Martial Arts, genetics and talent vs. work ethic

[mrt2]

I don't think 2 days a week is a realistic model to judge hard work vs natural talent.

Work 6 days a week to someone's two and we might have a comparison.

I just threw that in as a minimum because if memory serves from my former practice, that was stated as the minimum the school expected all students to maintain. If a student fell below that number, they would probably not be able to test or if they really slacked off, might risk a reduction in rank, because their skills would atrophy, or maybe even regress. But you are right. To really improve in anything, one should commit to at least double that, or maybe even do something MA related every day.

 

[pdg]

If you don't have much experience with motor racing I can see how you think it's less relevant.

A real race car (or bike) is more like a horse than you maybe realise (or it could be said it needs more care, when a top flight team has sometimes 500 people in it), but there's an exception there too - I've not seen a car or bike finish the race after the rider/driver has fallen off/out, they just stop.

I could no more jump in the best car in the world and win than I could jump on the best horse and win...

 

[mrt2]

Not so much. I'm talking about fighters, pro fighters. The fighter doesn't make the team great, it's the other way around. A person can be a talented fighter but without the input of coaches, corners etc they won't succeed quite frankly. A fighter needs someone to pick his opponents, fighters aren't that good at that ( in my experience of nearly 20 years with pro and amateur fighters), he/she needs someone who can analyse his opponents and work out tactics, he/she needs preparing for a fight, a fighter needs sparring partners, hands wrapping, etc etc.

Your racing car analogy doesn't work, with MMA the team supports and hones the fighter, raw talent is fine, hard work is fine but it's a team event, why do you think fighters always thank their teams after a fight? Over the years I have seen extremely talented fighters fall by the wayside because of the lack of a good team, sometimes they think they can do it all on their own and they can't. Rather than car racing it's more horse racing, the jockey doesn't do it all however talented, again the horse doesn't do it all however talented, it is team work that makes a winner. It's the work rider doing the workouts with the horse, the trainer picking the races, the vet checking the horses health, the jockey planning the tactics that suit the horse, even the horse box driver making sure it's a smooth journey to the course and the stable lad mucking out the stable, staying with sick and injured horses through the night as well as feeding them properly, team work makes champions whether MMA or horse racing.

I am a fan of bicycle racing, and that sport is indeed a team sport where the rider is a little bit like a race car driver, and a bit like a race horse. And in races involving teams, there is also that dynamic where teams will protect their best rider for long stretches of a road race so when he does launch his attack, he is fresher than the best riders from other teams.

 

[Xue Sheng]

In my opinion....it's not genetics and it's not talent. It's work ethic.

Yup....but

Realizing you omitted the B.J Penns, The Joe Lewises, the LeBrons...and then ignoring that altogether because I don't think you can actually remove them from the equation........ My youngest is a pianist and we have been told by multiple teachers and musicians that she is a gifted musician. But, as her current teacher has been saying for years, Talent only takes you so far and if you are not willing to work at it, those that may not be gifted, can and will surpase you with hard work. But if gifted and then throw in hard work, there is no stopping you and you now have the B.J Penns, The Joe Lewises, the LeBrons.

So both genetics/talent and hard work can play a part. Add to this, Chuck Norris has also said something about hard work mattering no matter if you are talented or clumsy. Hard work is most important. Sorry, can't remember the direct quote, but that is the gist of it. So hard work can make the most clumsy a talented marital artist, depending only on talent can only take you so far.

 

[pdg]

I am a fan of bicycle racing, and that sport is indeed a team sport where the rider is a little bit like a race car driver, and a bit like a race horse. And in races involving teams, there is also that dynamic where teams will protect their best rider for long stretches of a road race so when he does launch his attack, he is fresher than the best riders from other teams.

That tactic for bicycle racing can make a relatively mediocre rider a winner.

Put it in the context of a horseist, or a driver, or a MA competitor though - put them in a time trial.

Then, the best team in the world won't help as directly.

The hard work will only make them a winner if that hard work has already taken them past being a relatively mediocre cycling talent, in which case they're no longer the person in question...

 

[mrt2]

That tactic for bicycle racing can make a relatively mediocre rider a winner.

Put it in the context of a horseist, or a driver, or a MA competitor though - put them in a time trial.

Then, the best team in the world won't help as directly.

The hard work will only make them a winner if that hard work has already taken them past being a relatively mediocre cycling talent, in which case they're no longer the person in question...

Well not exactly. Because the other teams employ the same tactics, your best rider needs to be at least as good as the other teams' best riders. It would not be a winning strategy to put a mediocre rider in that position because he would lose to better riders.

Time trialing is a separate discipline in bicycle racing. A racer who is a great time trialist could also be a great GC contender in the big stage races, but actually might be better in the one day classics.

 

[Tez3]

Well not exactly. Because the other teams employ the same tactics, your best rider needs to be at least as good as the other teams' best riders. It would not be a winning strategy to put a mediocre rider in that position because he would lose to better riders.

Actually the other teams don't employ the same tactics, you employ the tactics that work for your horse. some horses won't run out front for any length of time, some horses will. Some horses take time to get going, others will sprint off and then flag. The tactics aren't the same. You also have horses that will run on the rail, others who won't, some horses will have the strength to come from the back. It's no different for bike racing.

If you don't have much experience with motor racing.

That's an incorrect assumption.

I am a fan of bicycle racing, and that sport is indeed a team sport where the rider is a little bit like a race car driver, and a bit like a race horse. And in races involving teams, there is also that dynamic where teams will protect their best rider for long stretches of a road race so when he does launch his attack, he is fresher than the best riders from other teams.

Nope, nothing like bike racing and I've been following that for many years too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Forgive me if this has already been put out there, but after a few weeks browsing these forums, I did not see this topic, so thought I would put it out there.

This may seem obvious, but some people are more talented at martial arts than others. I saw it in my previous practice. On my first day of white belt class, the first guy I saw when I came into the dojang was a green belt fighting a high red belt, and the green belt was winning. One of the guys in my white belt class in fairly short order became a great tournament fighter. And from time to time, I saw extremely talented people come up. I say from time to time because most people of average ability seemed to progress at about the same rate, assuming they trained at least twice a week. But some people came in as great fighters, or at least seemed to pick things up much more quickly than the average person.

But I am wondering is maybe martial arts schools don't like to talk about this. The observation is a lot clearer when you apply it to other sports. There are a lot of people that take up swimming, but unless you are born with a certain set of genetics, all the hard work will not turn someone like me into Michael Phelps. Same with basketball, same with tennis, same with just about any sport.

And the same is true of martial arts. In my past practice, there were people who were great fighters right away. And, IMO, it went beyond work ethic. Yes, the rock stars of the dojang did work very hard. But I think it went beyond that.

Which brings me to my next point. We all can't be the LeBron, or Phelps, or Aaron Rodgers of martial arts. In fact, chances are, most of us are not. But does our willingness to train 2, 3, or more days a week for years show something other than commitment? Do we actually posses some modicum of talent in this? Is there a weed out process that tends to lead people with poor aptitude for martial arts to quit? Or is it just commitment?

This is what drives me nuts when a hobbyist (like me) says something like, "MMA fighters can't really defend themselves - a master in X-do could...." That ignores that many MMA fighters are gifted athletes. (I'm using MMA here because it's the most widely discussed combat sport at the moment. Boxing would also fit this, as would professional Karate fighters of yore.)

A gifted athlete needs less technical skill to overcome an ungifted athlete. Then, those gifted athletes train a lot. Most hobbyists train 2-5 times a week formally, for an hour or so at a time. Maybe 10% of them put in significant training time beyond that on their own. Compare that to folks training for MMA fighting beyond a casual level. A somewhat serious amateur probably trains twice as much, and it goes up from there. And the fighters we hear about are all at or very near their prime, and in fantastic condition. All of that (giftedness, time and intensity in training, physical condition, etc.) matters quite a lot.

So, if I get a really gifted athlete joining my program, I'd expect them to progress in ability (though not necessarily in rank) quite quickly. If folks understand their own ranks properly, and are aware of the impact athleticism has on ability, it shouldn't be all that surprising that a lower rank occasionally outfights an upper rank. Add in an age difference (20-something vs. 40+), and it comes up even more quickly. My 30-year-old self could probably make a very good showing against my current 48-year-old self, though I'm significantly more skilled now. That guy was more fit, more resilient, and stronger. My older self would probably win far more often than not, but not as easily as the myth of the aged master would lead us to believe.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

OK, but that aside, what about the other part of my post. Do people who lack talent weed themselves out over time?

I think people who aren't interested weed themselves out. Most people lose interest in things they aren't enjoying, and most people enjoy things more when they are getting good at them and feel challenged by them. So, folks who "get it" too easily (and can't find another challenge in it) will weed themselves out. And those who just don't "get it" (and aren't enjoying the challenge of it) will weed themselves out.

A lot of people - at every point between those two - will also weed themselves out because they lose interest, and aren't feeling a challenge they enjoy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would say being a fighter is about team work, an MMA fighter however talented, will not become successful without a good team behind them. it requires everyone to do their job well for the fighter to be able to do their work well.
How you measure success though for a martial artist who does not compete is going to be quite different, that would be about personal goals which means if we set realistic ones and work hard will succeed with talent not coming into it. If you are 'talented' you set higher standards for yourself, which you can fail if you don't work hard.

I think the point was that an MMA fighter who only contributes tactically and in a few key areas will probably be a weak fighter, though a quarterback who does the same can be a high contributor to the team. So, if you move that person (who contributes tactically and in a few key areas) to being a part of a fighter's team (perhaps a coach), they can contribute better than if they are the fighter.

 

[pdg]

That's an incorrect assumption

It was more of a question than an assumption, you assumed incorrectly that I made an assumption about you, based on your interpretation of my statement.


But, seeing as almost every statement I make or question I pose is misinterpreted, I'll just stay out of these types of threads from now on.




Edit: to clarify...

Had I said "you obviously have no experience" that's an assumption.

I said "If you have no experience, then I understand xyz". That's not an assumption, that's me saying that if you do have experience I can't understand how you don't see the correlation.

 

[Danny T]

OK, but that aside, what about the other part of my post. Do people who lack talent weed themselves out over time?

People weed themselves out for the most part because they are not enjoying themselves. Can other things in life cause it; sure, but when people are really enjoying themselves they usually find a way to keep doing so.

 

[Tez3]

It was more of a question than an assumption, you assumed incorrectly that I made an assumption about you, based on your interpretation of my statement.


But, seeing as almost every statement I make or question I pose is misinterpreted, I'll just stay out of these types of threads from now on.




Edit: to clarify...

Had I said "you obviously have no experience" that's an assumption.

I said "If you have no experience, then I understand xyz". That's not an assumption, that's me saying that if you do have experience I can't understand how you don't see the correlation.

Why are you throwing your teddy out of the pram?

 

[pdg]

Why are you throwing your teddy out of the pram?

Because it's my turn.

Apparently other people can use "you're making assumptions about me" as a tumblresque weapon against my statements, whether I'm making assumptions or not.

I'm simply returning the favour.

You made assumptions about my meaning, your assumption was wrong. Then, you reinforced it by accusing me of making incorrect assumptions about you, when I wasn't.

You've made the point plenty in the past that you're capable of sticking up for yourself and refuse to roll over when challenged - seems you assumed I'm different to that.

 

[oftheherd1]

Because it's my turn.

Apparently other people can use "you're making assumptions about me" as a tumblresque weapon against my statements, whether I'm making assumptions or not.

I'm simply returning the favour.

You made assumptions about my meaning, your assumption was wrong. Then, you reinforced it by accusing me of making incorrect assumptions about you, when I wasn't.

You've made the point plenty in the past that you're capable of sticking up for yourself and refuse to roll over when challenged - seems you assumed I'm different to that.

Wow. I didn't understand your use of the word 'tumblresque.'

So I looked it up.

Wish I had been satisfied with my ignorance.

 

[Tez3]

Because it's my turn.

Apparently other people can use "you're making assumptions about me" as a tumblresque weapon against my statements, whether I'm making assumptions or not.

I'm simply returning the favour.

You made assumptions about my meaning, your assumption was wrong. Then, you reinforced it by accusing me of making incorrect assumptions about you, when I wasn't.

You've made the point plenty in the past that you're capable of sticking up for yourself and refuse to roll over when challenged - seems you assumed I'm different to that.

You know, I don't actually understand any of that.
When you said 'you' you made it read as if you were personally addressing me so I answered. You seem to overthink things, there's no argument going on, there's no defence or attack just opinions.

 

[drop bear]

I just threw that in as a minimum because if memory serves from my former practice, that was stated as the minimum the school expected all students to maintain. If a student fell below that number, they would probably not be able to test or if they really slacked off, might risk a reduction in rank, because their skills would atrophy, or maybe even regress. But you are right. To really improve in anything, one should commit to at least double that, or maybe even do something MA related every day.

Natural talent will also be a bigger factor the less people train overall.

 

[drop bear]

People weed themselves out for the most part because they are not enjoying themselves. Can other things in life cause it; sure, but when people are really enjoying themselves they usually find a way to keep doing so.

Most people don't enjoy grappling until they start seeing results.

It is like a diet.

 

[drop bear]

This is what drives me nuts when a hobbyist (like me) says something like, "MMA fighters can't really defend themselves - a master in X-do could...." That ignores that many MMA fighters are gifted athletes. (I'm using MMA here because it's the most widely discussed combat sport at the moment. Boxing would also fit this, as would professional Karate fighters of yore.)

A gifted athlete needs less technical skill to overcome an ungifted athlete. Then, those gifted athletes train a lot. Most hobbyists train 2-5 times a week formally, for an hour or so at a time. Maybe 10% of them put in significant training time beyond that on their own. Compare that to folks training for MMA fighting beyond a casual level. A somewhat serious amateur probably trains twice as much, and it goes up from there. And the fighters we hear about are all at or very near their prime, and in fantastic condition. All of that (giftedness, time and intensity in training, physical condition, etc.) matters quite a lot.

So, if I get a really gifted athlete joining my program, I'd expect them to progress in ability (though not necessarily in rank) quite quickly. If folks understand their own ranks properly, and are aware of the impact athleticism has on ability, it shouldn't be all that surprising that a lower rank occasionally outfights an upper rank. Add in an age difference (20-something vs. 40+), and it comes up even more quickly. My 30-year-old self could probably make a very good showing against my current 48-year-old self, though I'm significantly more skilled now. That guy was more fit, more resilient, and stronger. My older self would probably win far more often than not, but not as easily as the myth of the aged master would lead us to believe.

Athleticism is part of martial arts training though. Same as technique.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Most people don't enjoy grappling until they start seeing results.

It is like a diet.

When you have taken 7 guys down one after another in one day, you start to wonder whether you can also knock 7 guys down one after another in one day. When you have realized the difference, you will fall in love with the wrestling art for the rest of your life.