Right, well Im not factoring training time at home into the discussion because that would just make it more complicated. Too much training, including training at home, I would say especially training at home, can lead to burnout and that would just be something else to make the discussion more complicated so that's why Im using small numbers and not including training time at home in the discussion.
More vs Less Training Time
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
skribs
Grandmaster
Well, I don't know anyone that would say 1 hour of class a week is even enough. I watch videos of BJJ guys, and one of the questions he answered is "how to improve when you can only go 2-3 times per week." Our classes are twice a week, and we have people who do 3-4 classes a week, if not more.
The numbers you're providing, as "small" and "so large you must be impatient", most people define as either "why bother even going?" and "just right", or else define as "why bother even going?" and "I guess you can make some progress."
You also say you're not factoring in home training, but you also said at one point there should be NO home training. So you are factoring in home training, just 0 hours of it.
It sounds like you want people to practice very little, or else you yourself want to practice very little, and you're asking if anyone else will back you up in justifying that meager schedule.
On getting to your friend's house, some people on this forum, they've said stuff like this in the past, might say the by running to your friend's house instead of walking that you miss stuff on the journey, you miss various sights and experiences that you would've not missed had you walked. Sure, running will get you to your friend's house sooner, but you will miss out on the journey more than if you walked.
Training more to meet the requirement of needing X hours to earn a belt, as long as you're not training so much that you're getting diminishing returns I don't see any problem with that. As it is though, I am not particularly talking about belts or rank Im talking about gaining knowledge and skill in an art. A student could be training in a style that doesn't have a formal ranking system and as long as they don't overdo it to the point where they experience burnout and diminishing returns, they will gain knowledge and skill sooner than if they train more instead of less.
skribs
Grandmaster
Except this is where the analogy falls apart. If you train less, you have less experience, not more.
jobo
Grandmaster
no, exspeiance is usually measure in time, therefore 12 months experience equals one years experience not matter how many times you trained in that period
Basically you've said what I've meant all along.
Example A, lets say a student trains three hours a week and they do that for four weeks for a total of twelve hours. After twelve hours of training the student would've developed a certain amount of knowledge and skill and it took him four weeks to do it.
Example B, now lets say that same student were to train two hours a week, in that case it would take the student six weeks to get in twelve hours of training and to gain the same amount of knowledge and skill as in example A.
Obviously when you take four weeks to do something, in this case gaining a certain amount of knowledge and skill, you're getting it done sooner than if you were to take six weeks but its not taking you any less time. Twelve hours is twelve hours whether its spread over four weeks or six weeks, so the time is the same but the result comes sooner in example A where the student is training three hours a week instead of two.
I could've used an example where the student only trains one hour a week in which case it would take the student twelve weeks to get in twelve hours of training, but as its been discussed in this thread one hour a week is usually not enough to retain what you're learning so that's why I didn't use such an example. It would only complicate the discussion and I want to keep it simple.
skribs
Grandmaster
This is why in almost any certification, they measure hours instead of months. Months are used as an approximation. If you train 10 hours a week for a year, instead of 1 hour a week for a year, you will have trained 500 hours instead of 50 hours. If you think someone training 500 hours is the same as someone training 50 hours, then I don't know what to say.
The very big difference in what we're saying though is that you suggest that the example A person is more impatient than the example B person because they get their 12 hours done in less calendar pages.
Which is patently nonsense imo.
skribs
Grandmaster
It's not about how fast you learn, but how much. You look at gaining a certain knowledge level in 6 weeks vs. 12 weeks. Why not look at it as gaining half knowledge or double knowledge in 12 weeks? Unless the person is going to quit once they've learned that piece of knowledge.
Let's use belts as an example. Please note I'm not talking about belt-chasing, but typically a curriculum with belts has more advanced techniques and concepts at a higher belt, and saying "blue belt" and "red belt" is a lot easier to type than saying "person who knows 17 techniques at a medium level" vs. "someone who knows 22 techniques at a medium-high level".
You're saying that if someone's goal is to learn at a purple belt level, if they train more, they will be at purple belt level twice as fast. End of analysis.
I'm saying that in the time one person takes to get to purple belt level, someone who trains twice as much can get to blue belt level. Then, the slower person gets their blue belt around the time the faster person gets their black belt. And then the slower person gets their black belt, the faster person is 2nd or 3rd degree.
If the journey never ends, then training more isn't about how fast you get there, but how far you can go.
jobo
Grandmaster
they measures hours for flying and diving, but that hardly the same thing, I did an aprentiship that was measured in years, that fact I didn't very little for 4 years wasnt at all a problem, in both cases you will have one years experience, that cant surely be in dispute ?
skribs
Grandmaster
Most places that measure in months or years, have a standard by which they are measuring. For example, if I say I have 10 years' experience in IT, they are assuming I have approximately 20,000 hours (based on a 40-hour work week).
If I applied for a job and said I had 10 years experience in IT, and what that meant is that for 10 years, every month I'd spend 1 hour going around the shop and rebooting computers, and really I only have 120 hours of experience, I would probably be laid off for lying on my resume.
Everything I've done where they measure things by years, there's a standard amount of hours/year you're supposed to have.
Actually whole families training is more common than you might think. There are several other families at the same dojo, where the whole family trains. As for my family, it was my daughter who started first and then got me back into it, and then later her mother tried a few classes and wanted to continue.
I fully expect that at some point my daughter will loose interest. And when she does, she can stop or do something else.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
It is possible to learn at 1 class a week. It's slow. Very slow. I started my program that way, worked up to 3 days a week, and am back down to 1 day a week (traveling too much for work, sporadically). Students still progress, but at significantly less than half the pace of when folks train 2x weekly.
So, that's one example of measurement in years, two with measurement in hours.
Years become a shorthand, in other words. We do this in MA, though the translation isn't nearly as mathematical.
jobo
Grandmaster
there a million more where experience is measured in years, measuring in hours is very much the exception
Most cases I can think of, years are a shorthand for estimated hours. Almost anything measured in work years is assuming something on the order of 2,000 hours a year on the job.
Right now I am only going to BJJ class once a week. Class time is about an hour and a half at the BJJ school I go to. I am reducing my classes to once a week mostly for financial reasons, right now I cannot afford to be in any of the programs where you go more than once a week.
Well the bottom line is that Im trying to ask, if a person trains more rather than less does that make that person impatient?
Im just trying to avoid talking too much about home training because that would make stuff more complicated. For sake of discussion lets assume a student puts in an X amount of home training and that amount is the same whether or not a student trains in the school for 1 hour, 3 hours, 10 hours or whatever else.
I don't care how much or how little other people practice, that's up to them. As for me, I love to train, a lot. But in this discussion I am trying not to talk too much about myself or any of the other people on this forum. I am just trying to talk about a generic hypothetical martial arts student.
Similar threads
- Koga-Shinobi
- General Martial Arts Talk
