Are competitive Sport Martial Artists superior?

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I wasn't making any statement about competitive vs non-competitive. You seem to be trying to counter some such argument. My point was that the intensity matters. Take a school and divide the students in half. Train one half harder, and they'll almost certainly get better.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

You've completely read what you want into my statements. Literally none of that matches my comments.

Selection bias would NOT suggest fad diets are good. But I'm pretty sure you know that. You're generally more knowledgeable than this attempt.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I'm conflating nothing. You're reading in something you want to bring up again and flog some more, though you're entirely unable - and unwilling - to explain your point. Every few weeks you'll say you're just going to drop it, then you drag it back out in the middle of some comment I made that's tangentially related.

 

[drop bear]

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.

So when we are specifically looking at whether martial arts makes you better at martial arts.

People who do martial arts and get better at martial arts can't be compared with people who don't do martial arts and don't get better.

And this is because once you have chosen to do martial arts you have created a selection bias.

The mere fact there is options negates being able to compare those options because of bias.

 

[drop bear]

I wasn't making any statement about competitive vs non-competitive. You seem to be trying to counter some such argument. My point was that the intensity matters. Take a school and divide the students in half. Train one half harder, and they'll almost certainly get better.

No they only got better because they chose to train harder. So in reality that is selection bias.

 

[Steve]

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.

But the point is that they are the same populations. That's the point. The selection bias you refer to doesn't exist because you are mistakenly presuming that there are two populations. I don't believe that's the case.

Or to be more precise, the two populations you refer to aren't what you think. Group A are people who are willing to work hard to see real results and Group B are people who are looking for a quick fix that requires little effort.

 

[Steve]

I wasn't making any statement about competitive vs non-competitive. You seem to be trying to counter some such argument. My point was that the intensity matters. Take a school and divide the students in half. Train one half harder, and they'll almost certainly get better.

It's the topic of the thread, Gerry.

 

[Steve]

You've completely read what you want into my statements. Literally none of that matches my comments.

Selection bias would NOT suggest fad diets are good. But I'm pretty sure you know that. You're generally more knowledgeable than this attempt.

Exactly right. My point is that there is no selection bias.

 

[Steve]

I'm conflating nothing. You're reading in something you want to bring up again and flog some more, though you're entirely unable - and unwilling - to explain your point. Every few weeks you'll say you're just going to drop it, then you drag it back out in the middle of some comment I made that's tangentially related.

I'm trying to explain it to you now, if you'll listen for a moment. And once again, it's the topic of the thread. I'm literally posting on topic.

 

[Steve]

Let's try this. If I wanted to learn to fire a pistol well, but I don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpowder, or the way those yellow sunglasses looks. I could get over those objections I have, because they are intrinsic to the activity. Or I could go to Billy-Joe Jim-Bob's Firing Range, where he says he can teach people to fire a weapon with no noise, no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses.

Now one might argue that there is selection bias here, because folks who don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpower, or those funny yellow glasses will naturally gravitate to Bill-Joe Jim-Bob's firing range. But that's not actually true, because folks who want to actually learn to fire a pistol understand that the loud noise and the smell of gunpowder are intrinsic to the activity. You don't get the output without accepting the input. And folks who are inclined to try out Jim-Bob's easy bake firing range only need to share one characteristic: they don't want to do the essential work needed to learn the skill. Maybe they don't like noise or yellow glasses or the smell of gunpowder. But just as likely, they're lazy and looking for a short cut.

I want to learn to cook, but don't like hot things or touching raw food, or washing my hands. I want to lose weight, but I'm unwilling to change my diet or exercise. I want to learn to water ski, but don't want to get wet.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Let's try this. If I wanted to learn to fire a pistol well, but I don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpowder, or the way those yellow sunglasses looks. I could get over those objections I have, because they are intrinsic to the activity. Or I could go to Billy-Joe Jim-Bob's Firing Range, where he says he can teach people to fire a weapon with no noise, no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses.

Laser trainers are quite useful, and have no noise (well, ok, the gun still goes click), no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses. Sue and I use them regularly. In addition to the target games, we have been known to shoot the zombies on screen while watching The Walking Dead. Headshots only. First one to hit it gets the point.
Could a person learn to shoot only by using laser trainers? Sure. They wouldn't be as good at controlling recoil, but that only means a series of shots will be over a slightly longer time period. And there are plenty of people shooting real ammo who don't have good recoil control, for various reasons. If the laser shooter has strong wrists, they may well have better recoil control than an ammo shooter with weak wrists. Since the thread is about people who compete, it's worth noting that Olympic pistol shooting is done with a .22. There's really no significant recoil from these, which would make real ammo training even less necessary. There's not much noise either.
So maybe noise, gunpowder smells and funny looking sunglasses aren't really intrinsic to pistol shooting?

 

[isshinryuronin]

So maybe noise, gunpowder smells and funny looking sunglasses aren't really intrinsic to pistol shooting?

May not be intrinsic, but all part of the fun and enjoyment. I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning.

 

[Dirty Dog]

May not be intrinsic, but all part of the fun and enjoyment. I love the smell of gunpowder in the morning.

Sure, for some. But as Steve points out, it's reasonable to assume that there are people who would like to shoot, but don't want one or more of those things. And it's nice to know that there are options for them to do just that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So when we are specifically looking at whether martial arts makes you better at martial arts.

People who do martial arts and get better at martial arts can't be compared with people who don't do martial arts and don't get better.

And this is because once you have chosen to do martial arts you have created a selection bias.

The mere fact there is options negates being able to compare those options because of bias.

You're misusing the term and the concept. A person doesn't have selection bias. A study may have one, though. So, when we look at martial arts in either of those directions (none vs any, or competitive vs not), we have to also consider the effect of that selection bias. Selection bias doesn't mean there's no other effect, just that you have to allow for it. So, with competitive vs. noncompetitive MA, there's almost certainly better development of general fighting skills on average in the competitive arts. But if we try to quantify that including the entirety of both populations, we're going to get skewed numbers...because of the selection bias. In this case, it's pretty easy to understand. Someone who wants to train hard several days a week simply won't selet my program - I only teach once a week. They're also probably not going to choose a place where their fee gets them two classes a week with possible access to a couple more, and all training at a moderate level. But they could choose a place like where you train, where they have access to folks who like to train hard and staff who can push them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No they only got better because they chose to train harder. So in reality that is selection bias.

No, because in this case they didn't get to choose. We divided the group in half. If we did that randomly, there's no selection bias. But then you're probably aware of that, just trying to push a narrative that I'm saying something I'm not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But the point is that they are the same populations. That's the point. The selection bias you refer to doesn't exist because you are mistakenly presuming that there are two populations. I don't believe that's the case.

Or to be more precise, the two populations you refer to aren't what you think. Group A are people who are willing to work hard to see real results and Group B are people who are looking for a quick fix that requires little effort.

Nope. They come from the same base population, but they aren't randomly assigned. They choose to move into one or the other population. If that choice is on any basis that doesn't randomize, it presents the possibility of selection bias in the results.

As for those two groups, you're correct about A. B may simply be folks who understand they're not getting a quick fix (haven't met many who thought they were who stuck around more than a few weeks), but found something that fit their priorities and/or preferences. Not wanting to compete and not wanting to train 10-0 hours a week isn't the same as laziness. And you know that, you're just purposely using inflammatory language to try to derail this, because you don't really have a point to make.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's the topic of the thread, Gerry.

Yes, but your post was an attempt to reframe what I said into something you could argue a certain way. Pretty petty.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exactly right. My point is that there is no selection bias.

And you're wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm trying to explain it to you now, if you'll listen for a moment. And once again, it's the topic of the thread. I'm literally posting on topic.

Except you're not explaining it. You're attacking a position I haven't taken, while trying to claim confirmation bias doesn't exist in a sittuation where it really does. If you don't understand the term, I'll be happy to try to explain it better. If you do, then you're just not trying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Let's try this. If I wanted to learn to fire a pistol well, but I don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpowder, or the way those yellow sunglasses looks. I could get over those objections I have, because they are intrinsic to the activity. Or I could go to Billy-Joe Jim-Bob's Firing Range, where he says he can teach people to fire a weapon with no noise, no gunpowder smells, and no funny looking sunglasses.

Now one might argue that there is selection bias here, because folks who don't like loud noises, the smell of gunpower, or those funny yellow glasses will naturally gravitate to Bill-Joe Jim-Bob's firing range. But that's not actually true, because folks who want to actually learn to fire a pistol understand that the loud noise and the smell of gunpowder are intrinsic to the activity. You don't get the output without accepting the input. And folks who are inclined to try out Jim-Bob's easy bake firing range only need to share one characteristic: they don't want to do the essential work needed to learn the skill. Maybe they don't like noise or yellow glasses or the smell of gunpowder. But just as likely, they're lazy and looking for a short cut.

I want to learn to cook, but don't like hot things or touching raw food, or washing my hands. I want to lose weight, but I'm unwilling to change my diet or exercise. I want to learn to water ski, but don't want to get wet.

You're mixing case studies and population studies, tossing in some sloppy reducto ad absurdum (I think I've recalled the term properly).

Let me clean that up for you. First, we need two groups to sort into. There are two places offering a chane to do this. One teaches (from the ground up) for IDPA competition. The other teaches basic target shooting. There are 300 people in the area who want to learn to shoot. Some of them want to see how well they shoot in competition against other people (they're far more likely to choose the IDPA-oriented place). Some of them want to get as good as they can at handling a handgun (based on the description and their vague goal, they could choose either). Another group just wants to learn basic safety and how to make it go "bang" reliably (they're more likely to choose the non-IDPA place, because they don't care about learning the rules of IDPA and just want to work with basics).

We don't really know if either place is any good, but we can already guess which marketing is more likely to appeal. That's where selection bias comes in. In this case (with the parameters we have so far) that selection bias probably doesn't affect us, because we haven't talked about time put in or what they do in the schools.