Black Belt Boot Camp

[Flying Crane]

If that’s really 6-7 hours a day of serious physical training, I doubt many people would enter with the ability to complete the first week in any shape to complete the second.

That has been my point from the beginning.

If it’s 6-7 weeks of a combination of things (including technical work), it’s more reasonable.

Did you mean to say 6-7 hours instead of weeks? Ok, but seriously, how many hours of lecture would go into this? Do people envision actual class time lectures for an hour at a time, complete with note-taking? While people often take notes as part of their training, i doubt there is enough to discuss to fill up hours of academic style class time over the span of 12 weeks. A few hours? Sure. This kind of training doesn’t usually lend itself to that kind of presentation, though. I think the implication is that this is really heavily weighted toward the physical training.

Technical work is still physical. Granted, it isn’t drilling 1000 punches and kicks at a time, but it is still physical and still wears you out.

Edit: I wouldn’t expect an instructor to repeatedly go through the same rigorous boot camp. It doesn’t bother me if the instructor is using a team. Seems a good idea.

Sure it’s a good idea and it recognizes the point that this kind of exercise isn’t realistic or reasonable. And I’m not talking about the instructors teaching this bootcamp from start to finish over and over. I am talking about them doing it once, from start to finish. If the instructors can’t get through the instructing side of it without assistance, how could a participant survive it all?

 

[Steve]

I’d agree we are using different valid definitions of those terms. I was referring to over performing as doing better than with random selection, which would be the desired outcome.

Yeah. I don’t think random is or should be part of it. That doesn’t make sense to me, unless the goal is to find out if a program can teach people who are unfit or uninterested.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That has been my point from the beginning.


Did you mean to say 6-7 hours instead of weeks?

Yes

Ok, but seriously, how many hours of lecture would go into this? Do people envision actual class time lectures for an hour at a time, complete with note-taking? While people often take notes as part of their training, i doubt there is enough to discuss to fill up hours of academic style class time over the span of 12 weeks. A few hours? Sure. This kind of training doesn’t usually lend itself to that kind of presentation, though. I think the implication is that this is really heavily weighted toward the physical training.

I was thinking there might be intervals of up to 30 minutes of technical instruction at a time (so, very light physical activity) and some slow, methodical forms. Which is still physical, but the intensity can be a lot lower than something like practicing kicks or working the heavy bag. Still a lot, though.

Technical work is still physical. Granted, it isn’t drilling 1000 punches and kicks at a time, but it is still physical and still wears you out.

Sure it’s a good idea and it recognizes the point that this kind of exercise isn’t realistic or reasonable. And I’m not talking about the instructors teaching this bootcamp from start to finish over and over. I am talking about them doing it once, from start to finish. If the instructors can’t get through the instructing side of it without assistance, how could a participant survive it all?

I’m talking about instructors, and the sheer time commitment on top of regular teaching. And that’s without it being multiple times a year. The instructor has other duties to the school, while the boot camp student presumably doesn’t.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. I don’t think random is or should be part of it. That doesn’t make sense to me, unless the goal is to find out if a program can teach people who are unfit or uninterested.

Randomness would be necessary if we want to compare the two programs on their merit to general public, which seems the point of the early discussions comparing the outcome of the two programs. If they serve different audiences, then any differences in outcome could be either the program or the participant groups.

We’ve already agreed, I think, that these likely are each suited to a different audience, so the discussion of removing selection bias should be just an intellectual exercise.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes


I was thinking there might be intervals of up to 30 minutes of technical instruction at a time (so, very light physical activity) and some slow, methodical forms. Which is still physical, but the intensity can be a lot lower than something like practicing kicks or working the heavy bag. Still a lot, though.


I’m talking about instructors, and the sheer time commitment on top of regular teaching. And that’s without it being multiple times a year. The instructor has other duties to the school, while the boot camp student presumably doesn’t.

I guess I was assuming the instructor wasn’t doing much else besides teaching the bootcamp.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I guess I was assuming the instructor wasn’t doing much else besides teaching the bootcamp.

If that were the case - and the instructor is equipped to do all parts - I’d expect them to be there the whole time, too.

 

[drop bear]

You mean my opinion that there would likely be advantages to different people and/or different aspects of study in different types of programs? On a knowledge of how people learn, how priorities affect activities, how different people prefer information over time, and a myriad of examples over a lifetime.

Most of that isn’t scientific, but it’s also not just “eyeballing it”. Not everyone thrives in or prefers (not necessarily the same thing) the same approach or learning environment.

We would kind of have to know if people were thriving in either environment though.

And we don't.

The only thing we actually know is both groups wind up with a black belt.

So outcome is the same.

 

[drop bear]

That has been my point from the beginning.


Did you mean to say 6-7 hours instead of weeks? Ok, but seriously, how many hours of lecture would go into this? Do people envision actual class time lectures for an hour at a time, complete with note-taking? While people often take notes as part of their training, i doubt there is enough to discuss to fill up hours of academic style class time over the span of 12 weeks. A few hours? Sure. This kind of training doesn’t usually lend itself to that kind of presentation, though. I think the implication is that this is really heavily weighted toward the physical training.

Technical work is still physical. Granted, it isn’t drilling 1000 punches and kicks at a time, but it is still physical and still wears you out.

Sure it’s a good idea and it recognizes the point that this kind of exercise isn’t realistic or reasonable. And I’m not talking about the instructors teaching this bootcamp from start to finish over and over. I am talking about them doing it once, from start to finish. If the instructors can’t get through the instructing side of it without assistance, how could a participant survive it all?

The level of commitment is definitely doable.

I have seen people do it.

Our twelve week guys do similar. (They get Sunday off.)

Our instructors manage the work load.

And we are not a full time gym.

 

[Steve]

Randomness would be necessary if we want to compare the two programs on their merit to general public, which seems the point of the early discussions comparing the outcome of the two programs. If they serve different audiences, then any differences in outcome could be either the program or the participant groups.

We’ve already agreed, I think, that these likely are each suited to a different audience, so the discussion of removing selection bias should be just an intellectual exercise.

i don’t get it. I still don’t understand why you think randomness is particularly helpful here. Unless we are going to compare one program to another… like TKD vs MMA, why does some random sample matter?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We would kind of have to know if people were thriving in either environment though.

And we don't.

The only thing we actually know is both groups wind up with a black belt.

So outcome is the same.

We do know people thrive in the analogs at your gym. We know people thrive in the TKD “traditional” classes in many places. But you’re right that we don’t know if there are students thriving in the boot camp mentioned in the OP. We could easily assume it’s possible to create a TKD BC some folks would thrive in, but only if it’s well-designed, which we don’t know in this case.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i don’t get it. I still don’t understand why you think randomness is particularly helpful here. Unless we are going to compare one program to another… like TKD vs MMA, why does some random sample matter?

Again, it only matters if we are trying to make some apples-to-apples comparison we could measure. Without it, we couldn’t know if the difference in outcomes was because of selection or the program’s potential.

But, as you said (or at least that’s how I read it), that’s not a real-world concern, since they should serve different populations, so each performs best with the people who are best fitted to it. Which, so far as I can see, also means comparing the outcomes isn’t particularly useful. I’ve never trained anyone (as a direct student) who was particularly interested in competitive fighting, so their ability to compete against folks who are wouldn’t really be measuring against their goals, in any quantifiable way. I suspect the same is true of many programs that serve hobbyists.

 

[Steve]

Again, it only matters if we are trying to make some apples-to-apples comparison we could measure. Without it, we couldn’t know if the difference in outcomes was because of selection or the program’s potential.

unless that’s something that is presumed. We can absolutely do useful comparisons if we presume that each program is attracting and training suitable candidates. Those pools can (and should) vary. Simply put, I think you have an idea that random selection is more objective. I don’t think so, in this case.

What is more helpful in this situation would be consistency. Two groups training the same things differently. But that’s not at all undermined by appropriate self selection.

But, as you said (or at least that’s how I read it), that’s not a real-world concern, since they should serve different populations, so each performs best with the people who are best fitted to it. Which, so far as I can see, also means comparing the outcomes isn’t particularly useful. I’ve never trained anyone (as a direct student) who was particularly interested in competitive fighting, so their ability to compete against folks who are wouldn’t really be measuring against their goals, in any quantifiable way. I suspect the same is true of many programs that serve hobbyists.

I’m completely lost at this point. Are you still talking about 12 week programs vs 2 year programs? It seems like you’ve veered off into style vs style stuff, and competition.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

unless that’s something that is presumed. We can absolutely do useful comparisons if we presume that each program is attracting and training suitable candidates. Those pools can (and should) vary. Simply put, I think you have an idea that random selection is more objective. I don’t think so, in this case.

What is more helpful in this situation would be consistency. Two groups training the same things differently. But that’s not at all undermined by appropriate self selection.

I’m completely lost at this point. Are you still talking about 12 week programs vs 2 year programs? It seems like you’ve veered off into style vs style stuff, and competition.

You and I are apparently just talking past each other at this point.

 

[Steve]

You and I are apparently just talking past each other at this point.

I think so. could you explain what you think random samples would give us? I mean, what question would it answer? That what I’m missing. I just don’t see that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think so. could you explain what you think random samples would give us? I mean, what question would it answer? That what I’m missing. I just don’t see that.

I’ve explained it twice, and your replies don’t make sense to me in the context of those replies. That’s why I think we’re just managing to talk past each other - there’s no real communication happening.

 

[Steve]

I’ve explained it twice, and your replies don’t make sense to me in the context of those replies. That’s why I think we’re just managing to talk past each other - there’s no real communication happening.

You’ve talked about a need for randomness but I don’t recall seeing any sort of clear explanation of why that is helpful or what benefit it has to the topic at hand. You obviously think it does something.

Maybe if you just quote the parts I’m missing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You’ve talked about a need for randomness but I don’t recall seeing any sort of clear explanation of why that is helpful or what benefit it has to the topic at hand. You obviously think it does something.

Maybe if you just quote the parts I’m missing.

Here you go. My statements about the purpose of randomness, and why it's only interesting as an intellectual exercise in this case.

Randomness would be necessary if we want to compare the two programs on their merit to general public, which seems the point of the early discussions comparing the outcome of the two programs. If they serve different audiences, then any differences in outcome could be either the program or the participant groups.

We’ve already agreed, I think, that these likely are each suited to a different audience, so the discussion of removing selection bias should be just an intellectual exercise.

Again, it only matters if we are trying to make some apples-to-apples comparison we could measure. Without it, we couldn’t know if the difference in outcomes was because of selection or the program’s potential.

But, as you said (or at least that’s how I read it), that’s not a real-world concern, since they should serve different populations, so each performs best with the people who are best fitted to it. Which, so far as I can see, also means comparing the outcomes isn’t particularly useful.

 

[Steve]

Here you go. My statements about the purpose of randomness, and why it's only interesting as an intellectual exercise in this case.

Got it. Yeah, I don't get out of those what you intend. But that's okay.

 

[drop bear]

The price just came out $1200 for a 12 week course and a possible fight at the end.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

The price just came out $1200 for a 12 week course and a possible fight at the end.

That sounds like a good deal to me. I would attempt it if it were near.