More vs Less Training Time

[PhotonGuy]

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.

Im trying to avoid talking too much about rank in this discussion for a bunch of reasons. For one thing, with schools that use formal ranking systems, every school has their own system and their own standards for each rank. In your example you talk about blue belt and purple belt. In most of the systems that I've seen which have both those belts the blue belt comes before the purple belt but I did once see a system where the purple belt came before the blue belt. Also you mention the red belt. That varies from system to system. Usually it is a relatively high rank but as to how high, that can be different depending on the system. In some systems its a belt or two below the black belt. In other systems its above even the black belt. In BJJ for instance, the red belt is above the black belt and its the highest belt you can get.

Then there are those schools which don't use the color of your belt but rather use various stripes and markings on your belt to symbolize your rank, but the color of your belt never changes. Some schools use patches on your uniform to denote rank instead of belts. And then there are those schools that don't even have a formal ranking system.

Also, I want this to be a discussion more about skill than rank. Sure, if you want to earn rank you will have to develop skill but there as I said, ranks and standards for ranks vary tremendously from school to school and there are those schools that don't have formal rank, so that's why I want this to be mostly a discussion about skill and not rank so much.

 

[skribs]

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.

I am not going to fault anyone for reducing their training for realistic reasons. Financial is a good one, career is a good one (if the times conflict). I myself recently dropped the hours I teach per week from 17 to 5, because I kept getting sick and I needed some rest.

If your reason for reducing your time is "I don't want to appear impatient" that's a bad reason. If it's for financial, health, or another reason beyond what you think of people's perceptions of you, then I can respect that.

Well the bottom line is that Im trying to ask, if a person trains more rather than less does that make that person impatient?

No.

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.

On post #43 in this thread, you made this comment:
"Right, I am not taking "homework" into account, where you train on your own at home, as that would make the discussion more complicated. Besides, doing too much homework as a beginner can be detrimental in that you can develop bad habits. As a beginner much of your training should be done under the supervision of an instructor so you don't practice the wrong way to do it."

So you've gone back and forth between not taking it into account because you don't want to complicate it, but also because you don't think it should be done. Those are two separate claims you've made.

If you say you're not taking homework into account because you don't want to complicate the discussion, you've already asked a question that's over-complicated by making opinions and snap judgments the proper way to determine your training program. But it is absolutely relevant if you want to discuss how much training is too much that people don't get burned out.

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.

The generic hypothetical martial arts student trains more than once a week in class.

Im trying to avoid talking too much about rank in this discussion for a bunch of reasons. For one thing, with schools that use formal ranking systems, every school has their own system and their own standards for each rank. In your example you talk about blue belt and purple belt. In most of the systems that I've seen which have both those belts the blue belt comes before the purple belt but I did once see a system where the purple belt came before the blue belt. Also you mention the red belt. That varies from system to system. Usually it is a relatively high rank but as to how high, that can be different depending on the system. In some systems its a belt or two below the black belt. In other systems its above even the black belt. In BJJ for instance, the red belt is above the black belt and its the highest belt you can get.

Then there are those schools which don't use the color of your belt but rather use various stripes and markings on your belt to symbolize your rank, but the color of your belt never changes. Some schools use patches on your uniform to denote rank instead of belts. And then there are those schools that don't even have a formal ranking system.

Also, I want this to be a discussion more about skill than rank. Sure, if you want to earn rank you will have to develop skill but there as I said, ranks and standards for ranks vary tremendously from school to school and there are those schools that don't have formal rank, so that's why I want this to be mostly a discussion about skill and not rank so much.

You didn't even read my post, did you? I very clearly explained that I was not talking about rank, but using rank as a simpler way of communicating what I was talking about.

Let me try this again.

Let's say I have a goal. That goal may be to learn a form, to learn 5 new techniques, to get to a certain level of competency with a specific technique, or to be able to apply a specific concept. Any of these goals may take 12 hours of class time before I really have them down. (Let's not argue the details of this paragraph, I'm making a word problem, just go with the accepted variables for the sake of the discussion).

So if I train once a week, I may take 12 weeks to learn the new form, or the new techniques, or whatever it is I had the goal of learning. If I train twice a week, it will take me 6 weeks to learn it, if I train thrice a week it will take 4 weeks. (Again, I realize it's not a linear curve, but again, bear with me for the sake of the discussion).

Now, what do I do once I've learned that concept, or form, or once I've gotten to a certain point with the technique. Do I stop? Have I reached the end of my journey? No. The journey still goes on. Now, I can train a new thing.

You're looking at it as:
Time to learn X at 1 week/class: 12 weeks
Time to learn X at 2 week/class: 6 weeks

Most other martial artists look at it as:
Number of forms in 12 weeks: 1 at 1 class/week, 2 at 2 class/week. Or, basic competency at 1 class/week, and intermediate competency at 2 class/week.
Number of techniques in 12 weeks: 5 at 1 class/week, 10 at 2 class/week. Or, basic competency in 5 techniques at 1 class/week, or intermediate competency in 7 techniques at 2 class/week.
Competency increase in 12 weeks: from "basic" to "intermediate" at 1 class/week, or from "basic" to "advanced" at 2 classes per week.

You've got your X and Y axis screwed up. It's not about how fast you learn, but how much you learn. And the faster you learn, the more stuff you'll know later on. That's not impatience. That's giving yourself the most growth.

 

[KenpoMaster805]

I used to train 3 times a week but something came up so i train tuesday and Thursday only but its all good sometimes i go saturday when my sister and her family to go somewhere i love to train and love to teach and plus if you go 2 times a week with in a month you get perfect Attendance

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

not including training time at home in the discussion.

You come to school to learn. You go home to train.

Q: Why do we have to do sit up, push up, running around the room in our class? I can do all these at home by myself.
A: Most people don't do that at home.
Q: Do we suppose to come to class to learn and go home to train?
A: Most people come to school to train and go home to rest.

 

[geezer]

You come to school to learn. You go home to train.

Q: Why do we have to do sit up, push up, running around the room in our class? I can do all these at home by myself.
A: Most people don't do that at home.
Q: Do we suppose to come to class to learn and go home to train?
A: Most people come to school to train and go home to rest.

My old Chinese sifu held the same opinion (expressed in Q #1 above) that since our time with him was limited (and costly), we should use class time to learn and time outside of class to train, get fit and so forth.

Being a busy and somewhat lazy young American guy, I didn't always put in the time doing my homework. Same for most of my dai-hing. That's probably why most American instructors include conditioning and a lot of review of basics in their classes.



BTW another thing that was culturally different about his method of instruction: He felt that it was his job just to present us with the material we needed to learn, and pay him for that. It was entirely up to us to actually learn the material ...however much effort that might entail, inside or outside of class.

The American perspective on this is quite different. As a long-time teacher in the American education system, I have learned (the hard way) that here, it is the teacher's responsibility that the student learns the material. If the students fail to perform well, as measured by various tests, our ( the teachers) performance review and salaries suffer. If you are too tough on your students and they fail, well that's on you. Also, if you are tough and teach in an elective area, like I do (the fine arts) your enrollment numbers will fall, your classes will be cancelled and you'll be looking for a new job! Contrary to common belief, there's no tenure for teachers ...at least here in Arizona.

And you know what, it's not entirely the fault of bureaucracy. The same attitudes affect how private martial arts teachers have to teach to survive in our culture. Especially those who survive by teaching kids. Public school grade inflation translates to karate school belt inflation.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

it is the teacher's responsibility that the student learns the material.

MA training include skill training and ability development. It's the teacher's responsibility to teach the skill. It's the student's responsibility to develop the ability. For example, there is no way that a teacher can force his students to punch/kick on heavy bag.

When I learned the "cracking" skill, my teacher asked me to go into the woods, used my upper arm to break 1,000 tree brenches. There is no way that I can do that during my class time.

In CMA, teacher leads you inside the door. The rest is all up to you.

 

[PhotonGuy]

No.

Alright then we can agree that just because a person trains more often doesn't mean that person is impatient. Training more often will enable a practitioner to develop knowledge and skill sooner than if they trained less often. But just because the practitioner is training more often doesn't mean they're impatient.

Conclusion, getting something done sooner rather than later does not make a person impatient.

Let me try this again.

Let's say I have a goal. That goal may be to learn a form, to learn 5 new techniques, to get to a certain level of competency with a specific technique, or to be able to apply a specific concept. Any of these goals may take 12 hours of class time before I really have them down. (Let's not argue the details of this paragraph, I'm making a word problem, just go with the accepted variables for the sake of the discussion).

So if I train once a week, I may take 12 weeks to learn the new form, or the new techniques, or whatever it is I had the goal of learning. If I train twice a week, it will take me 6 weeks to learn it, if I train thrice a week it will take 4 weeks. (Again, I realize it's not a linear curve, but again, bear with me for the sake of the discussion).

Now, what do I do once I've learned that concept, or form, or once I've gotten to a certain point with the technique. Do I stop? Have I reached the end of my journey? No. The journey still goes on. Now, I can train a new thing.

You're looking at it as:
Time to learn X at 1 week/class: 12 weeks
Time to learn X at 2 week/class: 6 weeks

Most other martial artists look at it as:
Number of forms in 12 weeks: 1 at 1 class/week, 2 at 2 class/week. Or, basic competency at 1 class/week, and intermediate competency at 2 class/week.
Number of techniques in 12 weeks: 5 at 1 class/week, 10 at 2 class/week. Or, basic competency in 5 techniques at 1 class/week, or intermediate competency in 7 techniques at 2 class/week.
Competency increase in 12 weeks: from "basic" to "intermediate" at 1 class/week, or from "basic" to "advanced" at 2 classes per week.

You've got your X and Y axis screwed up. It's not about how fast you learn, but how much you learn. And the faster you learn, the more stuff you'll know later on. That's not impatience. That's giving yourself the most growth.

You've lost me a bit but I think I get the basic idea of what you're saying. The faster you learn the more you will know in an X amount of weeks. And the cycle is ongoing, at your same pace of learning you will know that much more in another X amount of weeks, and since in the martial arts there is always more to learn the cycle will keep going.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Attending more class could mean someone’s impatient, but it doesn’t mean that in and of itself. If someone’s attending more classes for the sole purpose of promoting faster, then sure.

I’d attend 4 classes a week if I could. With 6 and 8 year old kids, it’s just not realistic to do that and be present as a husband and father. If I was running the dojo as a source of income, obviously that’s a different story.

If I attended every class I wanted to, it wouldn’t be out of impatience. It would be for many personal reasons - I want to improve my skills, I want to get into better shape, I love training, I love that feeling after I’m done training, and it’s a great escape from daily life. I trained 4-5 nights/days per week in college. I had significantly more free time and far less responsibilities. It didn’t interfere with what I truly had to do. I was chasing rank a bit back then, but training that much wasn’t my sole purpose. If I could train that often again without it interfering with my true priorities in life, I’d do it without a single regret.

I was supposed to start testing for 1st dan two weeks ago. I put it off until the spring because I started a new job a few weeks ago and don’t want to take the time off. Due to my new schedule and the testing schedule, I’d have to take about 5 days off from work over 6 weeks. I don’t want to be the guy who just started and is already taking a bunch of time off, regardless of if I can take it, paid time off, etc. If I was able to train 4-5 times a week, I’d still have delayed testing.

The motives for training more often determine if someone’s impatient, not solely the frequency. There are plenty of people in arts without rank who train as often as possible.

Thank you for your insight. You often make intelligent and insightful posts.
Anyway, while trying to not get into too much of a discussion about rank, if a person wants to promote faster they will also have to chase skill, not just rank. In some schools it is required that you attend an X amount of classes before you can promote but you are also not going to promote if you don't have adequate skill, skill is crucial for rank advancement. If a student trains more often than it stands to reason that they will develop more skill sooner rather than later. You've talked before about schools having a minimal length of time that you have to be at your current rank before you can promote and most schools do have that but if a student trains more often, puts in more hours per week, than chances are they will promote faster while still staying within the minimum time requirements for rank, than if they trained less often and put in less hours per week.

 

[dvcochran]

When I was competing we trained 4-5 hours/day 6 days/week. After three years I started feeling a little burn out.
I have heard two very good themes regarding the OP's question. For the average person 3 formal classes/week is a good average. A person can always catch extra classes when time permits and if they have to occasionally miss a class during the week it will not be a big deal. Formal training has to be supported by individual training. @jobo mentioned taking 10-15 minutes/day which I feel is adequate for reinforcing learned skills.
If a person is looking for major physical gains 3-5 hours/week will not be enough. ​

 

[geezer]

In CMA, teacher leads you inside the door. The rest is all up to you.

Yes, this is how my teacher taught. And by not being spoon-fed, we learned to really value his instruction.

 

[geezer]

Alright then we can agree that just because a person trains more often doesn't mean that person is impatient. Conclusion, getting something done sooner rather than later does not make a person impatient.

Um, yeah. Was there ever any doubt? What you've said is so obvious that it's kinda, well ...wierd?!

Really, Photon, this whole thread seems to revolve around deeper concerns you've expressed ever since you joined MT some six years ago. You repeatedly bring up concerns about whether it's OK to ask your teacher if you're ready to test for rank, or whether it's appropriate to ask what you can do to learn faster, and now, if training too often will make you appear impatient or greedy for rank.

Honestly, it all seems rather strange. Normally instructors like to see a student train harder, learn fast and be eager to advance. Either the training culture at your school is really oppressive and inhibiting, or you personally need to confront some serious insecurities. Right now I'm wondering more about the school or schools you train at. Do people there talk freely about these things? Or, have you ever arranged time to meet with your instructor privately in his office and have an open discussion about these issues?

Just to be clear, martial arts school cultures vary a lot. Even among traditional, asian run schools there is a lot of diversity. My own background was with a traditional Chinese Sifu. He could be strict and aloof at times, but at other times disarmingly open and almost fatherly. We followed the family model. Sifu was the "teacher father" and we students or "to-dai" were all considered kung-fu brothers and sisters or "dai-hing". Martial courtesy was strict, but there was none of that militaristic "Yes Sir!" shouting you hear in some schools. And that suited me just fine. In my little group, I follow the same model, but without all the asian formality. If a student has an issue, I will try to make time after class to have a talk and hear them out.

So anyway, what's the story behind all this, Photon?

 

[skribs]

You've lost me a bit but I think I get the basic idea of what you're saying. The faster you learn the more you will know in an X amount of weeks. And the cycle is ongoing, at your same pace of learning you will know that much more in another X amount of weeks, and since in the martial arts there is always more to learn the cycle will keep going.

That's pretty much it. Unless you plan to stop training after you learn X amount of stuff, then it's not about how fast you learn, but how much you learn.

 

[jobo]

That's pretty much it. Unless you plan to stop training after you learn X amount of stuff, then it's not about how fast you learn, but how much you learn.

but it's not about knowinging/ learning it's ab out doin, you cant progress faster than your body condition can adaptchanges. if you want to speed the process up, then it's time spent on provoking adaptation that you need to invest rather than chasing knowledge of things you cant actually do in anything but a controlled enviroment

 

[dvcochran]

It could also be someone training twice as much and wondering why they're not progressing twice as fast (because part of it is how much you train, but part of it is experience that comes through time). While I think someone who trains 2-3 times a week will progress more than 2-3 times as fast as someone who trains once a week, I also think that someone who trains 6 times a week will see diminishing returns, and maybe only progress 50% faster than that 3x person. This is because you can only digest so much learning at once and it takes time to process.

There's also people who think because they go twice as much, they only half to practice half as hard, to get the same benefit.

In those contexts I can see it mattering. But in the amount of time OP is suggesting, more practice would be better for everything.

For most people learning a MA I think it follows a bell curve but usually not as normal distribution. The curve will not have consistent inclination/declination. In the beginning the curve will be steep and progress will be slow. Increased input will provide brief gains but they usually cannot be sustained. As a person reaches a peak in proficiency and retention, declination in practice frequency has no adverse affects in proficiency.
In other words, I put higher value in quality over quantity for learning skills. For improving endurance and muscle gain the opposite is largely true.
A typical exception would be in distance running (which I suck at). If you only run distance on a flat track and then decide to run cross country you will struggle when you hit the hills.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Yes, this is how my teacher taught. And by not being spoon-fed, we learned to really value his instruction.

Well you do have to work hard to learn your art, obviously your teacher isn't going to wave a magic wand and give you the knowledge and skill of the art, that's what spoon feeding would be, aside from the fact that they don't have magic wands that do that.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's so funny that during my time, we usually talk about "How many times do you train daily?" Today, we only talk about "How many times do you train weekly?"

Even when I worked full time in IBM, I still trained 3 times daily:

- Before going to work.
- During lunch hour.
- After came home from work.

 

[dvcochran]

It's so funny that during my time, we usually talk about "How many times do you train daily?" Today, we only talk about "How many times do you train weekly?"

Even when I worked full time in IBM, I still trained 3 times daily:

- Before going to work.
- During lunch hour.
- After came home from work.

It is curious how we change over time. I have said before I honestly don't know how I maintained the pace when I was competing. I worked a straight 40 hour job (local L.E.) which was at night, we were already full time farming which I grew up doing, and I trained 4-5 hours/day. I could do pretty well on 5 hours sleep. And that was before I embraced coffee.
I struggle to keep up with the first two now a days. Even though there is more automation in farming today, which makes it "easier", it is somewhat offset by most operations running more cattle or raising more crops. My business hours are more flexible but I can definitely feel a hard two or three hour training session for a couple of days now.

 

[PhotonGuy]

It's so funny that during my time, we usually talk about "How many times do you train daily?" Today, we only talk about "How many times do you train weekly?"

Even when I worked full time in IBM, I still trained 3 times daily:

- Before going to work.
- During lunch hour.
- After came home from work.

It really depends on the person. For me, it would be how many times I train daily. For somebody whose taking up martial arts just as a hobby or for fun, it would be how many times they train weekly.

Not everybody trains like Bruce Lee, back then and now.

 

[PhotonGuy]

It is curious how we change over time. I have said before I honestly don't know how I maintained the pace when I was competing. I worked a straight 40 hour job (local L.E.) which was at night, we were already full time farming which I grew up doing, and I trained 4-5 hours/day. I could do pretty well on 5 hours sleep. And that was before I embraced coffee.
I struggle to keep up with the first two now a days. Even though there is more automation in farming today, which makes it "easier", it is somewhat offset by most operations running more cattle or raising more crops. My business hours are more flexible but I can definitely feel a hard two or three hour training session for a couple of days now.

If you were training 5 hours a day on the same days you worked, that would be 8 hours of working plus 5 hours of training for a total of 13 hours. You were sleeping 5 hours so that brings the total up to 18. So 18 hours in a 24 hour time period were spent working, training, and sleeping which would leave you with 6 hours left. You must've eaten and farmed during those 6 hours.

 

[dvcochran]

If you were training 5 hours a day on the same days you worked, that would be 8 hours of working plus 5 hours of training for a total of 13 hours. You were sleeping 5 hours so that brings the total up to 18. So 18 hours in a 24 hour time period were spent working, training, and sleeping which would leave you with 6 hours left. You must've eaten and farmed during those 6 hours.

Sounds about right. There was always a heavy carb & protein load before working out. Other than that I did not follow a super strict diet. We have always been a meat and 2 or 3 vegetables per meal family and raised much of our own foods so I would say we always ate pretty good.