Learn Karate in "Three Or Four" Years?

[drop bear]

I'd have to dig in the research, but I don't know what it shows about the difference between distributing the reps over a few days (Karate Kid) versus many months (Cobra Kai). The 12-week fight prep they do at the gym where @drop bear trains seems to reinforce the idea of being able to compress more than most of us do, and still get good results. He and I talked through the hours, and the folks in that program compress 2-3 years (a bit less, maybe, depending how you figure it) of hobbyist training time into those 12 weeks.

In any event not being a neurologist. I would have thought the whole point of practicing is Reenforcing skills through compression.

And this spreading out idea is kind of balls.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In any event not being a neurologist. I would have thought the whole point of practicing is Reenforcing skills through compression.

And this spreading out idea is kind of balls.

Distributed learning has a lot of very solid evidence to support it, and has for at least 3 decades. However, I’m not sure how much distribution is optimal. That’s what I was hoping someone would have better info on. The 12-week program fits the definition of distributed learning, and so does a typical hobbyist schedule. I would expect (but don’t have knowledge of evidence for it) that the 12-week schedule produces at least as much physical learning, and maybe a bit less intellectual learning.

 

[drop bear]

Distributed learning has a lot of very solid evidence to support it, and has for at least 3 decades. However, I’m not sure how much distribution is optimal. That’s what I was hoping someone would have better info on. The 12-week program fits the definition of distributed learning, and so does a typical hobbyist schedule. I would expect (but don’t have knowledge of evidence for it) that the 12-week schedule produces at least as much physical learning, and maybe a bit less intellectual learning.

I would have thought that the saturation point would be pretty high.

I mean at some point you are suggesting that practicing less becomes more beneficial.

Imagine someone was playing a musical instrument. I don't think culture reflects that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would have thought that the saturation point would be pretty high.

I mean at some point you are suggesting that practicing less becomes more beneficial.

Imagine someone was playing a musical instrument. I don't think culture reflects that.

It's not a matter of practicing less or practicing more, but of whether there's assimilation time between practice. At it's essence, the principle is that 6 hours of continuous practice (on new material) won't yield the same result as 6 1-hour sessions. So, if we're talking about 6 hours a week, it's better to break it up into multiple sessions than to do it all at once.

 

[JR 137]

In any event not being a neurologist. I would have thought the whole point of practicing is Reenforcing skills through compression.

And this spreading out idea is kind of balls.

Excuse me for not being fluent in Aussie, but is balls good or bad here? Is it bollocks or the dog’s bollocks? Quite polar opposites.

 

[hoshin1600]

I would have thought that the saturation point would be pretty high.

I mean at some point you are suggesting that practicing less becomes more beneficial.

Imagine someone was playing a musical instrument. I don't think culture reflects that.

this is where my plant root analogy comes in. the reality of it is that we only are able to do ANYTHING by means of our brains. those little fiber looking things need time to actually grow and connect to other little fibers. so 24/7 practice is going to have that diminishing return effect.
BUT... there are several factors going on here. first is that there is a learning curve to take in all the information. i think this is where that intensive practice is great. you get more time to actually learn more details and to link everything together. more info in.... but then there is the matter of making the skills stronger and more instinctual, more reactionary. and for this to happen you need more time. this is where the 2 hours a day is perhaps more optimal. so to learn a skill yeah more hours is better. but then to make it really part of you you need months of repetitions. these fibers grow thicker and allow faster "down load speeds" more natural movement, better reaction time. the thicker the fiber the better and there is always a degradation factor when you take days off so you dont want that either. i should also note we are just talking skill building here. there is a lot of other things to be working on like cardio and strength.

EDIT: also there is a point in training for many hours where your brain is just fried and is burnt out.

 

[drop bear]

Excuse me for not being fluent in Aussie, but is balls good or bad here? Is it bollocks or the dog’s bollocks? Quite polar opposites.

Balls is bad in this case.

 

[drop bear]

It's not a matter of practicing less or practicing more, but of whether there's assimilation time between practice. At it's essence, the principle is that 6 hours of continuous practice (on new material) won't yield the same result as 6 1-hour sessions. So, if we're talking about 6 hours a week, it's better to break it up into multiple sessions than to do it all at once.

When do they test that. At the end of the week? or the end of 6 hours?

Otherwise you could have 5 days to forget.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When do they test that. At the end of the week? or the end of 6 hours?

Otherwise you could have 5 days to forget.

I'll see if I can find some study summaries for you (unless someone beats me to it). It'll take me some research, because most of my references are old, and it's time to update them.

 

[hoshin1600]

I'll see if I can find some study summaries for you (unless someone beats me to it). It'll take me some research, because most of my references are old, and it's time to update them.

This is why I enjoy being here, it forces me to do homework.
Also Google is a god send as most of my stuff is in paper book form and it's impossible to reference anything quickly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is why I enjoy being here, it forces me to do homework.
Also Google is a god send as most of my stuff is in paper book form and it's impossible to reference anything quickly.

For something like this, I'll hop into a university's online library (I have access to U of Phoenix library) to search journals. Google is easier for searching, but harder for me to find what I need.

 

[JP3]

its bogus, for a number of reasons, most especially, your failing to specify what exactly takes 10,000 hours, ie what skill, takes that amount of practise and to what level.

only a few have the genetics to be a top level sportsman, it might take a lot of practise to get there or it may not, it doesn't take,10,000 hours to learn to run, or long jump, most people have that skill cracked by the time they are 6 or so, the time spent is building fitness not motor skills, but if you haven't got the genetics, you can spend half a million hours and it will make no difference, you are not going to the Olympics .

motor skills are built and added to as you progress, there is a lot of carry over from one activerty to another, once you have developed balance reactions, hand eye/ foot co ordination and agility, then those can easily be reprogrammed, to another sport, you don't have to go back and start your 10, thousand hours again just to learn karate, all those countless hours i spent playing football as a kid count to my total,, if i can pull a fast moving foot ball out of the air, control it, dodge a,foot up studs out tackle, side step someone else and smash the ball in the back of the net, i can dodge a karate kick, side step and kick him in the knee, its super easy, to apply the already learnt motor patterns,

i was amazed in my last class, to find i was the only one who could run backwards, how do you get to be an,adult and not learn to do that?

Let's take your example, Jobo. You said, "only a few have the genetics to be a top level sportsman, it might take a lot of practise to get there or it may not, it doesn't take,10,000 hours to learn to run, or long jump, most people have that skill cracked by the time they are 6 or so, the time spent is building fitness not motor skills, but if you haven't got the genetics, you can spend half a million hours and it will make no difference, you are not going to the Olympics ."

First, what's this fascination with the Olympics?

The average child learns to walk in the range of 9 to 14 months, and to run after that up to 24 months. Just doing math, 8 hours of waking time per day times 365 days a year = 2,920 total hours.

So, just to put things in perspective, there are 24 hours per day, let's say the child is awake and able to do whatever for 8 of those hours. Whatever = practicing walking and running while they play, follow adults, pester siblings, torture the dog (i.e. whatever). I don't know if you have kids, or nieces/nephews at that age, but they very rarely stop moving around.

So, as you say, if they've got it, meaning running "cracked," though what level of skill you mean by that missed me, by the age of 6, if you only counted from 24 months of age to 72 months (6 years old) that's an available "practice time" of 11,680 hours.

And... I agree with you, some skills do build and cross-over, as you described above with the football example cross-piollinating into sparring low kicks. the "What" the muscle group is "Doing" is very similar, so the coordination pathways have already been learned. So, good on you. I betcha it doesn't help you much with Wushu, though.

I'm not saying that there's something magical about the 10,000 hours threshold. I'm saying that people are always wanting, well almost always, wanting the shortcut to greatness. And, here's another point, Greatness (i.e. mastery) isn't always the level of skill necessary for competence, just go ask guys who have made their living all their lives as apprentice electricians, plumbers, carpenters, pipefitters etc., and never wanted to take the test to go up the chain to journeyman, much less "Master," as that position comes with more money, but more headaches too... and there's something to be said for quality of life.

Likewise, while many, many people have the potential capacity to be very good at something or other (the game of golf is a great example) most don't have the Money with which to pay for the Time to practice to get good enough. Range balls are expensive for a hobby. But, they are comfortable with their 16 handicap, so they just continue to play their sunday round with their buddies and trade the same bet money back and forth. A version of the same thing could be said for tennis. For billiards. FOr darts. Pick something, you'll find that the people who are really, really good have been at it for at least a decade of doing whatever on a regular, ongoing, multiple times per week basis......

*shrug* If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. Just don't get frustrated with me when the magic doesn't happen in the O/P's 3 or 4 years, that's what I'm driving at.

 

[jobo]

Let's take your example, Jobo. You said, "only a few have the genetics to be a top level sportsman, it might take a lot of practise to get there or it may not, it doesn't take,10,000 hours to learn to run, or long jump, most people have that skill cracked by the time they are 6 or so, the time spent is building fitness not motor skills, but if you haven't got the genetics, you can spend half a million hours and it will make no difference, you are not going to the Olympics ."

First, what's this fascination with the Olympics?

The average child learns to walk in the range of 9 to 14 months, and to run after that up to 24 months. Just doing math, 8 hours of waking time per day times 365 days a year = 2,920 total hours.

So, just to put things in perspective, there are 24 hours per day, let's say the child is awake and able to do whatever for 8 of those hours. Whatever = practicing walking and running while they play, follow adults, pester siblings, torture the dog (i.e. whatever). I don't know if you have kids, or nieces/nephews at that age, but they very rarely stop moving around.

So, as you say, if they've got it, meaning running "cracked," though what level of skill you mean by that missed me, by the age of 6, if you only counted from 24 months of age to 72 months (6 years old) that's an available "practice time" of 11,680 hours.

And... I agree with you, some skills do build and cross-over, as you described above with the football example cross-piollinating into sparring low kicks. the "What" the muscle group is "Doing" is very similar, so the coordination pathways have already been learned. So, good on you. I betcha it doesn't help you much with Wushu, though.

I'm not saying that there's something magical about the 10,000 hours threshold. I'm saying that people are always wanting, well almost always, wanting the shortcut to greatness. And, here's another point, Greatness (i.e. mastery) isn't always the level of skill necessary for competence, just go ask guys who have made their living all their lives as apprentice electricians, plumbers, carpenters, pipefitters etc., and never wanted to take the test to go up the chain to journeyman, much less "Master," as that position comes with more money, but more headaches too... and there's something to be said for quality of life.

Likewise, while many, many people have the potential capacity to be very good at something or other (the game of golf is a great example) most don't have the Money with which to pay for the Time to practice to get good enough. Range balls are expensive for a hobby. But, they are comfortable with their 16 handicap, so they just continue to play their sunday round with their buddies and trade the same bet money back and forth. A version of the same thing could be said for tennis. For billiards. FOr darts. Pick something, you'll find that the people who are really, really good have been at it for at least a decade of doing whatever on a regular, ongoing, multiple times per week basis......

*shrug* If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. Just don't get frustrated with me when the magic doesn't happen in the O/P's 3 or 4 years, that's what I'm driving at.

?????????????/??, if you think a three year old walks for 8 hours a day, i suggest you borrow a three year old and take he or she on an 8 hour walk , you get though 2hours tops, and half of that will be ridding on your shoulders,

 

[JP3]

?????????????/??, if you think a three year old walks for 8 hours a day, i suggest you borrow a three year old and take he or she on an 8 hour walk , you get though 2hours tops, and half of that will be ridding on your shoulders,

So, now you know my kids, too? That's cool. Very perceptive of you from across the pond, mano.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

?????????????/??, if you think a three year old walks for 8 hours a day, i suggest you borrow a three year old and take he or she on an 8 hour walk , you get though 2hours tops, and half of that will be ridding on your shoulders,

So, you'd claim that walking and running and stumbling around for a total of 8 hours is the same as 8 hours of straight walking?

 

[jobo]

So, you'd claim that walking and running and stumbling around for a total of 8 hours is the same as 8 hours of straight walking?

no, didn't say that, you can take a few,rest stops

Ps happy Xmas to you and yours

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no, didn't say that, you can take a few,rest stops

Ps happy Xmas to you and yours

Still not the same, man. Toddlers move a LOT during the course of a day - easily several hours of movement. But they don’t walk continuously for any real duration.

EDIT: And a merry Xmas to you, too, brother.