How Long Does It Take?

[MJS]

Seems like some people think that they can learn an art in days. Somehow, those same people then say that the getting good part, takes years. Sorry, but I disagree with that! Anyone who has done any amount of serious training, will know that in a weeks time, there is no way to learn every single thing contained in an art.

Various techniques, kicks, blocks, strikes, stances, weapons, you name it...all those things are contained in many different arts. If it was that easy to learn, everyone would be a black belt in a month.

I will admit...I do laugh at those that seek the quick and easy route. I guess the mindset is that with a crash course, you'll get all you need to know, and then, you'll have to spend years fine tuning. Sorry, but that sounds a bit odd. Its going to take years to fiine tune things that you can supposedly learn in days?

I guess after 20+ yrs of training, I'm still confused at the thinking of some. Yeah, I know, in todays world, that seems to be par for the course....I want it and I want it now!!! LOL! Gone are the days, (for some anyways) of busting your ***.

Oh well....some people will never learn.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

10,000 hours to mastery. Name the subject, that's the general rule.

I get maybe 6 hours a week.

6 x 52 = 312

10,000 / 312 = 32 years, give or take.

Makes sense to me.

 

[seasoned]

These mcdojo's are losing out. If they did it the traditional way they would have you around for 32 years. As it is, become a master in 3-5 years means lost revenue. I just don't get it..................

 

[K-man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

10,000 hours to mastery. Name the subject, that's the general rule.

I get maybe 6 hours a week.

6 x 52 = 312

10,000 / 312 = 32 years, give or take.

Makes sense to me.

Overall I would agree, but the rider is in Paul McCartney's comment.

[...] I've read the book. I think there is a lot of truth in it [...] I mean there were an awful lot of bands that were out in Hamburg who put in 10,000 hours and didn't make it, so it's not a cast-iron theory. I think, however, when you look at a group who has been successful... I think you always will find that amount of work in the background. But I don't think it's a rule that if you do that amount of work, you're going to be as successful as the Beatles.

I know a lot of Martial Artists who haven't got to that level after that time, and a few who have.


​

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Overall I would agree, but the rider is in Paul McCartney's comment.

[...] I've read the book. I think there is a lot of truth in it [...] I mean there were an awful lot of bands that were out in Hamburg who put in 10,000 hours and didn't make it, so it's not a cast-iron theory. I think, however, when you look at a group who has been successful... I think you always will find that amount of work in the background. But I don't think it's a rule that if you do that amount of work, you're going to be as successful as the Beatles.

I know a lot of Martial Artists who haven't got to that level after that time, and a few who have.


​

I agree, but master are masters, even if they are not superstars. Other bands put in the time and didn't get famous; but they sure are proficient players, I'd reckon.

There's no predicting who will get famous; but mastery is the goal in martial arts, I think, instead of being famous. Well, for some...

 

[jks9199]

I think there is a fallacy; all practice and training is not equal. Let me start by talking about two guys at a gym to show what I mean. The first guy comes in, does his warm up, and spends the next 45 minutes to an hour doing his workout. He may chat a little, but he's there to work out, and that's what he's going to do. The other guy? He comes in, spends that same hour or so at the gym... but he's walking around, chatting up one girl, bs-ing with another guy, and never breaks a sweat. Look at the two at the end of 3 months -- and what will you find? Their time was equal, but I doubt their results will be... In the martial arts (or any other skill), the same thing applies. Have you had people who showed up for a class or training session, and just kind of goes through the motions? You got anyone in the club who never seems to learn or really make any progress, because they're just there for an activity, and they lack real focus? Compare that to the guy who checks everything else at the door, and is so focused that they barely remember their own name during class? That's they guy who, even if he doesn't do a thing outside of class, seems to advance by leaps and bounds.

Fame? That's a whole 'nother critter entirely. You don't need to be good, you don't need talent, you need LUCK to become famous. There are plenty of incredibly good, incredibly talented, incredibly hard working folks who never become famous. Some are called session musicians... Others run martial arts schools.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think there is a fallacy; all practice and training is not equal.

No argument there.

 

[K-man]

I agree, but master are masters, even if they are not superstars. Other bands put in the time and didn't get famous; but they sure are proficient players, I'd reckon.

I'm more with jks. I know teachers who turn up week after week, year after year, teaching pretty much the same stuff they were taught 30 or 40 years ago. They teach it very well, but they personally have not developed their own understanding. They are not "Masters" regardless of rank. We often talk about someone with 10 years experience. But, is it 10 years experience or 1 year experience 10 times over? As I've said before on this forum, I've been so fortunate in my associations to meet so many people who have expanded my knowledge and understanding.

A lot of people who have been around a long time have a full cup (even some young ones new to MT :wink1. Unless you can go out with an empty cup, you will never develop beyond being an advanced beginner, even after 32 years.

:asian:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'm more with jks. I know teachers who turn up week after week, year after year, teaching pretty much the same stuff they were taught 30 or 40 years ago. They teach it very well, but they personally have not developed their own understanding. They are not "Masters" regardless of rank. We often talk about someone with 10 years experience. But, is it 10 years experience or 1 year experience 10 times over? As I've said before on this forum, I've been so fortunate in my associations to meet so many people who have expanded my knowledge and understanding.

A lot of people who have been around a long time have a full cup (even some young ones new to MT :wink1. Unless you can go out with an empty cup, you will never develop beyond being an advanced beginner, even after 32 years.

:asian:

Again, I don't disagree. However, to the original point, one year is not sufficient to gain mastery. 30+ years of "good" practice might be. So there's lots of fail here; only one way to success unless one is a prodigy. Good practice + time.

 

[K-man]

Again, I don't disagree. However, to the original point, one year is not sufficient to gain mastery. 30+ years of "good" practice might be. So there's lots of fail here; only one way to success unless one is a prodigy. Good practice + time.

But is what you mean by "Master", mastery of basic techniques or mastery of your chosen pursuit? So yes, good practice and time, but to grow you also must have ongoing input and challenge. Your point of one year being insufficient for mastery is an understatement.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But is what you mean by "Master", mastery of basic techniques or mastery of your chosen pursuit? So yes, good practice and time, but to grow you also must have ongoing input and challenge. Your point of one year being insufficient for mastery is an understatement.

Yes, again I agree. Excessive hair-splitting, but I agree.

 

[puunui]

I agree with the 10,000 hours estimate. Training seriously for 3-4 hours per day, six days per week comes out to about ten years.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I agree with the 10,000 hours estimate. Training seriously for 3-4 hours per day, six days per week comes out to about ten years.

Wish I had that kind of time!

 

[puunui]

Wish I had that kind of time!

If you had started at an early age and had parents who fully supported you, you would have have the time.

 

[jks9199]

Again, I don't disagree. However, to the original point, one year is not sufficient to gain mastery. 30+ years of "good" practice might be. So there's lots of fail here; only one way to success unless one is a prodigy. Good practice + time.

I'm not sure that I agree with the 10000 hours figure, either. A lot depends on the complexity and nature of the task, as well as the definition of mastery. I think that it's possible to develop a deep, functional, integrated understanding in a relatively short time, IF the training is sufficiently intense and focused. But that's not the same as "learning an entire art in a year" as the OP describes. Or even learning one form, and thinking that qualifies you to teach a system...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you had started at an early age and had parents who fully supported you, you would have have the time.

If a frog had wings, he would not bump his *** when he hopped.

 

[K-man]

If a frog had wings, he would not bump his *** when he hopped.

Is there something you haven't been sharing, Bill? Just for how long have you been a student of philosophy? Do I detect a hint of Confucianism? :asian:

 

[ralphmcpherson]

If you had started at an early age and had parents who fully supported you, you would have have the time.

I think if a parent "fully supports their kids", they would realise that kids have school work and other things in their life of such importance that 3-4 hours training every day 6 days a week may be over kill. My kids love martial arts and are very good at it, but I would not encourage them to spend 24 hours a week on it, unless their school grades were very good at the same time, which would be highly unlikely.

 

[oftheherd1]

I don't disagree that many schools impart a false sense of accomplishment. But when we discuss mastery, I wonder if we sometimes try to equate mastery of the entire art with mastery of a certain level. Doing that we may take away from the accomplishments of someone who can demonstrate, and feels good about, their ability at a certain level. Of course, students need to be sure they aren't doing the same.

 

[MJS]

I think there is a fallacy; all practice and training is not equal. Let me start by talking about two guys at a gym to show what I mean. The first guy comes in, does his warm up, and spends the next 45 minutes to an hour doing his workout. He may chat a little, but he's there to work out, and that's what he's going to do. The other guy? He comes in, spends that same hour or so at the gym... but he's walking around, chatting up one girl, bs-ing with another guy, and never breaks a sweat. Look at the two at the end of 3 months -- and what will you find? Their time was equal, but I doubt their results will be... In the martial arts (or any other skill), the same thing applies. Have you had people who showed up for a class or training session, and just kind of goes through the motions? You got anyone in the club who never seems to learn or really make any progress, because they're just there for an activity, and they lack real focus? Compare that to the guy who checks everything else at the door, and is so focused that they barely remember their own name during class? That's they guy who, even if he doesn't do a thing outside of class, seems to advance by leaps and bounds.

Fame? That's a whole 'nother critter entirely. You don't need to be good, you don't need talent, you need LUCK to become famous. There are plenty of incredibly good, incredibly talented, incredibly hard working folks who never become famous. Some are called session musicians... Others run martial arts schools.

Agreed! This is what I've talked about before with the serious vs. the not so serious student. Hell, I see it at the school that I'm currently at. I see people, myself included, showing up to 3+ classes a week. I also see people who show up 1 time a week. Not sure how anyone is going to advance at that rate.

Sorry, but IMHO, if you're not showing up at least twice, then whats the sense of going at all? IMO, it'll be physically impossible, even if you were going 5 times a week, to learn everything, in a short amount of time. The Mcdojos...sure, much easier, because they don't care about your process. As long as they're getting the $$$, they'll tell you you're the best thing that's ever walked thru the door.