Ease of learning vs effectiveness

[Makalakumu]

Recent discussions in this forum have caused me to really wonder at the difference between the ease of learning and effectiveness. For example, boxing and muay thai are relatively simple systems that are easy to master and ramp up to a high competitive level. Other striking arts take longer to learn, like karate. Does the ease of learning a system mean its more effective? Or could a system that takes longer to learn eventually match something that is easier to learn?

 

[Flying Crane]

I think easier to learn arts are more effective faster, but more complex arts CAN become more effective at a higher level down the road. Some arts, in my opinion, have a greater ultimate potential, but it is more difficult to reach that potential and many people never do.

The Chinese Internal arts are the biggest example in my opinion. I believe they have potential that can perhaps surpass most others, but it is very difficult to develop solid skill in these arts. They take dedication and patience beyond what most people who might want to learn how to fight are willing to give, before realizing results.

Other arts pretent to be complex, but are really just plain complicated in disguise. These can be hard to learn, and harder or impossible to make effective. So ask yourself, am I doing something that is complex, or complicated? If it is complex, it may well be worth keeping, but if it is just complicated, you might want to ditch it.

Seriously, I think for effectiveness things should be simple. The complex stuff should be trained and developed more gradually, and this should also enhance your simpler stuff along the way, but for the shorter term recognize that the simpler stuff is a better bet.