Agree of Disagree with My Statement?

[ArmorOfGod]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

[grydth]

You are certainly correct with respect to the martial arts. In fact I have seen at least one Chinese master rank natural talent as being the least gift.

But I think such can be true of other sports, too. It was said Pete Rose just tried - or "hustled" - harder. Football games decided in the 4th quarter are often ascribed to harder practice and better conditioning of the winning team. Similarly, 5 set tennis matches are said to come down to 'heart'... who wants it more? I believe work ethic is often the ticket that moves an AHL hockey player up to an NHL spot.

[stickarts]

I also agree that it is true of Martial Arts, but also other sports.
I have seen people make amazing improvement in swimming and baseball that didn't have a lot of natural aptitude.
Definately have seen it a great deal in Martial Arts too.

[Drac]

I agree..

[Brian R. VanCise]

Work ethic and drive generally seperates the great martial artist from someone with lesser skill and yet innate natural attributes can certainly give one a huge advantage when combined with a great work ethic and a driven personality.

Not everyone has it even when they have a great work ethic and yet they can still be the absolute best that they can be.

What I will agree more so with is that with lots of dilligent practice that most people can become good at martial arts. Great, probably not but good absolutely!

[seasoned]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG
My feelings are that any Sensei can take a person with talent and make them better. The biggest challenge in this scenario would be monitoring their ego. I have seen way to many students who became physically better because they started from a stronger base of flexibility coordination and strength only to lag behind in humility. Personally I prefer the slower route of building a person from scratch , from the ground up J .

[DArnold]

My feelings are that any Sensei can take a person with talent and make them better. The biggest challenge in this scenario would be monitoring their ego. I have seen way to many students who became physically better because they started from a stronger base of flexibility coordination and strength only to lag behind in humility. Personally I prefer the slower route of building a person from scratch , from the ground up J .


Amen,
Wasn't it Nolan Ryan who said, "It only took me 28 years to become a "natural" "?

[Brian R. VanCise]

My feelings are that any Sensei can take a person with talent and make them better. The biggest challenge in this scenario would be monitoring their ego. I have seen way to many students who became physically better because they started from a stronger base of flexibility coordination and strength only to lag behind in humility. Personally I prefer the slower route of building a person from scratch , from the ground up J .



Absolutely I would agree with you there. I have seen someone start from a stronger overall attribute base and yet not stick with it and leave the martial arts all together. Thereby losing their skills. I have seen that quite a few times. I have also observed someone with lesser attributes become very, very good martial artists through lots of pain and sweat. Still I have also observed someone with great attributes and drive and that is something really special!

[michaeledward]

I think the analogy is faulty. It is very difficult to compare professional football to martial arts. The world class athletes participating in professional sports get world wide recognition and compensation. Without martial arts having similar recognition and compensation, we can not be certain if those with potential begin to study the activity.

The hypothetical question that is sometimes asked is: what if Mozart never sat down at a keyboard?

The team sports, football, soccer, baseball and basketball, all have pee-wee leagues, and city leagues, and travel leagues that draw the attention of young people. Every day, or every weekend, television broadcasts teams participating in these activities. Newspapers print out the individual competitors results. "Fantasy Leagues" draw in the sedintary to these activities.

I would be willing to wager that most youth in the country know about Michael Jordan (pick your sports superstar). And that knowledge spawns dreams in many of them.

Who is the comparable martial arts superstar? (I bet most young people would choose a sterioded member of the WWE over a "real" athlete).

So, the next young 'Bruce Lee' or 'Ed Parker' may never be exposed to Martial Arts. So all of the natural ability never gets developed.

And if this is true, the student who practices diligently, may never get tested against a student with natural ability.


And, of course, further, the actual testing process in martial arts exists in an over-controlled environment that does not ever bring the best competitors face to face. Participation in martial arts tournaments is a self-selecting activity. There is no national standard by which athletes compete.

This evening, I was watching a very naturally talented, and extremely diligent martial artist work on her bo-staff material for tournaments. Her practice included twirling a staff like a baton, and throwing the weapon into the air. She stated that these moves were required to win the tournaments.

I believe that allowing your weapon to leave your hands should immediately disqualify a participant from a martial arts competition. That may be 'old school', but if my weapon is not in my hands, I can't hit you with it, nor defend myself from your attack; no matter how pretty it may look.


I appreciate your sentiment, but, No, the analogy doesn't work, and it can't be tested.

[Kacey]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG
I disagree. Anyone has the potential to improve with practice; how much improvement may vary depending on coordination, determination, practice, quality of instruction, availability of good instruction, build, and so on. Now, some people may have greater potential, or may find the activity for which they are most suited earlier in life, giving them a better chance at improvement... but that goes for any sport/activity/hobby/etc.

As far as your actual comparison - how many martial artists reach a level comparable to the NFL or other pro-sports level? What percentage of amateur football players, baseball players, soccer players, basketball players, dancers, runners, weight lifters, boxers, etc., reach the pro-sports level, and how does that compare to the percentage of martial artists that reach a comparable level?

[CuongNhuka]

Martial Arts aren't a sport. Outside that, I do agree.

[HKphooey]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

I would have to disagree. I think it may be a littel easier to overcome a lack of talent, but all the practice in the world does not make you a better martial artists. First off, the practice needs to be done properly. If a student does not pay full attention in calss or fully comprehend the materail, he/she may go home and practice the wrong thing. Also, there is the mental facture. You can show someone the moves, but they need to have an open mind to see the big picture and the desire to seek out knowledge on their own. I guess one could call that practice, but I think most people think of it as the act of reviewing your material over and over. I have seen some awesome forms and self-defense techniques at tournaments, but the person had no clue why he/she was executing the moves.

Just my two cents. Great thread!

[seasoned]

[quote=michaeledward;825284]
I believe that allowing your weapon to leave your hands should immediately disqualify a participant from a martial arts competition. That may be 'old school', but if my weapon is not in my hands, I can't hit you with it, nor defend myself from your attack; no matter how pretty it may look.

Yes the “good old days.” or “old school” as stated. It has been said that the day of the warrior is gone. The way we trained years ago would not fly now a days. Sadly I would agree with this. When I use the word warrior above I don’t necessarily mean the killing kind but the disciplined kind. In Armor of Gods original post “to get to the NFL or on a Pro- sports level you would need natural talent or ability is correct. If it weren’t you would spend all your time on the bench and from a Martial perspective that would be detrimental to mental growth. Now in Martial Arts when he told his students that they could become good if he or she keeps practicing diligently is also true. They are just coming from two different perspectives. The difference lays in the mind set of the coach or Sensei’s attitude toward it. When it gets down to it sports teaches you to beat the other person and any good DoJo teaches you to over come yourself.

[Odin]

I think it depends on what stage you take your martial art too.
Over time you can go from being an unco-ordianted clue-less punch shy beginner to a co-ordinated confident student that is more then able to defend themselves.

BUT

To be the best on the world stage you do need some natural talant, if you didnt everyone would be a bruce lee or Randy Coulture or a Rickson Gracie.

Theres actually a point in any fighters life when they must come to terms with the fact that no matter how much they train, no matter how long they learn there are those that seem to have been born to do their chosen martial arts and they will always be better.

[Cirdan]

I think there are plenty of sports where practice can be way more important than raw talent.

[Grenadier]

To me, martial arts is about taking what your student has, and developing it as well as you can. For example, there are some students, due to the absolute lack of flexibility, who will never be able to kick above the waist, or students who have significantly less mobility than your "average" student. This does not, however, preclude a student from becoming good at the martial arts, since it's not just about one technique or ability.

How a sensei can bring out the best in each person who may be lacking talent, can often be seen as a good measurement of his teaching abilities.

Talent, though, does help, and of course, it's a joy to have someone with both talent, and the work ethic to go along with it. If anything, such individuals can indirectly help a huge amount, since many of the others will aspire to be that person.



Talent alone, still won't get you very far in professional sports, such as the NFL. Maybe in high school, but probably not in college, and definitely not in the pros. I've seen quite a few talented high school players stagnate horribly once they hit the college ranks, because their coaches were inept, and were unable to develop them. Either that, or they refused to listen to instruction, and fell by the wayside.

Some are even given a second (and third, and so forth) chance, and blow it:

Take a look at the Ohio State University runningback, Maurice Clarett:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Clarett

The kid was a football god (awesome talent) coming out of high school, had a remarkable freshman season, but then fell by the wayside horribly. He was even given a golden opportunity by Mike Shannahan (Denver Broncos coach), who has always been a great evaluator of talent, and blew it.

[Balrog]

There's an old saying: practice makes perfect.

I disagree with that. Practice makes habit. Perfect practice makes perfect. And it's the people that are willing to go the extra mile, so to speak, and strive for mastery rather than competence who become the Pros From Dover in any sport or discipline.

Too often, people rely on natural talent and don't put in the extra effort.

[Em MacIntosh]

Opportunity matters far more than ability. Training in the martial arts is a decision. You decide how much effort you put in. I think factors like getting the kids to school, shopping, making supper, getting to work etc. have a much bigger influence than presence/lack of natural skill. If you speak loud enough for your limitations, they'll be yours. LOL...Chuck Norris...if ever there was a rugged underdog...

[kidswarrior]

I disagree. Anyone has the potential to improve with practice; how much improvement may vary depending on coordination, determination, practice, quality of instruction, availability of good instruction, build, and so on. Now, some people may have greater potential, or may find the activity for which they are most suited earlier in life, giving them a better chance at improvement... but that goes for any sport/activity/hobby/etc.

As far as your actual comparison - how many martial artists reach a level comparable to the NFL or other pro-sports level? What percentage of amateur football players, baseball players, soccer players, basketball players, dancers, runners, weight lifters, boxers, etc., reach the pro-sports level, and how does that compare to the percentage of martial artists that reach a comparable level?
Yes, this resonates with my experience, too. In asking thousands of teens over the decades what their career plans were, a huge number of the boys would say--in all seriousness--The NBA, or sometimes major league baseball. My standard response from way back is, one in 500,000 make it to the NBA (and of those, how many wash out the first year?). The numbers may have changed by now, but probably not by much.

So, instead of counting on being a 'star' (NBA, prof. sports of any kind), why not keep at what you love as a hobby, and just get better over time? I think this is the analogy I prefer for the MAs. Hard work+time+determination=the MAist improving steadily until decades later, it's hard to tell if the (now) master started out with natural ability or not.

And the great thing about MAs is you can continue into old age (like me :)), whereas competitive sports pretty much tear up your body within a decade or so: Earl Campbell is basically crippled; wasn't it liver failure that took a very young Walter Payton?; and many, many former pro ball players can't make it through a night without physical help (thinking of Jim Plunkett as one of the first I read this about).

So, I guess natural physical giftedness can make a difference in the first few years, but over decades, I don't think it matters. Those who last that long learn how to overcome any natural disabilities. After all, how many long-timers on this board were nerds/geeks as kids? And how many of those same people are MA instructors, and/or have every confidence they could handle a tough situation (not competition, but the real deal)? So I guess my conclusion is, with sports we lose our edge and abilities with time; with MAs, we hone our edge and abilities with time.

[Sukerkin]

Some good thoughts in this thread, ladies and gentlemen :tup:.

My take on the core question is predicated on the fact that in any human activity there are about five percent of people that have the natural aptitude to really stand out. I don't know what the current term for it is but it used to be known as the 'Ace factor' because it was first noted amongst fighter pilots.

No amount of training or knowledge can overcome that 'skill gap' but ... and it's a big one (no puns please :D) ... this assumes that the amount of and quality of training and practise is the same. It's a ceterus paribus ("all other things being equal") kind of deal.

In martial arts, in my limited experience, it seems to be the case, in the main, that it is the students with 'natural ability' that tend to fall by the wayside earlier.

Perhaps for as much as the first few years of training, they revel in their superiority because it comes easy to them. Then the 'work' begins where you are polishing and grinding out minute faults and honing tiny improvements. For the naturally talented, who are used to having things come quickly to them, this is anathema and I believe that many of those MAists seen as 'good' that fade away at black belt level fall into this category.

For the lesser gifted but more dedicated/determined students, the process of training rather than solely the results of it are of a greater emphasis than for the 'Aces'. Thus, on finding that after you get your first Dan, you can expect to train for a similar amount of time again before you reach the standard for your second, they are not fazed and carry on with their training.

So, in the long term, I think that you perceive a circumstance such as the OP posited i.e. that in the martial arts you see a path whereby it is persistence that pays off in terms of skill rather than any innate talent that you start with.

Of course, match born-with-it aptitude with diligence and you get an altogether different outcome :D.

[Kacey]

In martial arts, in my limited experience, it seems to be the case, in the main, that it is the students with 'natural ability' that tend to fall by the wayside earlier.

Perhaps for as much as the first few years of training, they revel in their superiority because it comes easy to them. Then the 'work' begins where you are polishing and grinding out minute faults and honing tiny improvements. For the naturally talented, who are used to having things come quickly to them, this is anathema and I believe that many of those MAists seen as 'good' that fade away at black belt level fall into this category.

For the lesser gifted but more dedicated/determined students, the process of training rather than solely the results of it are of a greater emphasis than for the 'Aces'. Thus, on finding that after you get your first Dan, you can expect to train for a similar amount of time again before you reach the standard for your second, they are not fazed and carry on with their training.

So, in the long term, I think that you perceive a circumstance such as the OP posited i.e. that in the martial arts you see a path whereby it is persistence that pays off in terms of skill rather than any innate talent that you start with.

Of course, match born-with-it aptitude with diligence and you get an altogether different outcome :D.

I have seen the same things you have, and discussed it with others; you make a great point.

[bushidomartialarts]

I agree that it's true of all sports.

However, martial arts is a sport that, so far, hasn't been co-opted by the pros. There's still a venue for those of us with little talent but lots of heart to make a go. With the rise of pro MMA and fight leagues, that may be changing.

I hope not.

[Carol]

A big difference that I see is MA takes more than just athleticism.

Look at some of the pro players....they get away with idiocy and even criminal acts and not have their professional standing affected. An MA school owner would be laughed out of town for some of the stuff that pro ball players do.

I equate MA with motor sports. You need some athleticism to do the job, but you need additional knowledge as well. Motor sports requires mechanical knowledge and interpersonal skills for teamwork. MA requires heavy interpersonal skills and, for the professionals, business skills.

But when you think about it....how many people can truly compete on the national media stage? UFC fighters, TKD Olympians...those aren't positions that just anyone can do.

I think a key difference is, a person that trains MA and has never used their skills live...and even never earned a black belt...is still a "martial artist". But, fellows like my grandfather who was always organizing pick-up slow-pitch baseball games after church is not considered to be a "baseball player" because he didn't play at a league level.

[Touch Of Death]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoGNope. It still holds true for competition, but Martial Arts is not a sport. Its about improving your self and your motion. Should you choose to compete the natural athleats will still have the advantage.
Sean

[terryl965]

Work ethic and drive generally seperates the great martial artist from someone with lesser skill and yet innate natural attributes can certainly give one a huge advantage when combined with a great work ethic and a driven personality.

Not everyone has it even when they have a great work ethic and yet they can still be the absolute best that they can be.

What I will agree more so with is that with lots of dilligent practice that most people can become good at martial arts. Great, probably not but good absolutely!


I would have to agree with Brian statement here.

[ArmorOfGod]

Nope. It still holds true for competition, but Martial Arts is not a sport. Its about improving your self and your motion. Should you choose to compete the natural athleats will still have the advantage.
Sean


I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoG

[Blindside]

I am not talking about competition. AoG

No, you said:

I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.


Sport.

Sport implies competition, without competition of some kind there is no way of comparison. So what do you mean by "good?" At some point good has to mean execution of the art, not just knowledge of the art. The "naturals" learn faster, and given equal study time the "natural" will always have the edge.

You can't cop out and say the "natural" practices less, that isn't fair to those that do. Naturals tend to learn faster, and given equal study habits they will learn the complete system faster, and then be polishing those basics, while the rest of us are still slogging through the system.

Kano was a natural (learned 3 systems of jujitsu before founding Judo in his twenties.) Parker was a natural, and a described genius at categorizing material. Lee was a natural, described as being able to see something 3 times and do it better than the instructor could.

I'll lay money that most of the pioneers that we know were naturals. If you mean get "good" at something you mean be decent at something thats fine, but if you mean the "best" then that is still generally the realm of the naturals.

If you take competition out of the factor how do you decide if someone is "good" at something? Since what we do is "martial" arts generally we put one guy in front of another and see who gets KOd, sounds like competition to me.

Lamont

[Doc_Jude]

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoG

A wise man said "Effort can overcome Genius."

I don't think that practice coupled with average or mediocre natural ability can "override" practice coupled with high natural aptitude or innate brilliance, but with natural genius being so rare & more often than not unrealized, I'll take hard work.
I've always been coordinated & have a natural athletic ability, often outperforming friends that should be better than me due to their experience.

But I'm too lazy for my own good :)

[Touch Of Death]

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoGSematic issues get me every time.:)
Sean

[Blindside]

A big difference that I see is MA takes more than just athleticism.

Look at some of the pro players....they get away with idiocy and even criminal acts and not have their professional standing affected. An MA school owner would be laughed out of town for some of the stuff that pro ball players do.

Comparing a MA school owner and a professional football player is silly they are two completely different things. Compare a MA school owner to a football coach and you may be on to something. Fundamentally, martial arts were invented to help people win physical altercations. If it wasn't we'd simply be working deescaltion skills and verbal judo, and that relies of physical execution of the material, that physical execution will favor people who learn kinetic based material faster.

And there are plenty of examples of not-really well looked upon, but great martial artists. Choki Motobu and Musashi as a younger man, off the top of my head.


I equate MA with motor sports. You need some athleticism to do the job, but you need additional knowledge as well. Motor sports requires mechanical knowledge and interpersonal skills for teamwork. MA requires heavy interpersonal skills and, for the professionals, business skills.

Why do you need heavy interpersonal skills as a martial artist? Not all martial arts lay heavy emphasis on a peaceful morality or avoidance of combat. Many are just about winning the fight. A "professional martial artist" does not equate to a "good" martial artist in my book. Since I've seen both good martial artists that were bad businessmen and good martial artists that were complete asshats. Neither negative attribute makes them a "bad" martial artist.

Lamont

[michaeledward]

I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

I'm not certain your original post said what you think it said.


Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

The unspoken corollary to your premise is:

One can not become "good at NFL or on a pro-sports level" with diligent and proper practice; only those with natural ability can become good, or even can attempt the activity (if you are ruling out 'competition).


I find your comment and your premise arrogant. It smacks of the attitude we have seen on message boards that claim 'my martial art is better than your martial art'. I would further guess that while you may be qualified to measure the competancy of being a martial artist. I doubt that you are similarly qualified to measure the competancy of being 'good at NFL or on a pro-sports level'.


I think a more proper attitude to display to students and associates is that hard work will produce positive results. Study any activity diligently and you will improve your ability.

[Adept]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

I disagree. Like anything in life, those with a natural gift for it will always shine over the generic masses, even though we might practice our hearts out. No matter how much we practice, not everyone can be a Jimmy Hendrix, or a Babe Ruth, or a Muhammad Ali.


I am not talking about competition. If you go way back and read my original thread, I put that I am referring to getting good at a martial arts style (with diligent and proper practice).

AoG

I would argue that martial arts are inherently competitive.

If we get into warm and fuzzy definitions of martial arts (it's about the journey, it's about the character development, or it's about bettering yourself...) then we may as well abandon the argument. The same can always be said of football, music, carpentry or gardening, so for the sake of argument we really have to abandon those nice, but ultimately irrelevant definitions of, or reasons to practice, the martial arts.

Ultimately the martial arts, possibly more than any other physical activity or 'hobby' (and certainly more than football or basketball) is about literally beating the other guy into a bloody pulp. What the individual chooses to take from that exercise is up to them, but it seems disingenuous to deny that the basic purpose of the martial arts is to hurt (or in some cases restrain without hurting) other people.

[ArmorOfGod]

What I will agree more so with is that with lots of dilligent practice that most people can become good at martial arts. Great, probably not but good absolutely!


I think Mr. VanCise did a better job summing up my point (see above quote).

AoG

[Blindside]

I think Mr. VanCise did a better job summing up my point (see above quote).

AoG

Then your initial comparison is flawed, most players in the NFL/NBA/etc are elite level players, that scrub on the end of the bench probably dominated his college and high school team. A person who is "good" at the pro sports level is a whole different league than a person who stands out in an individual martial arts school. My sister was a professional ballerina (soloist) in a major ballet company, there were very few people running at that level who weren't a "natural." Here friends who were "good" had to content themselves with smaller companies or working as ballet teachers. No different in that art than in the martial arts.

Lamont

[Hawke]

There's a Kung Fu San Soo instructor named Lawrence Rouse. He took a mentally challenged kid and over time this kid got some serious coordination.

If I understand the intent of the OP I believe people will improve if they work hard at it.

[Doc_Jude]

When I think of "Great Martial Artists", most of them are possessed of great natural ability coupled with an inhuman work ethic. Benny Urquidez, Gene LeBell, Joe Lewis, Bruce Lee, Kimura, Rudy Terlinden, Mas Oyama, Mohammed Ali, Frank Shamrock, Jack Dempsey, Mike Tyson, Rickson Gracie, Toshiro Nagato, these are the names that leap to mind.

I think that to be truly "Great", both of these attributes are needed. The combination of both is extremely rare. That being said, I guess I would have to agree with other folks here and say that the initial posit of this thread is for the most part false.


Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

I don't think that natural talent of any quantifiable level, at least the levels that we're talking about, will be overriden by practice. Most of those with natural talent can more than match the average practitioner if they but practice a little.

When we talk about Great Martial Artists, we're talking about the "professionals", in my mind. The ranks of the "Good" are, to me, simply better than the dabbler or the hobbyist.

[DArnold]

I think the analogy is faulty. It is very difficult to compare professional football to martial arts. The world class athletes participating in professional sports get world wide recognition and compensation. Without martial arts having similar recognition and compensation, we can not be certain if those with potential begin to study the activity.

The hypothetical question that is sometimes asked is: what if Mozart never sat down at a keyboard?

The team sports, football, soccer, baseball and basketball, all have pee-wee leagues, and city leagues, and travel leagues that draw the attention of young people. Every day, or every weekend, television broadcasts teams participating in these activities. Newspapers print out the individual competitors results. "Fantasy Leagues" draw in the sedintary to these activities.

I would be willing to wager that most youth in the country know about Michael Jordan (pick your sports superstar). And that knowledge spawns dreams in many of them.

Who is the comparable martial arts superstar? (I bet most young people would choose a sterioded member of the WWE over a "real" athlete).

So, the next young 'Bruce Lee' or 'Ed Parker' may never be exposed to Martial Arts. So all of the natural ability never gets developed.

And if this is true, the student who practices diligently, may never get tested against a student with natural ability.


And, of course, further, the actual testing process in martial arts exists in an over-controlled environment that does not ever bring the best competitors face to face. Participation in martial arts tournaments is a self-selecting activity. There is no national standard by which athletes compete.

This evening, I was watching a very naturally talented, and extremely diligent martial artist work on her bo-staff material for tournaments. Her practice included twirling a staff like a baton, and throwing the weapon into the air. She stated that these moves were required to win the tournaments.

I believe that allowing your weapon to leave your hands should immediately disqualify a participant from a martial arts competition. That may be 'old school', but if my weapon is not in my hands, I can't hit you with it, nor defend myself from your attack; no matter how pretty it may look.

I appreciate your sentiment, but, No, the analogy doesn't work, and it can't be tested.

Being as we are all bandying about the term Martial Art.
Since the physical aspect is (and I think I'm being generious) only half of what we do, how would you compensate/compare, or test the mental aspects?

[michaeledward]

Being as we are all bandying about the term Martial Art.
Since the physical aspect is (and I think I'm being generious) only half of what we do, how would you compensate/compare, or test the mental aspects?

I am not clear on what you are asking, in relation to original premise.

Are you suggesting that there is no mental component to professional sports? Or that the mental component of 'martial arts' is somehow of greater weight than the mental component of other sports?

It seems obvious to me that the activities being discussed are primarily physical. All other, non-physical, attributes are subservient to the physical. Stephen Hawking has tremendous mental powers. But I don't think anyone here would argue that with training he would be able to become a great martial artist.

[Blindside]

Being as we are all bandying about the term Martial Art.
Since the physical aspect is (and I think I'm being generious) only half of what we do, how would you compensate/compare, or test the mental aspects?

Could you give examples of what mental aspects you are talking about?

Lamont

[bluekey88]

Having skimmed most of the posts here, I hope I'm not re-iterating what's already been said. It' salready been stated that to be great, truly great one must work hard, be determined....AND have innate ability. When any of these is lacking, then this limits how great one can become. However, innate ability is essentially fixed. We have what Mom and Dad bequethed ot us. Sure, with training we can maximize this.,...but we can't really change it. Hoever, we can control or work ethic and determination. We can choose to follow a path or not.

For 99% of us, that's all it takes to get better. Here's where I think the innate talent is critical. For those who HAVE to perform (athletes for example), then that innate talent is an important basew from which to build. The very best also develop a strong work ethic and the detrmination to utilize their talent and hard work to acheive success. For most of us, we aren't training for anything other than self-improvement, honing self-defense skills, etc. We aren't trying to achieve a veyr sepcific goal (such as winning a tournament or competition). We're avid hobbyists (often more passionate than the professionals :) ).

We've all probably sene the "natural" who drop sout as soon as things get hard. HOw many of us have had lessons with the "natural"? Where they say executre techiquew X like "so"...you couldn't do that in a million years, but they don;t know how to break it down for you as they've nevere had to struggle with technique x.

For me, unless the person with natural talent also truly develops an understanding for what they do...then as teachers they are lacking. I would much rather work with someone of averg ability who has had to struggle for each lesson learned. Because that person is more likely ot see where I am lacking and will be able to help me through it. Think about it....how many great coaches (of any sport) were also truly outstanding champions of their sport? MOst great coaches were pretty averag (or maybe a bit above average), but it's their understanding, their DEPTH of knowleedge combined with hard work, determination...etc. That leads to their ability to foster talent and skill in others.

Peace,
Erik

[qi-tah]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

I would say that it depends on the art in question and how democratic it's techniques are. A highly athletic MA like Capoeira or modern Wushu relies heavily on high level fitness and flexibility, and not everyone has the body type or condition to excel in them. A more compact and/or "soft" style like Wing Chun or Aikido are much easier for smaller types, whilst taller or more solidly built ppl might find another MA a better fit.

Some ppl can overcome their physical deficiencies to excel in a style which might not seem a good physical fit for them, and more power to them. But it's always wise to examine the MA you plan to expend blood, sweat and tears on - and ask yrself - is this going to be one which allows me the best chance of growth on my own peculiar path?

[Jutt-]

I definitely agree that perserverance and dedication is the most deciding factor in your ability.

I think it may be diffrent where the full contact sport's are concerned though.

I'm not saying fact this makes this factor any more superior etc etc as it isn't true in the slightest , but I'm not sure if taking repetitive strikes is something that could be taught?

Being a newbie still , I'm probs wrong though ;)

[DArnold]

I am not clear on what you are asking, in relation to original premise.

Are you suggesting that there is no mental component to professional sports? Or that the mental component of 'martial arts' is somehow of greater weight than the mental component of other sports?

It seems obvious to me that the activities being discussed are primarily physical. All other, non-physical, attributes are subservient to the physical. Stephen Hawking has tremendous mental powers. But I don't think anyone here would argue that with training he would be able to become a great martial artist.

Quite simple.
Are you saying the end goal of a sport and a way of life are the same?

[michaeledward]

Quite simple.
Are you saying the end goal of a sport and a way of life are the same?

Apparently, I don't understand simplicity. If it involves, somehow, not answering a question, and instead poses a completely different question, then simplicity is beyond me. But that may just be me.

Next, the original post drew an analogy between martial arts as an activity and other sports as activities. But, somehow, in your query, you seem to be stepping further away from that premise, which I have on a couple occassions already in this thread have pointed out is faulty. If you are going to further push the point to a faulty metaphor, one wonders why you are quoting me, and posing questions in my direction.

You question, however, (to give it the weight it deserves) is just as arrogant as the original posters premise. You seem to be saying that 'martail art' is a 'way of life', and therefore must be considered superior to 'sport'.

Football, apparently, can not be considered a 'way of life'? I have heard the term 'football widow' in the autumn. Never have I heard of a 'karate widow'. And I see many more vehicles driving down the road with bumper stickers for football teams, and drivers whereing team jackets and hats, than comparable martial arts ... but this too, is probably a fault way to measure the 'way of life' paradigm.

One wonders how to measure that 'way of life'? ... I mean beyond just the word of an obviously biased statement on a biased message board.

Of course, measuring the concept is irrelevant. First one needs to support the premise. What is the 'martial art' way of ... well, fill in your own response ... pick an activity that Stephen Hawking could participate in, perhaps?

Martial Arts is not a 'way of life'. It is an activity that exercise the body, first and foremost, and a bit of mind. Some will project spirituality onto this physical activity, but then, some will project spirituality into any activity at all. Personally, I much prefer the idea of projecting spirituality on to Fly Fishing. This too, of course, is a faulty metaphor.

So, you could attempt to answer my question.

Or, you could attempt to clarify what you think you mean. And we could discuss your ideas. As it stands, what you said in the last post, makes little sense, and instead seems to be baiting me. It worked, apparently.

[Bumblebee]

I disagree with your statement. Using the example of the NFL, there are countless players with loads of raw talent, but fail due to being, what analysts refer to as, underachievers. Raw talent can only take you so far in the things you do, it's whether or not you continue to work hard is what will bring you success.

[Seabrook]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

I disagree.

Consistent and diligent practice can make someone awesome at any given sport. At least 90% of talent is not innate; it comes from persistence and practicing even when you don't feel like it.

You mentioned professional sports, such as the NFL. That might be an extreme example, but if we stick to that high of a standard, how many that diligently practice martial arts will make it to, say, the UFC?

[Mpmagi]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

Certainly. There are some MA kids I've seen that can perform kata and forms with an seemingly unnatural levels of technique. The answer: their parents make them practice, every day.

[bluemtn]

I agree to a certain extent. There are, however, a small number that have natural talent in martial arts, but that's a small margin. On the other hand, anyone that practices often and well, will get better.

[tradrockrat]

I'm afraid that in this case I do not agree. In any physical endeavor - all things being equal; equal time spent training, equal quality of instruction, equal effort - the gifted athlete has the advantage. This is true of any "sport". Luckily for those of us not blessed to be a natural Bruce Lee - all things are never equal.

for example - if two people train in identical ways in the same dojo on exactly the same nights for 5 years, one will be better than the other due to physical ability, but as we all know and have seen, the gifted one may slack because it comes easier, or skip some classes, or the less gifted may work harder in class and practice at home, eventually becoming a better martial artist.

[Kacey]

for example - if two people train in identical ways in the same dojo on exactly the same nights for 5 years, one will be better than the other due to physical ability, but as we all know and have seen, the gifted one may slack because it comes easier, or skip some classes, or the less gifted may work harder in class and practice at home, eventually becoming a better martial artist.
Or - as I've seen - the more gifted athlete will quit coming to class when it finally starts getting hard, because it's not "fun" anymore.

As a non-gifted athlete, I have to say that I know far more people who stuck with martial arts who were not athletic - or, at least, did not consider themselves to be athletic - when they started, than those who were gifted athletes when they began.

I was sucked in by finally finding a physical activity in which the directions were broken down sufficiently to actually make sense to me - but too many "natural" athletes that I've seen (not all, but many - perhaps even most) drop out about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way to black belt, when natural athleticism is no longer enough.

[Cruentus]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

I agree with half the statement.

What I mean is that I believe the idea of "natural" talent or ability is a self-limiting idea. I can say to myself that I could never be good at basketball or math or good with my finances because I am just not talented in that area, and then really that becomes an excuse to never improve in a particular desired area. There is a certain amount that can be said for natural talents and such, but really people tend to limit themselves with self-defeating attitudes when things don't come easily.

I think that the biggest thing that seperates an NFL linebacker and me is that the pro has put his heart and life into playing pro ball, probably starting way back when he was a kid when I would have rather been outside playing "guns" or playing "karate." Is that genetics, or relativity?

If anything, I think that the martial arts really teaches people not to limit themselves, and that one can accomplish much with diligent effort (provided that it is a good martial arts program where students can realize true success rather then arbritary fulfillment). These lessons can and should carry over into other aspects of our lives.

C.

[ejaazi]

You are certainly correct with respect to the martial arts. In fact I have seen at least one Chinese master rank natural talent as being the least gift.

But I think such can be true of other sports, too. It was said Pete Rose just tried - or "hustled" - harder. Football games decided in the 4th quarter are often ascribed to harder practice and better conditioning of the winning team. Similarly, 5 set tennis matches are said to come down to 'heart'... who wants it more? I believe work ethic is often the ticket that moves an AHL hockey player up to an NHL spot.


Not always true. Look at the number of times, although few, that someone came out of college only good enough to be 3rd string, got a chance to play, and went on to become a great player. They worked real hard to get better. Likewise, there are times when those with seemingly "natural" ability, come out of college and are starters, but then they turn out not to be as good as they were in college or as good as people expected them to be. However, I will say, that I believe when it comes to MA, we do have to train harder and for much longer than sports players.

[funnytiger]

Tonight in class, I made a comment to my students that martial arts are maybe the only sport where practice overides natural talent.

To get to the NFL or on a pro-sports level, one needs natural talent or ability, but one can eventually get good at a martial arts style if he or she keeps practicing diligently.

Does everyone agree or disagree with that statement?

AoG

I'm gonna disagree with this statement.

Practice and diligence without natural talent make you a good martial artist.

Practice and diligence coupled with natural talent make you a great martial artist.

However, natural talent without continued practice and diligence is futile and a waste.

I'm confused as to why some of assume that a person with natural talent does not work as hard as hard as someone without it. In my experience, I've seen quite the opposite.

Those who seem to demonstrate an ability to adapt quickly and show what you would call a natural ability, excel faster and seem to want to learn more. But, that is just what I have seen in my school. I have seen many people who struggle from the get go leave after a few months of continued struggle despite their hard work.

Of course, I don't believe there is an absolute correlation to the longevity of a student based on whether he or she has natural ability or not. It all boils down to whether that person has the ability to push themselves. Natural ability or not, without that drive, you will quit.

-ft

[Shotochem]

I will say, that I believe when it comes to MA, we do have to train harder and for much longer than sports players.

Most of us MA are not professionals. We do not train for as many hours a day in our respective MA as your typical professional athlete.

I would imagine I would be quite a more talented MA if I had the opportunity to train MA for as many hrs a week as my full time job.

As many have stated talent alone will only get you so far, the rest comes down to guts and perseverence.
-Marc-

[Sukerkin]

I'm confused as to why some of assume that a person with natural talent does not work as hard as hard as someone without it. In my experience, I've seen quite the opposite.

That must count of one of those your-milage-may-vary instances as my experience is, as I posted earlier, that the 'natural talents' do not have to work as hard initially simply because of their predispostion to be 'good at it'. When the time to buckle down and put in the work arrrives, the talent they have works against them and they tend to fall away more than others because they are used to it coming easily.

I'm the same with languages. I can get going very easily as the linguistic 'bump' of my brain is very strong. As soon as I get past 'tourist level' I tend to flag as I've got to work at it now rather than it just 'happening'.




Of course, I don't believe there is an absolute correlation to the longevity of a student based on whether he or she has natural ability or not. It all boils down to whether that person has the ability to push themselves. Natural ability or not, without that drive, you will quit.

That is a core observation :tup:.

[funnytiger]

That must count of one of those your-milage-may-vary instances as my experience is, as I posted earlier, that the 'natural talents' do not have to work as hard initially simply because of their predispostion to be 'good at it'. When the time to buckle down and put in the work arrrives, the talent they have works against them and they tend to fall away more than others because they are used to it coming easily.

I'm the same with languages. I can get going very easily as the linguistic 'bump' of my brain is very strong. As soon as I get past 'tourist level' I tend to flag as I've got to work at it now rather than it just 'happening'.


You are absolutely right in that it is all based on personal experiences. I'm the opposite. If I find myself being naturally good at something I may get frustrated when I hit that first wall, but its all the more satisfying once I knock it down and move onto the next hurdle.