Learn 7-17x faster with private lessons?

[Yari]

Sorry,

Your metaphor is NOT isomorphic to the topic.

And NEITHER is it accurate.

It is your opinion based upon lack of data, both in teaching and in giving birth.

My last grandchild was born 6+ weeks early, somewhere around 7 to 7 1/2 months. NOT at 9 months.

My first child was born at 11 months and 1 week, give or take a day. NOT at 9 months.

So they were born approximately 4 months apart from each other, which is a reality that just does not fit your opinion, your generalization or your metaphor.
............

Dr. John M. La Tourrette

Well, I wasn't speaking about 9 months exatly(it's a picture- using an average common assumption). I was just using to say that some things take the time that they take, no matter how many resourses you throw at it.

I dont think that using "9 months", and that it doesn't fit to those who have giving birth before or after 9 months, makes the statment invalid.

I don't think your comment on my lacking of teaching is valid either. But is hard to discuss on these forums, since I myself will be bias in that case ;-)

But thank you for your comments.

/yari

 

[KenpoDave]

Well, I wasn't speaking about 9 months exatly(it's a picture- using an average common assumption). I was just using to say that some things take the time that they take, no matter how many resourses you throw at it.

I dont think that using "9 months", and that it doesn't fit to those who have giving birth before or after 9 months, makes the statment invalid.

I don't think your comment on my lacking of teaching is valid either. But is hard to discuss on these forums, since I myself will be bias in that case ;-)

But thank you for your comments.

/yari

So, does this work?

I dont think that using "7-17 times faster", and that it doesn't fit to those who have reached their goal before or after 7-17 times faster, makes the statment invalid.

 

[Dr John M La Tourrette]

So, does this work?

I dont think that using "7-17 times faster", and that it doesn't fit to those who have reached their goal before or after 7-17 times faster, makes the statment invalid.

Well,

I don't like those numbers, 7-17.

They feel wrong, as if "not" valid, and made-up. So I don't use them.

I DO LIKE "up to 7-15 times faster". So I use them.

They are also valid according to educational statistics, student retention and student longivity (I did a post on that topic but it was deemed to harsh for martialtalk).

It does have a "weasel word/concept" (up to) so if you get a retard, he can't sue you.

And it feels as if valid.

Back when I came out with "Secrets of Speed Hitting: How-to-hit a man 11 times, or more, in one second or less!", we chose the number "11" NOT because it was true (it isn't, it is MORE than 11 X's in one second), but because it was MORE BELIEVABLE!

So, the target market's perceptions also must be taken into account regarding any advertisment copy you write.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette
www.realspeedhitting.com

 

[Dr John M La Tourrette]

Well, I wasn't speaking about 9 months exatly(it's a picture- using an average common assumption). I was just using to say that some things take the time that they take, no matter how many resourses you throw at it.

I dont think that using "9 months", and that it doesn't fit to those who have giving birth before or after 9 months, makes the statment invalid.

I don't think your comment on my lacking of teaching is valid either. But is hard to discuss on these forums, since I myself will be bias in that case ;-)

But thank you for your comments.

/yari

You are welcome Yari,

And I did NOT say what you said I said. I said "It is your opinion based upon lack of data, both in teaching and in giving birth."

You don't look like a woman, but a man.
And I was referencing "DATA", as in the concept of "educational information".

So if you do have the "educational data/information" which supports your premise, I'd love to read it.

Have a great new year.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette

 

[Yari]

You don't look like a woman, but a man.

Yeap, I'm a man, been that all my life.

And I was referencing "DATA", as in the concept of "educational information".

So if you do have the "educational data/information" which supports your premise, I'd love to read it.

I think maybe were talking about the same thing but from different angels.
What I get from you is that your looking for data to support my claim. Cold hard facts, and without that I get the impression that you mean my statement would be invalid.

But I'm not trying to use my statement as a data, but as a "picture".

I'm thinking in the means of trying to show a picture of a cup, just to give an idea of what I mean. I know that the picture doesn't show all the cups in the world, but I belive it is representativ, because it shows what I think is valid when I'm talking about it.

That you don't agree, is OK for me. But I can't agree on the fact that becasue I'm showing a picture, and not a real cup, my picture is not valid.

On the other hand, that discussion is getting off-course compared to the thread. For the threads sake we don't have to agree on this, but let our values just hang in there for others to validate and use. Thats fine for me.

Have a great new year.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette

You too!

Best Regards
Yari

 

[PatMunk]

Well after reading this thread I've noticed that most don't understand what is being said when they read the 7-17 times faster.

You can't apply the statement when comparing different systems. It only applies to comparing the same system, teaching privates + groups or groups only. You can't apply the statement when comparing a system with 600 + techniques with a system with 154 techniques. Even though if both reached the goal at about the same time that would be about 6 times faster.

Educators have known for many years that teaching smaller classes is best ... If not their argument for smaller class sizes would not hold water.

What you have to do is apply the statement to your system. How much faster could one learn your system with Private + Group training compared to those only taking group classes.

As Dr,. La Tourrette stated, I also can remember when it was written 7 - 15 times faster .. I'm not sure when it was changed to 7 - 17 .... Legally it wouldn't make any difference if it said 7 - 90 times faster as long as students learned your system 7 times faster. the top end number wouldn't matter.

I hear people say well show me the numbers ... to this I'll reply .. Why do you need to see scientific numbers to support the statement? What about all of the instructors who after teaching for over 40 years, 30 years etc. teaching day in and day out. What weight would their experience teaching both have. Where do you think the scientific numbers would come from. If you would believe their findings once compiled into a report ... why wouldn't you believe them if they stated the same facts without the report.

Different systems have different requirements for Black Belt. Different number of techniques, different number of Katas, and I don't think comparing time in training to black belt is the correct angle to look.

Look to your system... How is it taught ... If your system is taught in groups only ... take a new student give them a 30 minute private lesson a week, following the proper guidelines of teaching private classes + let them go to the same number of groups and look how fast they will advance compared to those in the the group only classes. It should be evident to anyone what the results would be.

All this lengthly post is saying is don't apply the statement to a comparison of different systems, but apply it to one system, any system, and compare the training of that one system.

 

[Danjo]

Well after reading this thread I've noticed that most don't understand what is being said when they read the 7-17 times faster.

You can't apply the statement when comparing different systems. It only applies to comparing the same system, teaching privates + groups or groups only. You can't apply the statement when comparing a system with 600 + techniques with a system with 154 techniques. Even though if both reached the goal at about the same time that would be about 6 times faster.

Educators have known for many years that teaching smaller classes is best ... If not their argument for smaller class sizes would not hold water.

I agree that smaller class size is a better way to go as far as education goes. But that is talking about the ability to ensure that each student gets the attention that they need from the instructor due to having fewer kids to focus on. You can assign more papers and have a greater chance to grade them with care etc. and thus measure the student's progress if there are fewer of them to grade etc. etc.

What it isn't talking about is speed. The smaller class sizes allows the teacher to tailor the instruction better over the same period of time (i.e., a semester) than they would be able to to a larger group of people. Sort of like how Prof. Bishop has advanced students stay to workout for the last half hour of class at our school. With fewer people of higher rank, you can work on more advanced things than with the class that has everyone from white belts to black belts in it. But no one is claiming that smaller class sizes allow one to get through college or high school faster than they would otherwise. It's the quality, not speed that is improved.

The same is true for the martial arts IMO. Smaller groups are more condusive to better instruction, but it doesn't get them to black belt faster per se. If someone is going to get there 17 times faster, then they're going to be sacrificing quality. There's always an optimal amount of speed to quality ratio. If you go too fast, you will lose quality. The fastest blocks won't stop a solid punch because there's no structure behind it and the fastest punches won't do much damage for the same reason. They look pretty and are great for tournaments when you're trying to score points, but they have no value in a real fight because it will only annoy a real resisting attacker who is trying to punch your lights out. But the structure and solidity has to be practiced and developed over time. Otheriwise you have people with an empty shell, it may look pretty, but it serves no useful purpose. I would put more faith in the average student that trained in a school where he got to green belt in two years, than in the average student that got to black belt in 18 months because he got private lessons. You just can't beat solid basics and the knowledge that comes from years of proper training and it seems that that statistic is trying to entice people that want something quick, rather than something of quality.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I hear people say well show me the numbers ... to this I'll reply .. Why do you need to see scientific numbers to support the statement? What about all of the instructors who after teaching for over 40 years, 30 years etc. teaching day in and day out. What weight would their experience teaching both have. Where do you think the scientific numbers would come from. If you would believe their findings once compiled into a report ... why wouldn't you believe them if they stated the same facts without the report.

ok show me the instructors then they can explain how “they” came up with this.

I do not doubt additional lessons and private lessons can speed up the process in some cases it is throwing out arbitrary numbers 7, 14, 15, 17 that I have a problem with and if you are throwing out such numbers you REALLY should have the data to back them up. Not just because I say so or that guy says so or we discussed it and this is what we came up with. What about all the students that did not learn faster or got fed up with the speed and pressure and left or students that needed extra help beyond the provided classes, they don’t even appear to being discussed. From what I have been reading we are basing this on the possibility that some learned faster.

If you want to say it speeds up the process then ok that is fine but if you want to throw out numbers expect to be asked how you got those numbers.

 

[Blindside]

I hear people say well show me the numbers ... to this I'll reply .. Why do you need to see scientific numbers to support the statement? What about all of the instructors who after teaching for over 40 years, 30 years etc. teaching day in and day out. What weight would their experience teaching both have. Where do you think the scientific numbers would come from. If you would believe their findings once compiled into a report ... why wouldn't you believe them if they stated the same facts without the report.

If the claim was simply "you learn faster with private lessons" I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. But as soon as someone claims a specific number, like 7, there should be something backing it up. I'm a scientist, I don't take other scientist's word that effect Y happens as a result of action X, I need to see a paper with their reasoning, their methods, their results, and their conclusions. This gives me an understanding of their approach and why they concluded what they did. I certainly can use those scientist's life experience to advise me in my own research, but it doesn't carry much weight in terms of justification of a point.

Lamont

 

[KenpoDave]

Well,

I don't like those numbers, 7-17.

They feel wrong, as if "not" valid, and made-up. So I don't use them.

I DO LIKE "up to 7-15 times faster". So I use them.

They are also valid according to educational statistics, student retention and student longivity (I did a post on that topic but it was deemed to harsh for martialtalk).

It does have a "weasel word/concept" (up to) so if you get a retard, he can't sue you.

I agree. I was just inserting the numbers relevant to the thread into the given analogy of validity. His point as I read it being that what may not be valid for everyone does not invalidate it for everyone. It seems to me that in using that analogy, he actually made the point.

 

[KenpoDave]

The fastest blocks won't stop a solid punch because there's no structure behind it and the fastest punches won't do much damage for the same reason.

I know this is not the topic being discussed, but the above is wrong. It is not possible to apply full power at less than full speed. It is possible, however, to go full speed with no power.

A person may be able to apply more power by slowing down, because that person has not learned to integrate the proper end point timing at higher speeds, but full power requires full speed.

I have run across many people who fit into the above statement. But it is not that the block is too fast, or the punch is too fast, it is "operator error."

 

[tellner]

From a Monty Python routine about the Welsh Martial Art of Llap-Goch:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]Only a FOUR-SECOND WORK-OUT Each Day![/SIZE][/FONT] and you will be ready to HARM people
DEVELOP UP TO 38 BICEPS
GROW UP TO 12" TALLER
LOSE UP TO 40" OF FAT IN YOUR FIRST WORK-OUT!
PROLONG YOUR LIFE BY UP TO 1,000 YEARS
GO TO BED WITH UP TO ANY LUDICROUS NUMBER OF GIRLS YOU CARE TO THINK OF PROVIDING YOU REALIZE THIS STATEMENT IS QUITE MEANINGLESS AS THE PHRASE 'UP TO' CLEARLY INCLUDES THE NUMBER 'NOUGHT'

Agree with most of the above. If you say 7-17 times faster when the number is actually seven and you have no evidence that the 17 happens you are a liar. Saying "Well, technically seven is a number between seven and seventeen" doesn't make it any less a lie.

 

[Dr John M La Tourrette]

I agree. I was just inserting the numbers relevant to the thread into the given analogy of validity. His point as I read it being that what may not be valid for everyone does not invalidate it for everyone. It seems to me that in using that analogy, he actually made the point.

You are totally correct Dave.
And I do like some of the other responses...

...and I just delete some of the rest of the responses because they are only interested in nit-picking. I've got more important things to do than pick pimples with someone that wants to squirt pimples. (I just posted a picture)

Point, private lessons are better for teaching new data.

Point, it's has been studied and compared in the educational field.

Point, so I'm going to keep doing private lessons, backed up by groups and sparring specialty classes because the clients learn much better, much faster, and at a much better depth of understanding.

Dr. John M. La Tourrette

 

[Xue Sheng]

You are probably right. Even if the whole body is moving the direction of the strike, and the end point timing is right, there is likely an antagonistic muscle hanging on somewhere, or the other hand chambering by moving the other direction.

But, I never said it was. Simply that, for their to be full power, the variables in the equation must also be "full."

Actually you did say that

Full power = total mass x top speed.

.

I agree. But you cannot slow down and hit full power. The key is in perfect mechanics and perfect timing. I doubt that the realization of real "full power strikes" is attainable. That is one of the reasons that 40 years later, people still hit the bag everyday.

good body mechanics, proper alignment and relaxation not necessarily full speed. But then I doubt we will agree here and that is fine.

 

[MJS]

Folks,

You may notice some posts missing. I split the discussion on speed and power to this thread. Please continue that discussion there and keep this for the discussion on the private lessons.

Mike