Agree of Disagree with My Statement?

[qi-tah]

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 would say that it depends on the art in question and how democratic it's techniques are. A highly athletic MA like Capoeira or modern Wushu relies heavily on high level fitness and flexibility, and not everyone has the body type or condition to excel in them. A more compact and/or "soft" style like Wing Chun or Aikido are much easier for smaller types, whilst taller or more solidly built ppl might find another MA a better fit.

Some ppl can overcome their physical deficiencies to excel in a style which might not seem a good physical fit for them, and more power to them. But it's always wise to examine the MA you plan to expend blood, sweat and tears on - and ask yrself - is this going to be one which allows me the best chance of growth on my own peculiar path?

 

[Jutt-]

I definitely agree that perserverance and dedication is the most deciding factor in your ability.

I think it may be diffrent where the full contact sport's are concerned though.

I'm not saying fact this makes this factor any more superior etc etc as it isn't true in the slightest , but I'm not sure if taking repetitive strikes is something that could be taught?

Being a newbie still , I'm probs wrong though

 

[DArnold]

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.

Quite simple.
Are you saying the end goal of a sport and a way of life are the same?

 

[michaeledward]

Quite simple.
Are you saying the end goal of a sport and a way of life are the same?

Apparently, I don't understand simplicity. If it involves, somehow, not answering a question, and instead poses a completely different question, then simplicity is beyond me. But that may just be me.

Next, the original post drew an analogy between martial arts as an activity and other sports as activities. But, somehow, in your query, you seem to be stepping further away from that premise, which I have on a couple occassions already in this thread have pointed out is faulty. If you are going to further push the point to a faulty metaphor, one wonders why you are quoting me, and posing questions in my direction.

You question, however, (to give it the weight it deserves) is just as arrogant as the original posters premise. You seem to be saying that 'martail art' is a 'way of life', and therefore must be considered superior to 'sport'.

Football, apparently, can not be considered a 'way of life'? I have heard the term 'football widow' in the autumn. Never have I heard of a 'karate widow'. And I see many more vehicles driving down the road with bumper stickers for football teams, and drivers whereing team jackets and hats, than comparable martial arts ... but this too, is probably a fault way to measure the 'way of life' paradigm.

One wonders how to measure that 'way of life'? ... I mean beyond just the word of an obviously biased statement on a biased message board.

Of course, measuring the concept is irrelevant. First one needs to support the premise. What is the 'martial art' way of ... well, fill in your own response ... pick an activity that Stephen Hawking could participate in, perhaps?

Martial Arts is not a 'way of life'. It is an activity that exercise the body, first and foremost, and a bit of mind. Some will project spirituality onto this physical activity, but then, some will project spirituality into any activity at all. Personally, I much prefer the idea of projecting spirituality on to Fly Fishing. This too, of course, is a faulty metaphor.

So, you could attempt to answer my question.

Or, you could attempt to clarify what you think you mean. And we could discuss your ideas. As it stands, what you said in the last post, makes little sense, and instead seems to be baiting me. It worked, apparently.

 

[Bumblebee]

I disagree with your statement. Using the example of the NFL, there are countless players with loads of raw talent, but fail due to being, what analysts refer to as, underachievers. Raw talent can only take you so far in the things you do, it's whether or not you continue to work hard is what will bring you success.

 

[Seabrook]

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.

Consistent and diligent practice can make someone awesome at any given sport. At least 90% of talent is not innate; it comes from persistence and practicing even when you don't feel like it.

You mentioned professional sports, such as the NFL. That might be an extreme example, but if we stick to that high of a standard, how many that diligently practice martial arts will make it to, say, the UFC?

 

[Mpmagi]

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

Certainly. There are some MA kids I've seen that can perform kata and forms with an seemingly unnatural levels of technique. The answer: their parents make them practice, every day.

 

[bluemtn]

I agree to a certain extent. There are, however, a small number that have natural talent in martial arts, but that's a small margin. On the other hand, anyone that practices often and well, will get better.

 

[tradrockrat]

I'm afraid that in this case I do not agree. In any physical endeavor - all things being equal; equal time spent training, equal quality of instruction, equal effort - the gifted athlete has the advantage. This is true of any "sport". Luckily for those of us not blessed to be a natural Bruce Lee - all things are never equal.

for example - if two people train in identical ways in the same dojo on exactly the same nights for 5 years, one will be better than the other due to physical ability, but as we all know and have seen, the gifted one may slack because it comes easier, or skip some classes, or the less gifted may work harder in class and practice at home, eventually becoming a better martial artist.

 

[Kacey]

for example - if two people train in identical ways in the same dojo on exactly the same nights for 5 years, one will be better than the other due to physical ability, but as we all know and have seen, the gifted one may slack because it comes easier, or skip some classes, or the less gifted may work harder in class and practice at home, eventually becoming a better martial artist.

Or - as I've seen - the more gifted athlete will quit coming to class when it finally starts getting hard, because it's not "fun" anymore.

As a non-gifted athlete, I have to say that I know far more people who stuck with martial arts who were not athletic - or, at least, did not consider themselves to be athletic - when they started, than those who were gifted athletes when they began.

I was sucked in by finally finding a physical activity in which the directions were broken down sufficiently to actually make sense to me - but too many "natural" athletes that I've seen (not all, but many - perhaps even most) drop out about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way to black belt, when natural athleticism is no longer enough.

 

[Cruentus]

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 agree with half the statement.

What I mean is that I believe the idea of "natural" talent or ability is a self-limiting idea. I can say to myself that I could never be good at basketball or math or good with my finances because I am just not talented in that area, and then really that becomes an excuse to never improve in a particular desired area. There is a certain amount that can be said for natural talents and such, but really people tend to limit themselves with self-defeating attitudes when things don't come easily.

I think that the biggest thing that seperates an NFL linebacker and me is that the pro has put his heart and life into playing pro ball, probably starting way back when he was a kid when I would have rather been outside playing "guns" or playing "karate." Is that genetics, or relativity?

If anything, I think that the martial arts really teaches people not to limit themselves, and that one can accomplish much with diligent effort (provided that it is a good martial arts program where students can realize true success rather then arbritary fulfillment). These lessons can and should carry over into other aspects of our lives.

C.

 

[ejaazi]

You are certainly correct with respect to the martial arts. In fact I have seen at least one Chinese master rank natural talent as being the least gift.

But I think such can be true of other sports, too. It was said Pete Rose just tried - or "hustled" - harder. Football games decided in the 4th quarter are often ascribed to harder practice and better conditioning of the winning team. Similarly, 5 set tennis matches are said to come down to 'heart'... who wants it more? I believe work ethic is often the ticket that moves an AHL hockey player up to an NHL spot.

Not always true. Look at the number of times, although few, that someone came out of college only good enough to be 3rd string, got a chance to play, and went on to become a great player. They worked real hard to get better. Likewise, there are times when those with seemingly "natural" ability, come out of college and are starters, but then they turn out not to be as good as they were in college or as good as people expected them to be. However, I will say, that I believe when it comes to MA, we do have to train harder and for much longer than sports players.

 

[funnytiger]

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'm gonna disagree with this statement.

Practice and diligence without natural talent make you a good martial artist.

Practice and diligence coupled with natural talent make you a great martial artist.

However, natural talent without continued practice and diligence is futile and a waste.

I'm confused as to why some of assume that a person with natural talent does not work as hard as hard as someone without it. In my experience, I've seen quite the opposite.

Those who seem to demonstrate an ability to adapt quickly and show what you would call a natural ability, excel faster and seem to want to learn more. But, that is just what I have seen in my school. I have seen many people who struggle from the get go leave after a few months of continued struggle despite their hard work.

Of course, I don't believe there is an absolute correlation to the longevity of a student based on whether he or she has natural ability or not. It all boils down to whether that person has the ability to push themselves. Natural ability or not, without that drive, you will quit.

-ft

 

[Shotochem]

I will say, that I believe when it comes to MA, we do have to train harder and for much longer than sports players.

Most of us MA are not professionals. We do not train for as many hours a day in our respective MA as your typical professional athlete.

I would imagine I would be quite a more talented MA if I had the opportunity to train MA for as many hrs a week as my full time job.

As many have stated talent alone will only get you so far, the rest comes down to guts and perseverence.
-Marc-

 

[Sukerkin]

I'm confused as to why some of assume that a person with natural talent does not work as hard as hard as someone without it. In my experience, I've seen quite the opposite.

That must count of one of those your-milage-may-vary instances as my experience is, as I posted earlier, that the 'natural talents' do not have to work as hard initially simply because of their predispostion to be 'good at it'. When the time to buckle down and put in the work arrrives, the talent they have works against them and they tend to fall away more than others because they are used to it coming easily.

I'm the same with languages. I can get going very easily as the linguistic 'bump' of my brain is very strong. As soon as I get past 'tourist level' I tend to flag as I've got to work at it now rather than it just 'happening'.

Of course, I don't believe there is an absolute correlation to the longevity of a student based on whether he or she has natural ability or not. It all boils down to whether that person has the ability to push themselves. Natural ability or not, without that drive, you will quit.

That is a core observation :tup:.

 

[funnytiger]

That must count of one of those your-milage-may-vary instances as my experience is, as I posted earlier, that the 'natural talents' do not have to work as hard initially simply because of their predispostion to be 'good at it'. When the time to buckle down and put in the work arrrives, the talent they have works against them and they tend to fall away more than others because they are used to it coming easily.

I'm the same with languages. I can get going very easily as the linguistic 'bump' of my brain is very strong. As soon as I get past 'tourist level' I tend to flag as I've got to work at it now rather than it just 'happening'.

You are absolutely right in that it is all based on personal experiences. I'm the opposite. If I find myself being naturally good at something I may get frustrated when I hit that first wall, but its all the more satisfying once I knock it down and move onto the next hurdle.