and by using the techniques in the video you save time. So that being said, is there anything wrong with using an 18 inch roller and the techniques in the video? Does it make a person impatient?


----------



## pdg (Jan 23, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So I found this video which shows how to paint a room faster using an 18 inch roller while doing just as good a job. By using an 18 inch roller and by using the techniques in the video you save time. So that being said, is there anything wrong with using an 18 inch roller and the techniques in the video? Does it make a person impatient?



Totally impatient.

You should use a 3" roller with a very short handle and only paint a maximum of 6" per week.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So I found this video which shows how to paint a room faster using an 18 inch roller while doing just as good a job. By using an 18 inch roller and by using the techniques in the video you save time. So that being said, is there anything wrong with using an 18 inch roller and the techniques in the video? Does it make a person impatient?


I like that big roller.  I didn’t know that they make them.  I’ve always used the standard rollers.

Rolling paint on a wall, even with a standard roller, goes pretty quickly.  What takes time is the set-up.  Protecting the floors and   getting the trim taped, and windows, and adjoining walls and ceilings if they are a different color.  That is what takes all the time.


----------



## pdg (Jan 23, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Rolling paint on a wall, even with a standard roller, goes pretty quickly. What takes time is the set-up. Protecting the floors and getting the trim taped, and windows, and adjoining walls and ceilings if they are a different color. That is what takes all the time.



This is the bit a lot of people don't realise.

Slapping paint on is quick and easy and if the prep is done right it'll look good unless you really make a hash of it.

Depending on what you're starting with, prep can take hours to days.

When I repainted my son's bedroom it took over a week - but that did include removing the old paint (semi gloss so almost impossible to get anything to stick over it), replastering a wall and replacing some of the skirting boards...


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 23, 2020)

Wait, no one mentioned rollers for painting.   Am i the only one to use my hands?  and the occasional brush?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 23, 2020)

pdg said:


> Totally impatient.
> 
> You should use a 3" roller with a very short handle and only paint a maximum of 6" per week.


So funny I forgot to laugh.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 23, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> What takes time is the set-up.  Protecting the floors and   getting the trim taped, and windows, and adjoining walls and ceilings if they are a different color.  That is what takes all the time.


True, often there is more work in prepping a room to be painted than there is in the painting itself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 23, 2020)

pdg said:


> This is the bit a lot of people don't realise.
> 
> Slapping paint on is quick and easy and if the prep is done right it'll look good unless you really make a hash of it.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and if it is a kitchen with old grease on the walls, gotta wash it with TSP.  Over a semi-gloss you might get good results if you sand the walls to rough the surface.  A lot less work than actually stripping the old paint.


----------



## pdg (Jan 23, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So funny I forgot to laugh.



I know, right?

I can tell how hard you were laughing, you missed the 'funny' button and hit 'dislike' by mistake.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 23, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So I found this video which shows how to paint a room faster using an 18 inch roller while doing just as good a job. By using an 18 inch roller and by using the techniques in the video you save time. So that being said, is there anything wrong with using an 18 inch roller and the techniques in the video? Does it make a person impatient?


There would be for me. I am an abysmal painter. I truly despise it. I can make a mess with a 1/2” cut in brush. I do not want to see what mess I would make with 18” ‘s of brush


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> Wait, no one mentioned rollers for painting.   Am i the only one to use my hands?  and the occasional brush?




I hate rollers, only ever use brushes and I've painted a lot of walls. Living in military married quarters means you have to have spotless clean walls when you march out, the easiest way is just to paint them. Over the years that's a lot of walls by myself as my OH was usually on deployment so it was left to me to move us lock stock and barrel to another house sometimes another house in another country.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 26, 2020)

So concerning reaching goals sooner, I think I've come up with an analogy that best makes my point so far. Lets say you work a job where you make $10 an hour and you work 20 hours a week. At that rate you make $200 a week and so in two weeks you will make $400.

Now, you can ask for more hours and work 40 hours a week and that way you will make $400 in just one week. The time it took you to make $400 is still 40 hours, 40 hours is 40 hours whether its spread over one week or two weeks but you're reaching your goal of making $400 gross amount in just one week instead of two so you're reaching your goal sooner.

Provided that doing 40 hours a week doesn't hurt your job performance, you can reach your goal of $400 sooner if you do 40 hours a week as opposed to 20. Its not taking less time to reach your goal but you are reaching it sooner.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2020)

Getting back to the posts on painting:  we moved into a new house last year and the covid lockdown has given me the time to start painting the rooms.  Looking for a silver lining in a bad situation.


----------



## skribs (Apr 26, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So concerning reaching goals sooner, I think I've come up with an analogy that best makes my point so far. Lets say you work a job where you make $10 an hour and you work 20 hours a week. At that rate you make $200 a week and so in two weeks you will make $400.
> 
> Now, you can ask for more hours and work 40 hours a week and that way you will make $400 in just one week. The time it took you to make $400 is still 40 hours, 40 hours is 40 hours whether its spread over one week or two weeks but you're reaching your goal of making $400 gross amount in just one week instead of two so you're reaching your goal sooner.
> 
> Provided that doing 40 hours a week doesn't hurt your job performance, you can reach your goal of $400 sooner if you do 40 hours a week as opposed to 20. Its not taking less time to reach your goal but you are reaching it sooner.



So let's say your bills are $700/month.  Let's take the approximation of 1 month = 4 weeks to simplify this.  You can net $100/month, or you can net $900/month.  Which will help you meet your goals faster?

Now let's say you work 60 hours per week.  Now you're netting $1700/month.  That's going to once again shorten the time it takes to meet those goals, but it's not nearly the difference it was before.

Let's say you want to save up $10,000 for a down payment on a car.  At 20 hours/week, that will take you 100 months (8-1/3 years).  At 40 hours/week, that will take you 12 months, and you'll have some remaining.  At 60 hours/week, that will take you 6 months to save up, with a little bit of change leftover.

This is assuming that your goal is finite.  Let's say your goal becomes more nebulous.  For example, you want to save up for 5 years to buy a car with cash.

20 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $6,000
40 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $54,000
60 hours/week, you might be able to buy a car for around $102,000
You can have a better goal with more time invested.

In my opinion, this is a better analogy for martial arts training.  Do you want to have a used 2005 hatchback?  How about an entry-level BMW?  How about a top-of-the-line Corvette?  This doesn't make someone impatient.  It means someone has higher standards for what they want to achieve.


----------



## skribs (Apr 26, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway, is a student being impatient by choosing to train three hours a week instead of just one?



Coming back to the original question, I think it can be safely said there are only two ways in which you could see someone who trains more as being "impatient":

If the training will end (i.e. the person who quits right after getting their black belt)
If you're jealous of someone who trains more than you do, and it's easier to call them impatient than to train more.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 26, 2020)

skribs said:


> So let's say your bills are $700/month.  Let's take the approximation of 1 month = 4 weeks to simplify this.  You can net $100/month, or you can net $900/month.  Which will help you meet your goals faster?
> 
> Now let's say you work 60 hours per week.  Now you're netting $1700/month.  That's going to once again shorten the time it takes to meet those goals, but it's not nearly the difference it was before.
> 
> ...


Not a bad analogy.  But let’s not forget that at 60 hours/week one runs the risk of burnout before reaching the goal.  If the work is difficult or stressful and not interesting to you personally then even 40 hours/week can burn you out faster than you anticipated.

I think there is a balance that one needs to find, between how much time and effort to give it to gain positive results, without overdoing it and risking burnout or diminishing returns for the effort.  Just what that balance is varies with the individual.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Apr 26, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Not a bad analogy.  But let’s not forget that at 60 hours/week one runs the risk of burnout before reaching the goal.  If the work is difficult or stressful and not interesting to you personally then even 40 hours/week can burn you out faster than you anticipated.
> 
> I think there is a balance that one needs to find, between how much time and effort to give it to gain positive results, without overdoing it and risking burnout or diminishing returns for the effort.  Just what that balance is varies with the individual.


Yup. If you work 60 hours/week, but after 1.5 years burnout and end up quitting, making no money per week, overall you'd have been better off working 40 hours per week.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 27, 2020)

skribs said:


> Coming back to the original question, I think it can be safely said there are only two ways in which you could see someone who trains more as being "impatient":
> 
> If the training will end (i.e. the person who quits right after getting their black belt)



 Its usually quite the opposite. When you get your black belt, that's when you start training even harder. After you get a black belt it doesn't get easier it gets harder. 





skribs said:


> [*]If you're jealous of someone who trains more than you do, and it's easier to call them impatient than to train more.



Try telling that to Bruce Lee.


----------



## skribs (Apr 27, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> Its usually quite the opposite. When you get your black belt, that's when you start training even harder. After you get a black belt it doesn't get easier it gets harder.
> Try telling that to Bruce Lee.



That's kind of my point.  Saying "you're impatient" if you train more (*which is what you said in your OP*), is based on a flawed premise that training has an end-date, or jealousy that someone else is training harder than you.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 27, 2020)

skribs said:


> So let's say your bills are $700/month.  Let's take the approximation of 1 month = 4 weeks to simplify this.  You can net $100/month, or you can net $900/month.  Which will help you meet your goals faster?
> 
> Now let's say you work 60 hours per week.  Now you're netting $1700/month.  That's going to once again shorten the time it takes to meet those goals, but it's not nearly the difference it was before.
> 
> ...


You've just done what too many people on this forum do, you've added to my analogy and made it more complicated. I want to keep things simple as that's how I can make my point and when people add to my examples it only makes it more complicated. Therefore I would like to ask you, and everybody else, to please not add to my examples and keep them as they are.


----------



## skribs (Apr 27, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> You've just done what too many people on this forum do, you've added to my analogy and made it more complicated. I want to keep things simple as that's how I can make my point and when people add to my examples it only makes it more complicated. Therefore I would like to ask you, and everybody else, to please not add to my examples and keep them as they are.



Then your point only makes sense if it's simplified to the point of being inaccurate.

Which makes sense, because your point is simply wrong.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 28, 2020)

skribs said:


> Then your point only makes sense if it's simplified to the point of being inaccurate.
> 
> Which makes sense, because your point is simply wrong.


So its wrong that if you work for 40 hours a week at $10/hour you will make $400 sooner than if you work 20 hours a week at $10/hour?


----------



## isshinryuronin (Apr 28, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> When you get your black belt, that's when you start training even harder. After you get a black belt it doesn't get easier it gets harder.



Not sure if I agree.  Let's use an analogy.

You are creating a sculpture out of stone.  To begin, you must haul a huge block of rock to your studio, careful not to screw up your back.  This is the White belt stage. Then, start hammering away with a chisel for hours till your arms ache, cleaving off chunks, without shattering the block.  This is the hard work.  Green belt stage.  But then, as it takes shape into something recognizable, you can throw away the heavy hammer and chisel, and start to use the lighter weight, finer, tools. using less brute force and more wrist technique.  More precise and less physical effort, but slower paced and more care taken.  You realize, this sculpture won't be done in a few months, or even years.  This is the black belt stage.  Next, you are ready to polish and add expression to your work, letting your hands and fingers do the magic, and advance thru the Dans.

So, I don't know if one trains harder - certainly one starts to train differently.


----------



## skribs (Apr 28, 2020)

PhotonGuy said:


> So its wrong that if you work for 40 hours a week at $10/hour you will make $400 sooner than if you work 20 hours a week at $10/hour?



That specific fact is correct.  How that fact is applied in the real world is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.  Your analogy works only if you simplify it and remove any variables that would make it wrong.  

Let's go back to your quote:



> You've just done what too many people on this forum do, you've added to my analogy and made it more complicated. I want to keep things simple as that's how I can make my point and when people add to my examples it only makes it more complicated. Therefore I would like to ask you, and everybody else, to please not add to my examples and keep them as they are.



This says a couple of things:

You realize that more data would invalidate your point.  You are asking for us not to provide more data, so we won't see the holes in your logic.
You are effectively trying to silence everyone.  You make a point, nobody else is allowed to speak about it.  That's the equivalent of saying something, and then when someone tries to argue, you stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LA LAL ALA LALLALALAAL LA" so you can't hear anyone tell you anything you don't want to hear.  
This goes back to your original point, that training more is "impatient."  You've demonized someone who trains harder.  When someone trains harder than you, there are three approaches you could take:

Use them as an inspiration to train harder
Accept that they train more than you, and understand your own limitations on time, physical endurance, or drive to train as hard as they are
Spin their dedication as a negative trait so you seem superior
This whole thread seems to be you making fun of people that you're jealous of, and then getting upset when everyone tells you that it's a *you* problem and that training hard is a good thing.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 28, 2020)

skribs said:


> This goes back to your original point, that training more is "impatient." You've demonized someone who trains harder. When someone trains harder than you, there are three approaches you could take:
> 
> Use them as an inspiration to train harder
> Accept that they train more than you, and understand your own limitations on time, physical endurance, or drive to train as hard as they are
> ...


I think you've misunderstood PhotonGuy's pont. He didn't criticize people who train harder/longer as being impatient - he _asked _if someone who trains more would be considered impatient. 

The reason he asked such a thing, if my years of reading his posts don't mislead me, is that some time back in one of his earlier threads someone (I don't remember who) told him that training more hours per week in order to progress faster was just a sign of impatience and shouldn't be encouraged. Since then that's been a point he has fixated on and occasionally returned to.


----------



## skribs (Apr 28, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you've misunderstood PhotonGuy's pont. He didn't criticize people who train harder/longer as being impatient - he _asked _if someone who trains more would be considered impatient.
> 
> The reason he asked such a thing, if my years of reading his posts don't mislead me, is that some time back in one of his earlier threads someone (I don't remember who) told him that training more hours per week in order to progress faster was just a sign of impatience and shouldn't be encouraged. Since then that's been a point he has fixated on and occasionally returned to.



I thought that at first.  But he's so fixated on it that at several points in the thread he's come back to it.  It's sounding like he's defending that position.

Still, my point regarding his other comment still stands.  He's trying to have the last word in the argument by banning everyone else from speaking their mind about his posts.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Apr 29, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you've misunderstood PhotonGuy's pont. He didn't criticize people who train harder/longer as being impatient - he _asked _if someone who trains more would be considered impatient.


To answer the question - It depends.  It depends on whether the person is training harder/longer just to get ahead faster.  In this case, he could be described as impatient.  The irony is sometimes getting caught up in this will actually slow his advancement.  If he is training harder/longer with no thought of time or destination, just immersed in his dedicated pursuit of the journey, he could be described as a true martial artist. 

Now, it's entirely possible he could start out the first way, then a few years later, as a second degree black belt for example, come to realize the true nature of his art and end up in the second category.  Hopefully, we evolve over the years.  Some don't, some do.  Those that do, discover an amazing new appreciation and understanding of the art that has nothing to do with power and speed.  Yet, this understanding often leads to greater power and speed. 

To quote a frequent poster, "Sit on a rock for three years" and ponder that.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 29, 2020)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you've misunderstood PhotonGuy's pont. He didn't criticize people who train harder/longer as being impatient - he _asked _if someone who trains more would be considered impatient.


Thank you Tony Dismukes.



Tony Dismukes said:


> The reason he asked such a thing, if my years of reading his posts don't mislead me, is that some time back in one of his earlier threads someone (I don't remember who) told him that training more hours per week in order to progress faster was just a sign of impatience and shouldn't be encouraged. Since then that's been a point he has fixated on and occasionally returned to.


I don't recall any specific person who said training more was a sign of impatience although I do believe, up to a point, that there is nothing wrong with training more hours per week if you want to progress faster. I say up to a point because there is a point in your training when you can overdo it and burn yourself out in which case you would have to recover and in the long run you would end up progressing slower not faster.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 29, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Getting back to the posts on painting:  we moved into a new house last year and the covid lockdown has given me the time to start painting the rooms.  Looking for a silver lining in a bad situation.


Good for you. I've also been doing some renovations during the lockdown, not any painting but I've been putting up cabinets and blinds and moving stuff around.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 29, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Not sure if I agree.  Let's use an analogy.
> 
> You are creating a sculpture out of stone.  To begin, you must haul a huge block of rock to your studio, careful not to screw up your back.  This is the White belt stage. Then, start hammering away with a chisel for hours till your arms ache, cleaving off chunks, without shattering the block.  This is the hard work.  Green belt stage.  But then, as it takes shape into something recognizable, you can throw away the heavy hammer and chisel, and start to use the lighter weight, finer, tools. using less brute force and more wrist technique.  More precise and less physical effort, but slower paced and more care taken.  You realize, this sculpture won't be done in a few months, or even years.  This is the black belt stage.  Next, you are ready to polish and add expression to your work, letting your hands and fingers do the magic, and advance thru the Dans.
> 
> So, I don't know if one trains harder - certainly one starts to train differently.


Im only speaking from my own experience when I talk about it getting harder after making black belt not easier. For one thing, once you make black belt, at the dojo they're going to expect more out of you, but aside from that, you're going to be expecting more out of yourself. 

As for your analogy, working with the finer tools and using more precise technique is in some ways harder than using the hammer and chisel and brute force. Maybe not physically harder but harder in terms of skill.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Apr 29, 2020)

skribs said:


> That specific fact is correct.  How that fact is applied in the real world is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.  Your analogy works only if you simplify it and remove any variables that would make it wrong.
> 
> Let's go back to your quote:
> 
> ...


You've got the wrong impression of me and if you've been reading my posts in the past you would know that. I am by no means trying encourage people to train less or calling them impatient if they train more. If I were to do so then I would be calling myself impatient and I would also be calling Bruce Lee impatient and if you know anything about me you will know that Bruce Lee is one of my great inspirations and role models and he trained like crazy. 

Anyway perhaps I haven't been too clear about my point of starting this thread, my point is to challenge those who say that training more means you're impatient. Some people say there's no shortcut to excellence and I agree with that provided that we agree on what a "shortcut" is. If you define a shortcut at an easier way to excellence then I agree, there is no easier way to excellence. However, that doesn't mean there aren't quicker ways to excellence, not easier ways, just quicker ways. 

In my example of where you're working a job where you make $10 an hour and you have a goal of making $400 in this case $400 represents excellence. Working 40 hours a week for one week will obviously get you to excellence quicker than working 20 hours a week for two weeks. Now, working 40 hours a week is not easier than working 20 hours a week its harder, its more hours per week, but it gets you to your goal quicker. 

So while there are no shortcuts to excellence, and by that I mean easier ways to excellence, there are faster ways to reach excellence. They're not easier they're actually going to be harder as that's the tradeoff when you reach excellence sooner but they will get you there faster and $400 is $400 whether you take one week or two weeks to get it so the results are the same. The only difference is you're getting it sooner if you put in 40 hours a week instead of 20.

Now, if we were going to discuss details such as taxes and other such expenses that would just further complicate things and would not do anything in disproving my point. That's why in post #146 I talked about making a "gross amount" of $400 not a net amount. In my example all other expenses are covered, you just have a goal of making a "gross amount" of $400 which represents excellence.

My whole point is that while there are no shortcuts to excellence, shortcuts as in easier ways, there are faster ways to reach excellence. Not easier ways just faster ways.


----------

