Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[drop bear]

I agree, that goes back to what I said about TMA's being taught and trained properly. That is how TMA's used to be originally trained and trained when it first came to this country. It was very heavily focused on being very in shape and physical fitness in addition to the hard martial training.

If you look at the "72 Consumate Arts of Shaolin", many of the exercises correspond to modern weightlifts like the deadlift, squad, overhead press etc. The other exercises are for developing body weapons.

Much of this hard training has been dropped in most TMA schools.

Which i don't have a problem with so long as people understand that it relates directly to outcome.

It is where people make up excuses to try to sell this lesser system as a viable alternative. When it isn't. It is a lesser alternative.

Having a diet shake is easier than going on a diet. But I am not going to loose weight that way. As my coach says "Your body doesn't care about your feelings. You break up with your missus and eat a chocolate cake. Your body doesn't give you a pass"

 

[punisher73]

Which i don't have a problem with so long as people understand that it relates directly to outcome.

It is where people make up excuses to try to sell this lesser system as a viable alternative. When it isn't. It is a lesser alternative.

Having a diet shake is easier than going on a diet. But I am not going to loose weight that way. As my coach says "Your body doesn't care about your feelings. You break up with your missus and eat a chocolate cake. Your body doesn't give you a pass"

We are in agreement.

There is no way you could sell a running program (ok, you probably could and people would buy it for a shortcut) that promised a Boston Marathon qualifying time with only having to run 15 minutes 3 times a week. But, that is the equivalent that many schools sell in regards to martial arts.

My instructor has made the comment before to a group of students that were "over confident" in their skills. He told them lets all go down to X (local bar where a lot blue collar steel workers hung out) and test your skills. Needless to say they got the point. He will also tell you that you can't own a technique until you have spent at least a gallon of sweat working on it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is fine. But then the bar is lowered.

If the question is, are competitive martial artists better? And they are fundamentally training harder. Because other martial artists don't want to.

Seem a pretty simple answer.

Yep, there's an advantage for the folks who are training harder. That's likely to concentrate in the competitive arts because of the selection bias I mentioned in another thread. Folks who don't intend to commit the time to that kind of thing don't tend to sign up for places where that's the norm.

Folks who train harder get better.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We are in agreement.

There is no way you could sell a running program (ok, you probably could and people would buy it for a shortcut) that promised a Boston Marathon qualifying time with only having to run 15 minutes 3 times a week. But, that is the equivalent that many schools sell in regards to martial arts.

My instructor has made the comment before to a group of students that were "over confident" in their skills. He told them lets all go down to X (local bar where a lot blue collar steel workers hung out) and test your skills. Needless to say they got the point. He will also tell you that you can't own a technique until you have spent at least a gallon of sweat working on it.

Agreed. But there's certainly room for a running program that promises to improve your running performance, based upon a more limited time commitment. Say, developing a reasonable 3-mile pace.

 

[drop bear]

Yep, there's an advantage for the folks who are training harder. That's likely to concentrate in the competitive arts because of the selection bias I mentioned in another thread. Folks who don't intend to commit the time to that kind of thing don't tend to sign up for places where that's the norm.

Folks who train harder get better.

I don't think choosing the easy but doesn't work as well option because you can't really be bothered is technically how selection bias works.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think choosing the easy but doesn't work as well option because you can't really be bothered is technically how selection bias works.

Selection bias is just a term for when two groups aren't similar because people are selected (in this case self-selected) into the groups, as opposed to random assignment.

So, yes, people who don't want to put in the hours selecting a program that doesn't expect them to is exactly an example of selection bias.

 

[Mitlov]

Agreed. But there's certainly room for a running program that promises to improve your running performance, based upon a more limited time commitment. Say, developing a reasonable 3-mile pace.

Exactly. It's called "couch to 5k," and it's hugely popular.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Folks who train harder get better.

It's not how hard that you train. It's what technique that you train.

If A trains forms, and B trains combos such as:

- jab, cross
- jab, cross, hook
- jab, hook, cross
- jab, hook, uppercut
- jab, uppercut, cross
- ...

B will have better punching skill than A has.

 

[drop bear]

Selection bias is just a term for when two groups aren't similar because people are selected (in this case self-selected) into the groups, as opposed to random assignment.

So, yes, people who don't want to put in the hours selecting a program that doesn't expect them to is exactly an example of selection bias.

No. I really think you are just flat earthing here.

The two groups are not similar because one training method works better.

Everyone can choose to adopt either method.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's not how hard that you train. It's what technique that you train.

If A trains forms, and B trains combos such as:

- jab, cross
- jab, cross, hook
- jab, hook, cross
- jab, hook, uppercut
- jab, uppercut, cross
- ...

B will have better punching skill than A has.

It also matters how hard you train. If A trains two hours a week and B trains ten hours a week (assuming equal intensity, same technique base, same instructor), B will usually outperform A unless there's a huge difference in natural ability.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No. I really think you are just flat earthing here.

The two groups are not similar because one training method works better.

Everyone can choose to adopt either method.

The two groups start out not being similar. If selection bias is "flat earthing", then literally everyone designing scientific studies is a flat-earther, because that's one of the things they work hard to avoid.

Or maybe you're just being an ***.

 

[drop bear]

The two groups start out not being similar. If selection bias is "flat earthing", then literally everyone designing scientific studies is a flat-earther, because that's one of the things they work hard to avoid.

Or maybe you're just being an ***.

The two groups start the same. Which is basically everyone in the world.

Some choose method A. Some choose method B and some choose to stay on the couch eating donuts.

Method a works better than method b and a and b work better than eating donuts. You then conclude the evidence for a and b,s effectiveness is biased because donut eaters goanna eat donuts? And that they were all predisposed to that lifestyle.

You have literally invented an unrelated cause for the results.

That is exactly how flat earth theory works.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The two groups start the same. Which is basically everyone in the world.

Some choose method A. Some choose method B and some choose to stay on the couch eating donuts.

Method a works better than method b and a and b work better than eating donuts. You then conclude the evidence for a and b,s effectiveness is biased because donut eaters goanna eat donuts? And that they were all predisposed to that lifestyle.

You have literally invented an unrelated cause for the results.

That is exactly how flat earth theory works.

And the "some choose" is the selection. But go ahead and ignore that.

 

[drop bear]

And the "some choose" is the selection. But go ahead and ignore that.

So you are suggesting there is selection bias because some people choose not to do anything at all?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you are suggesting there is selection bias because some people choose not to do anything at all?

If you were comparing martial artists to the rest of the population, yes, selection bias would mean you couldn't compare those as equal popultions.

 

[Steve]

Yep, there's an advantage for the folks who are training harder. That's likely to concentrate in the competitive arts because of the selection bias I mentioned in another thread. Folks who don't intend to commit the time to that kind of thing don't tend to sign up for places where that's the norm.

Folks who train harder get better.

Just to be clear, though, the selection bias is rarely physical, personality, or trait based. It's entirely about choice and motivation. Shy, meek, sensitive, insecure, fearful, weak people train in sport arts all the time. And they often remain shy, meek, and sensitive. But they become less insecure, less fearful, and stronger because they are building real skill. And so, when someone like you or others looks at a school that concentrates on competitive arts, these shy, meek, and sensitive souls don't appear so, because they are competent.

The selection bias is strictly about choosing a plan that is unlikely to work over a plan that is likely to work. This is the main area where non sport arts let folks down, just as fad diets, get rich quick schemes, and counting on the Lotto for your retirement let people down. There is no shortcut to developing skill. What places that don't emphasize real skill development through application do is tantalize people with shortcuts that convince, in the same way a diet might claim you can lose weight without ever leaving your couch.

 

[Steve]

It also matters how hard you train. If A trains two hours a week and B trains ten hours a week (assuming equal intensity, same technique base, same instructor), B will usually outperform A unless there's a huge difference in natural ability.

While there is a point of diminishing return, the rule of thumb I've heard is at least three times per week. So, if a person trains 5 to 6 hours per week in a competitive art another person trains 10 hours per week, super hard, in a non-competitive art, I still think the competitive person will outperform the other in most, if not all, cases. Even if it's the same art and all other things are the same. I wouldn't be surprised if a person who trains 40 hours per week as a full time job could keep up with the skill development of someone doing the same thing about 6 hours per week but with application baked in. That's something I'd like to see.

 

[Steve]

The two groups start out not being similar. If selection bias is "flat earthing", then literally everyone designing scientific studies is a flat-earther, because that's one of the things they work hard to avoid.

Or maybe you're just being an ***.

I won't speak for @drop bear but I think you have it backwards. Essentially your entire argument here is a justification for fad diets. The logic is identical. and completely disregards results. Some folks don't want to stop eating fried chicken and cheeseburgers. They don't want to sweat or exercise or be uncomfortable. And so, a certain percentage of folks want for something to just make the fat disappear. So, they take a pill, or wear a girdle, or subscribe to a fad diet that will almost assuredly fail.

You are essentially saying that, because so many folks try fad diets that fad diets are legitimate and are just a better choice for some people, because selection bias. Whether they work or not is irrelevant. Your point is, while all of the people who diet want to lose weight... only those people who actually want results will choose to do the hard work. Everyone else will choose fad diets. And you're using that logic to justify non-competitive arts.

In a thread about whether a competitive sport martial artist is superior, I think you're making the case for competitive arts very well.

 

[Steve]

If you were comparing martial artists to the rest of the population, yes, selection bias would mean you couldn't compare those as equal popultions.

Now, this is an interesting. On one hand, you're conflating people who train in non-sport arts and people who don't train at all. I might be inclined to agree, if we're talking fighting skill.

On the other, you're also reinforcing the main point of the thread in favor of competitive arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just to be clear, though, the selection bias is rarely physical, personality, or trait based. It's entirely about choice and motivation. Shy, meek, sensitive, insecure, fearful, weak people train in sport arts all the time. And they often remain shy, meek, and sensitive. But they become less insecure, less fearful, and stronger because they are building real skill. And so, when someone like you or others looks at a school that concentrates on competitive arts, these shy, meek, and sensitive souls don't appear so, because they are competent.

The selection bias is strictly about choosing a plan that is unlikely to work over a plan that is likely to work. This is the main area where non sport arts let folks down, just as fad diets, get rich quick schemes, and counting on the Lotto for your retirement let people down. There is no shortcut to developing skill. What places that don't emphasize real skill development through application do is tantalize people with shortcuts that convince, in the same way a diet might claim you can lose weight without ever leaving your couch.

That's not what selection bias refers to, Steve. It's a term for two populations not being directlly comparable because they don't start by random selection. Competition training will always show an advantage, because it typically has more average intensity than you see in a lot of non-competition training. And that is exaggerated by the effect of selection bias: people who want to train hard are more likely to select that path.

The same would be true in comparing, say Buka's dojo back in the day to the Judo program I trained in. His students exercised more and trained harder than we did. They'd have a strong advantage because of that. And because of that, folks who want to train hard would have been much more interested in that program.