Learn Karate in "Three Or Four" Years?

[DaveB]

yes i agree, people are using what,seems,a,very variable defintion of "" MASTERED".

the 30to 40 years level that some are,claiming is clearly a made up number based on nothing at all.

karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such. Most of them have won their medal and been retired for a,decade or two. Any one want to claim that a 50 year old gymnast is better than a 20 year old gymnast, if so, show me one in an Olympic team

Again though, the professional sports person spends hundreds of hours a month in training.

The main reason for all the style vs style nonsense in this forum is this endless comparison between those training in a pro or semi pro capacity vs those training in a more casual manner.

Karate does not have any kind of professionalised training model that is geared towards fighting alone. Yes I'm sure there are a few kyokushin teachers out there who are the exception, but they probably took decades to get to that place where they could devote themselves. All the others who are that dedicated in my experience spend more time mastering the ephemera of technique rather than just fighting.

Ultimately the comparison between what pro sportsmen do and what your average martial artist does is one of apple's and oranges: both fruit but still different things.

 

[DaveB]

well then at that point it splits, between karate as a fighting system and karate as an art form, you don't really need to " understand it to do it to a good standard, you just need the physical atributes AND the motor patterns just as you do with any other athletic activerty. To set it apart is a false hood.

after that you are getting into the zen( woo) element of enlightenment . And I'm not opposed to that as a concept or as a good thing to achieve, it has little to do with karate as a fighting system which is the point the op is making.

if could just as easily be flower arranging they are doing to reach a higher state of consciousness, !

This is the distinction between Karate Jitsu, and Karate Do. It is also the reason that the two concepts were NEVER supposed to be separated.

Karate Jitsu is the mastery of the skill; essentially learning the moves and learning to hit with them. But the Hard work that the Jitsu required built the perseverance and strength of will that characterised Karate Do. Overcoming the fear of being hit and then the pain, keeping focus and finding space to make a decisive blow... All the traits of Do flow from practice of Jitsu.

Once one has mastered the fighting side the mind needs something else to keep it occupied and so the fighter becomes the philosopher.

 

[jobo]

Again though, the professional sports person spends hundreds of hours a month in training.

The main reason for all the style vs style nonsense in this forum is this endless comparison between those training in a pro or semi pro capacity vs those training in a more casual manner.

Karate does not have any kind of professionalised training model that is geared towards fighting alone. Yes I'm sure there are a few kyokushin teachers out there who are the exception, but they probably took decades to get to that place where they could devote themselves. All the others who are that dedicated in my experience spend more time mastering the ephemera of technique rather than just fighting.

Ultimately the comparison between what pro sportsmen do and what your average martial artist does is one of apple's and oranges: both fruit but still different things.

there are plenty of talented armature sportsmen who complete at a good level, that don't Put in more than a few hours a week practise, the same point remains that the mechanics of karate are not any harder to learn, than a lot of other sports.
the techniques Are fighting techniques, if they are not that then its not anything but dance class

 

[Tez3]

there are plenty of talented armature sportsmen who complete at a good level

I didn't know you could play with armatures, that's a shocking piece of news, I shall have to uncoil myself now and find a magnet to play with, well if I have the energy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

there are plenty of talented armature sportsmen who complete at a good level, that don't Put in more than a few hours a week practise, the same point remains that the mechanics of karate are not any harder to learn, than a lot of other sports.
the techniques Are fighting techniques, if they are not that then its not anything but dance class

I'll just take golfers as an example. Most of the ones I've known who were any good had either played for 20 years, or had dedicated some real time to practice for a few years (at least 4 hours a week, plus playing time). There were a few who were exceptional, and came by competency fairly easily by practicing a few hours a month for a few years (hobbyist hours in MA). I don't think that's all that different from MA. Again, if we distilled any given system to the 10 most reliable methods/techniques, and drilled those, we could speed up the process by reducing the amount of material being learned. There are some advantages to learning more tools, and some of those advantages do apply to fighting/defense, but it is possible to become competent without that wide of a range.

 

[JP3]

You've caught onto that, have you?

Even a dumb old blind guy who can't read would have caught it by now, Gerry. LOL!

 

[jobo]

I'll just take golfers as an example. Most of the ones I've known who were any good had either played for 20 years, or had dedicated some real time to practice for a few years (at least 4 hours a week, plus playing time). There were a few who were exceptional, and came by competency fairly easily by practicing a few hours a month for a few years (hobbyist hours in MA). I don't think that's all that different from MA. Again, if we distilled any given system to the 10 most reliable methods/techniques, and drilled those, we could speed up the process by reducing the amount of material being learned. There are some advantages to learning more tools, and some of those advantages do apply to fighting/defense, but it is possible to become competent without that wide of a range.

golf isn't a good comparisons, it depends on becoming competent a only two techniques, one) hitting it a long way( in the required direction) two) rolling it in a hole, . You can learn everything you need in an hour, after that its all to-do with how well you can do those things, i could play golf passerbly first time I picked up a club , i was eight

 

[JP3]

In the original quote, it says to "understand" karate, it takes about 3-4 years. On average, it takes a student that long to reach blackbelt. In many schools, the blackbelt does NOT represent expertise, but that you are ready to start learning. Itosu's quote would be very much in line with that thought.

I think that's where this is going to get settled, in finding a generalized understanding of the word, "Understanding."

Oftentimes, we refer in the Tomiki aikido, that our shodan is akin to a high school diploma, indicating understanding of basics, and a readiness to go on. And that's it. So, if this constitutes "understanding," that fits right in as you say.

However, if "Understanding" is meant int he "I know exactly how all this stuff works and I can pull it out of my butt to whup 5, 10 guys in near any situation at will..." That does not fit, and I sort of get the impression that's what is ... desired to be put in place? Of course, I've read things wrong before and will again.

 

[JP3]

Define “learn a martial art”.

Here may be the core disagreement. If I want to teach someone the core techniques and tactics to some competence, that will take probably 3 years-ish if they are reasonably fit and spend 3-5 hours per week. For them to learn all of the techniques to competence, add at least 3 more years. For them to have a real grasp of the concepts so they aren’t dependent upon the techniques, maybe 3 more. Deep comprehension and something approaching mastery of the principles? Many more years.

It's like I've got a clone out east.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think that's where this is going to get settled, in finding a generalized understanding of the word, "Understanding."

Oftentimes, we refer in the Tomiki aikido, that our shodan is akin to a high school diploma, indicating understanding of basics, and a readiness to go on. And that's it. So, if this constitutes "understanding," that fits right in as you say.

However, if "Understanding" is meant int he "I know exactly how all this stuff works and I can pull it out of my butt to whup 5, 10 guys in near any situation at will..." That does not fit, and I sort of get the impression that's what is ... desired to be put in place? Of course, I've read things wrong before and will again.

The issue is that it's an argument about what other people meant by understanding(/expert). You can argue till the cows come home, but unless you build a time machine to get clarification, or find somewhere that they did clarify, our interpretation of understanding means diddly squat to their quotes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

golf isn't a good comparisons, it depends on becoming competent a only two techniques, one) hitting it a long way( in the required direction) two) rolling it in a hole, . You can learn everything you need in an hour, after that its all to-do with how well you can do those things, i could play golf passerbly first time I picked up a club , i was eight

That's back to exceptions. Most people can't shoot under 100, even after playing many years.

 

[JP3]

Because there is nothing convoluted about understanding what is actually being said.

If you train something every day for 4 years you are putting far more hours in than most hobbyists do over the same period.

That's not rocket science...

And yes, you have a narrative. "Karate doesn't take that long to learn, because I and Itosu said so".

Would it be a "narrative?" or is it an "agenda?"

Gerry? Definitional analysis please? Help from Webster's Latest New International Dictionary of Awesomeness?

Man... I'm just playing... this thread is, if taken with a step back and a smile on your face... Hilarious!

And I score Tez at 2, opposition nil, with one wave-off.

 

[JP3]

yes i agree, people are using what,seems,a,very variable defintion of "" MASTERED".

the 30to 40 years level that some are,claiming is clearly a made up number based on nothing at all.

karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such. Most of them have won their medal and been retired for a,decade or two. Any one want to claim that a 50 year old gymnast is better than a 20 year old gymnast, if so, show me one in an Olympic team

Jobo.... that doesn't take into account that most competitively successful gymnasts... since you brought up gymnasts... start out taking gymnastics around age 3, at the latest 5 or 6, and train pretty much on a 3 to 4 times weekly for periods starting out for 1 hour for the wee ones, up to 3 hours per practice for kids less than 12 years old when they relly show promise. Just count up those hours. And yes, by the time they get to the Olympics or whatever, there's the 10,000 practice hours. Divers, same thing. Wrestlers, same thing. Basketball players, same thing. Soccer, same thing. Tennis, same thing.


Mastery takes a long, long time. Maybe a better way to get to what's trying to be said, is the word "Proficiency."

I know I can train someone to be proficient in fighting in 2.5 to 5 years, because I've don that a few times. Some folks do learn faster, as they are able to either takin in formation and process it a bit faster, or they are more athletically gifted so they actually require a bit less time to get skills down.

Proficiency in 3, 4 years. I'll buy that any day.

Mastery? There's another definition problem, but for me mastery is just that, I've got it mastered and there is very little left remaining for inquiry and now all that is really left is teaching, illustration and translation... to me that's the 30-40 years thing.

Put it this way. We can learn to beat people up in a year in an MMA gym. Sure, seen it done. Specific trained responses, tactics, tools. I don't know if that 1-year MMA guy is proficient enough to handle someone of like size and strength who has been doing it for 3 years, and again that person against someone who has been doing it for 5.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The issue is that it's an argument about what other people meant by understanding(/expert). You can argue till the cows come home, but unless you build a time machine to get clarification, or find somewhere that they did clarify, our interpretation of understanding means diddly squat to their quotes.

@gpseymour, it's scaring me how often I've been clicking "like" or "agree" on your posts, or logging on to notifications of you doing the same lately. People might think one of us took over the others account...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@gpseymour, it's scaring me how often I've been clicking "like" or "agree" on your posts, or logging on to notifications of you doing the same lately. People might think one of us took over the others account...

It's okay, KD. We'll find something to disagree about. Use a vague term or something - I can argue about that for pages!

 

[RTKDCMB]

karate is not that complicated a movement pattern that it can't be mastered in a few years, you don't get other sports claiming that the best gymnasts or the best tennis player need to have been practising for 40 years, its frankly ludicrous to claim such.

There is a fundamental difference between those sports and a martial art like Karate, especially when it comes to self defence. The dynamic between attacker and defender is far more complex than that between two Tennis players and a gymnast and the gym equipment. There are far less ways a tennis match can play out than there are a fight between two people, and the stakes are much higher.

 

[jobo]

That's back to exceptions. Most people can't shoot under 100, even after playing many years.

that's because they haven't managed to perform the two techneque well enough to do so, but a 100 is an made up standard that you have imposed to separate the wheat from the,chaff, , any one can learn golf in an hour, what score they achieve is a,separate issue

 

[jobo]

There is a fundamental difference between those sports and a martial art like Karate, especially when it comes to self defence. The dynamic between attacker and defender is far more complex than that between two Tennis players and a gymnast and the gym equipment. There are far less ways a tennis match can play out than there are a fight between two people, and the stakes are much higher.

well no, tennis is at the very least as complicated movement pattern wise as karate, gymnastics considerable more so, landing on your head when doing a,triple flip back dismount has quite high consequences as does,smashing your teeth in on the isometric bars, and i cant even think,about the pain from messing up the pommel horse

 

[jobo]

Jobo.... that doesn't take into account that most competitively successful gymnasts... since you brought up gymnasts... start out taking gymnastics around age 3, at the latest 5 or 6, and train pretty much on a 3 to 4 times weekly for periods starting out for 1 hour for the wee ones, up to 3 hours per practice for kids less than 12 years old when they relly show promise. Just count up those hours. And yes, by the time they get to the Olympics or whatever, there's the 10,000 practice hours. Divers, same thing. Wrestlers, same thing. Basketball players, same thing. Soccer, same thing. Tennis, same thing.


Mastery takes a long, long time. Maybe a better way to get to what's trying to be said, is the word "Proficiency."

I know I can train someone to be proficient in fighting in 2.5 to 5 years, because I've don that a few times. Some folks do learn faster, as they are able to either takin in formation and process it a bit faster, or they are more athletically gifted so they actually require a bit less time to get skills down.

Proficiency in 3, 4 years. I'll buy that any day.

Mastery? There's another definition problem, but for me mastery is just that, I've got it mastered and there is very little left remaining for inquiry and now all that is really left is teaching, illustration and translation... to me that's the 30-40 years thing.

Put it this way. We can learn to beat people up in a year in an MMA gym. Sure, seen it done. Specific trained responses, tactics, tools. I don't know if that 1-year MMA guy is proficient enough to handle someone of like size and strength who has been doing it for 3 years, and again that person against someone who has been doing it for 5.

the post i was replying to said , it takes 30 to 40 YEARS to master karate, nothing about 10, 000 hours, which in its self is just a made up number you can't support with data,.

if the YEARS thing was true then the Olympic would be full of 46 year old gymnast, and it isn't.

if you want to establish the 10, 000 hour thing as a fact, then post up some FACTS to support it

 

[RTKDCMB]

well no, tennis is at the very least as complicated movement pattern wise as karate, gymnastics considerable more so, landing on your head when doing a,triple flip back dismount has quite high consequences as does,smashing your teeth in on the isometric bars, and i cant even think,about the pain from messing up the pommel horse

The difference is that no other gymnasts are actively trying smash you in the face with the gym equipment.