Agree of Disagree with My Statement?

[Kacey]

In martial arts, in my limited experience, it seems to be the case, in the main, that it is the students with 'natural ability' that tend to fall by the wayside earlier.

Perhaps for as much as the first few years of training, they revel in their superiority because it comes easy to them. Then the 'work' begins where you are polishing and grinding out minute faults and honing tiny improvements. For the naturally talented, who are used to having things come quickly to them, this is anathema and I believe that many of those MAists seen as 'good' that fade away at black belt level fall into this category.

For the lesser gifted but more dedicated/determined students, the process of training rather than solely the results of it are of a greater emphasis than for the 'Aces'. Thus, on finding that after you get your first Dan, you can expect to train for a similar amount of time again before you reach the standard for your second, they are not fazed and carry on with their training.

So, in the long term, I think that you perceive a circumstance such as the OP posited i.e. that in the martial arts you see a path whereby it is persistence that pays off in terms of skill rather than any innate talent that you start with.

Of course, match born-with-it aptitude with diligence and you get an altogether different outcome .

I have seen the same things you have, and discussed it with others; you make a great point.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

I agree that it's true of all sports.

However, martial arts is a sport that, so far, hasn't been co-opted by the pros. There's still a venue for those of us with little talent but lots of heart to make a go. With the rise of pro MMA and fight leagues, that may be changing.

I hope not.

 

[Carol]

A big difference that I see is MA takes more than just athleticism.

Look at some of the pro players....they get away with idiocy and even criminal acts and not have their professional standing affected. An MA school owner would be laughed out of town for some of the stuff that pro ball players do.

I equate MA with motor sports. You need some athleticism to do the job, but you need additional knowledge as well. Motor sports requires mechanical knowledge and interpersonal skills for teamwork. MA requires heavy interpersonal skills and, for the professionals, business skills.

But when you think about it....how many people can truly compete on the national media stage? UFC fighters, TKD Olympians...those aren't positions that just anyone can do.

I think a key difference is, a person that trains MA and has never used their skills live...and even never earned a black belt...is still a "martial artist". But, fellows like my grandfather who was always organizing pick-up slow-pitch baseball games after church is not considered to be a "baseball player" because he didn't play at a league level.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

Nope. It still holds true for competition, but Martial Arts is not a sport. Its about improving your self and your motion. Should you choose to compete the natural athleats will still have the advantage.
Sean

 

[terryl965]

Work ethic and drive generally seperates the great martial artist from someone with lesser skill and yet innate natural attributes can certainly give one a huge advantage when combined with a great work ethic and a driven personality.

Not everyone has it even when they have a great work ethic and yet they can still be the absolute best that they can be.

What I will agree more so with is that with lots of dilligent practice that most people can become good at martial arts. Great, probably not but good absolutely!

I would have to agree with Brian statement here.

 

[ArmorOfGod]

Nope. It still holds true for competition, but Martial Arts is not a sport. Its about improving your self and your motion. Should you choose to compete the natural athleats will still have the advantage.
Sean

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoG

 

[Blindside]

I am not talking about competition. AoG

No, you said:

I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

Sport.

Sport implies competition, without competition of some kind there is no way of comparison. So what do you mean by "good?" At some point good has to mean execution of the art, not just knowledge of the art. The "naturals" learn faster, and given equal study time the "natural" will always have the edge.

You can't cop out and say the "natural" practices less, that isn't fair to those that do. Naturals tend to learn faster, and given equal study habits they will learn the complete system faster, and then be polishing those basics, while the rest of us are still slogging through the system.

Kano was a natural (learned 3 systems of jujitsu before founding Judo in his twenties.) Parker was a natural, and a described genius at categorizing material. Lee was a natural, described as being able to see something 3 times and do it better than the instructor could.

I'll lay money that most of the pioneers that we know were naturals. If you mean get "good" at something you mean be decent at something thats fine, but if you mean the "best" then that is still generally the realm of the naturals.

If you take competition out of the factor how do you decide if someone is "good" at something? Since what we do is "martial" arts generally we put one guy in front of another and see who gets KOd, sounds like competition to me.

Lamont

 

[Doc_Jude]

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoG

A wise man said "Effort can overcome Genius."

I don't think that practice coupled with average or mediocre natural ability can "override" practice coupled with high natural aptitude or innate brilliance, but with natural genius being so rare & more often than not unrealized, I'll take hard work.
I've always been coordinated & have a natural athletic ability, often outperforming friends that should be better than me due to their experience.

But I'm too lazy for my own good

 

[Touch Of Death]

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoG

Sematic issues get me every time.
Sean

 

[Blindside]

A big difference that I see is MA takes more than just athleticism.

Look at some of the pro players....they get away with idiocy and even criminal acts and not have their professional standing affected. An MA school owner would be laughed out of town for some of the stuff that pro ball players do.

Comparing a MA school owner and a professional football player is silly they are two completely different things. Compare a MA school owner to a football coach and you may be on to something. Fundamentally, martial arts were invented to help people win physical altercations. If it wasn't we'd simply be working deescaltion skills and verbal judo, and that relies of physical execution of the material, that physical execution will favor people who learn kinetic based material faster.

And there are plenty of examples of not-really well looked upon, but great martial artists. Choki Motobu and Musashi as a younger man, off the top of my head.

I equate MA with motor sports. You need some athleticism to do the job, but you need additional knowledge as well. Motor sports requires mechanical knowledge and interpersonal skills for teamwork. MA requires heavy interpersonal skills and, for the professionals, business skills.

Why do you need heavy interpersonal skills as a martial artist? Not all martial arts lay heavy emphasis on a peaceful morality or avoidance of combat. Many are just about winning the fight. A "professional martial artist" does not equate to a "good" martial artist in my book. Since I've seen both good martial artists that were bad businessmen and good martial artists that were complete asshats. Neither negative attribute makes them a "bad" martial artist.

Lamont

 

[michaeledward]

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

I'm not certain your original post said what you think it said.

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

The unspoken corollary to your premise is:

One can not become "good at NFL or on a pro-sports level" with diligent and proper practice; only those with natural ability can become good, or even can attempt the activity (if you are ruling out 'competition).


I find your comment and your premise arrogant. It smacks of the attitude we have seen on message boards that claim 'my martial art is better than your martial art'. I would further guess that while you may be qualified to measure the competancy of being a martial artist. I doubt that you are similarly qualified to measure the competancy of being 'good at NFL or on a pro-sports level'.


I think a more proper attitude to display to students and associates is that hard work will produce positive results. Study any activity diligently and you will improve your ability.

 

[Adept]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

I disagree. Like anything in life, those with a natural gift for it will always shine over the generic masses, even though we might practice our hearts out. No matter how much we practice, not everyone can be a Jimmy Hendrix, or a Babe Ruth, or a Muhammad Ali.

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoG

I would argue that martial arts are inherently competitive.

If we get into warm and fuzzy definitions of martial arts (it's about the journey, it's about the character development, or it's about bettering yourself...) then we may as well abandon the argument. The same can always be said of football, music, carpentry or gardening, so for the sake of argument we really have to abandon those nice, but ultimately irrelevant definitions of, or reasons to practice, the martial arts.

Ultimately the martial arts, possibly more than any other physical activity or 'hobby' (and certainly more than football or basketball) is about literally beating the other guy into a bloody pulp. What the individual chooses to take from that exercise is up to them, but it seems disingenuous to deny that the basic purpose of the martial arts is to hurt (or in some cases restrain without hurting) other people.

 

[ArmorOfGod]

What I will agree more so with is that with lots of dilligent practice that most people can become good at martial arts. Great, probably not but good absolutely!

I think Mr. VanCise did a better job summing up my point (see above quote).

AoG

 

[Blindside]

I think Mr. VanCise did a better job summing up my point (see above quote).

AoG

Then your initial comparison is flawed, most players in the NFL/NBA/etc are elite level players, that scrub on the end of the bench probably dominated his college and high school team. A person who is "good" at the pro sports level is a whole different league than a person who stands out in an individual martial arts school. My sister was a professional ballerina (soloist) in a major ballet company, there were very few people running at that level who weren't a "natural." Here friends who were "good" had to content themselves with smaller companies or working as ballet teachers. No different in that art than in the martial arts.

Lamont

 

[Hawke]

There's a Kung Fu San Soo instructor named Lawrence Rouse. He took a mentally challenged kid and over time this kid got some serious coordination.

If I understand the intent of the OP I believe people will improve if they work hard at it.

 

[Doc_Jude]

When I think of "Great Martial Artists", most of them are possessed of great natural ability coupled with an inhuman work ethic. Benny Urquidez, Gene LeBell, Joe Lewis, Bruce Lee, Kimura, Rudy Terlinden, Mas Oyama, Mohammed Ali, Frank Shamrock, Jack Dempsey, Mike Tyson, Rickson Gracie, Toshiro Nagato, these are the names that leap to mind.

I think that to be truly "Great", both of these attributes are needed. The combination of both is extremely rare. That being said, I guess I would have to agree with other folks here and say that the initial posit of this thread is for the most part false.

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

I don't think that natural talent of any quantifiable level, at least the levels that we're talking about, will be overriden by practice. Most of those with natural talent can more than match the average practitioner if they but practice a little.

When we talk about Great Martial Artists, we're talking about the "professionals", in my mind. The ranks of the "Good" are, to me, simply better than the dabbler or the hobbyist.

 

[DArnold]

I think the analogy is faulty. It is very difficult to compare professional football to martial arts. The world class athletes participating in professional sports get world wide recognition and compensation. Without martial arts having similar recognition and compensation, we can not be certain if those with potential begin to study the activity.

The hypothetical question that is sometimes asked is: what if Mozart never sat down at a keyboard?

The team sports, football, soccer, baseball and basketball, all have pee-wee leagues, and city leagues, and travel leagues that draw the attention of young people. Every day, or every weekend, television broadcasts teams participating in these activities. Newspapers print out the individual competitors results. "Fantasy Leagues" draw in the sedintary to these activities.

I would be willing to wager that most youth in the country know about Michael Jordan (pick your sports superstar). And that knowledge spawns dreams in many of them.

Who is the comparable martial arts superstar? (I bet most young people would choose a sterioded member of the WWE over a "real" athlete).

So, the next young 'Bruce Lee' or 'Ed Parker' may never be exposed to Martial Arts. So all of the natural ability never gets developed.

And if this is true, the student who practices diligently, may never get tested against a student with natural ability.


And, of course, further, the actual testing process in martial arts exists in an over-controlled environment that does not ever bring the best competitors face to face. Participation in martial arts tournaments is a self-selecting activity. There is no national standard by which athletes compete.

This evening, I was watching a very naturally talented, and extremely diligent martial artist work on her bo-staff material for tournaments. Her practice included twirling a staff like a baton, and throwing the weapon into the air. She stated that these moves were required to win the tournaments.

I believe that allowing your weapon to leave your hands should immediately disqualify a participant from a martial arts competition. That may be 'old school', but if my weapon is not in my hands, I can't hit you with it, nor defend myself from your attack; no matter how pretty it may look.

I appreciate your sentiment, but, No, the analogy doesn't work, and it can't be tested.

Being as we are all bandying about the term Martial Art.
Since the physical aspect is (and I think I'm being generious) only half of what we do, how would you compensate/compare, or test the mental aspects?

 

[michaeledward]

Being as we are all bandying about the term Martial Art.
Since the physical aspect is (and I think I'm being generious) only half of what we do, how would you compensate/compare, or test the mental aspects?

I am not clear on what you are asking, in relation to original premise.

Are you suggesting that there is no mental component to professional sports? Or that the mental component of 'martial arts' is somehow of greater weight than the mental component of other sports?

It seems obvious to me that the activities being discussed are primarily physical. All other, non-physical, attributes are subservient to the physical. Stephen Hawking has tremendous mental powers. But I don't think anyone here would argue that with training he would be able to become a great martial artist.

 

[Blindside]

Being as we are all bandying about the term Martial Art.
Since the physical aspect is (and I think I'm being generious) only half of what we do, how would you compensate/compare, or test the mental aspects?

Could you give examples of what mental aspects you are talking about?

Lamont

 

[bluekey88]

Having skimmed most of the posts here, I hope I'm not re-iterating what's already been said. It' salready been stated that to be great, truly great one must work hard, be determined....AND have innate ability. When any of these is lacking, then this limits how great one can become. However, innate ability is essentially fixed. We have what Mom and Dad bequethed ot us. Sure, with training we can maximize this.,...but we can't really change it. Hoever, we can control or work ethic and determination. We can choose to follow a path or not.

For 99% of us, that's all it takes to get better. Here's where I think the innate talent is critical. For those who HAVE to perform (athletes for example), then that innate talent is an important basew from which to build. The very best also develop a strong work ethic and the detrmination to utilize their talent and hard work to acheive success. For most of us, we aren't training for anything other than self-improvement, honing self-defense skills, etc. We aren't trying to achieve a veyr sepcific goal (such as winning a tournament or competition). We're avid hobbyists (often more passionate than the professionals ).

We've all probably sene the "natural" who drop sout as soon as things get hard. HOw many of us have had lessons with the "natural"? Where they say executre techiquew X like "so"...you couldn't do that in a million years, but they don;t know how to break it down for you as they've nevere had to struggle with technique x.

For me, unless the person with natural talent also truly develops an understanding for what they do...then as teachers they are lacking. I would much rather work with someone of averg ability who has had to struggle for each lesson learned. Because that person is more likely ot see where I am lacking and will be able to help me through it. Think about it....how many great coaches (of any sport) were also truly outstanding champions of their sport? MOst great coaches were pretty averag (or maybe a bit above average), but it's their understanding, their DEPTH of knowleedge combined with hard work, determination...etc. That leads to their ability to foster talent and skill in others.

Peace,
Erik