Oh I agree with you! I wasn't being specific, I was using the 5 years as an example. It is very relative to how fast the student learns, no doubt! Again, I was throwing that out there as an example. It could be 5 years, 2 years, 0 years, depending on the student. But overall the class may learn faster as a whole. That was point really.
Understood.
I think that what it boils down to is that it takes time and experience to develop what we are calling efficiency. Once you as an instructor gain insights into this, by all means I think it makes sense to teach it the best that you can. But there is no guarantee the student will learn it any quicker and it will probably still take a long time to really understand and be able to develop it, and ultimately they may develop it differently than your own. And you may even find that some things need to be taught "inefficiently" for the student to really understand it, before they can even conceive of how to do it efficiently. It's just the nature of the material sometimes.
I think time, effort, and experience are really key and there is not much that can shortcut the process. The only thing I can think of is to make sure the training is of the highest quality possible, but that is difficult to measure and I am sure would create arguments and disagreement among many.
Here's an example: Lets say I train in three arts: kenpo, BJJ, and tai chi. So with these arts I have a solid striking art, good grappling skills, and internal development. I train all three arts for many years and become very good at them. I can mix elements of them together and be a very effective and efficient fighter, and it becomes almost effortless for me to defeat an opponent.
So now I decide to create a new art based on my training and knowledge and skills. I combine these three arts into one, keeping only what seems to me to be the best aspects, the things that work the best (for me). And I teach this to my students. But to my dismay, my students all suck. I am a real butt-kicker, but my students can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Why is that?
It's because my skills arose from understanding three complete arts, at a very high level. Ultimately I discovered that certain elements of each art works best for me and I don't use the rest. But the only reason that ANY elements of any of the arts work for me is because I studed the complete arts, in depth.
What I deny my students is this same experience. Techniques from an art are based on a certain approach to fighting. If you don't develop this base, the techs that should be built upon this base are no good. By mixing and matching these three arts, and not teaching them in their complete form, in depth, the student never develops the background understanding of these arts that they need to fully excell.
they need the same opportunity to learn the three arts completely. Then, you can focus on what you feel is the really "good" stuff. But they need the complete training first, or the "good stuff" will be no good for them. It is only good for you because you have the experience to understand it. If you take shortcuts, your students wont understand it they way they need to in order to make it work.
Interesting thread.
