How Much Time?

[MJS]

In another thread on training in multiple styles, the question came up of whether or not one can learn effective skills in a short amount of time. So, if someone were to train in TKD for 5 months, would they learn enough to be effective? What about Kenpo? What about Krav Maga?

Now, if we look at an art like Krav Maga, we will see something that is billed as an effective art, with skills that can be learned in a short amount of time, and remembered with little practice. Why? Because many of the techniques are similar in nature. For example: A 2 hand choke. The initial defense for this choke, regardless of it being from the front, rear or side, is the same. One doesn't have to think, in the heat of the moment, "Ok...I'm being choked. Where is the attack? Ok, I know its from the front. Ok...which defense am I going to do?" Again, the initial defense is the same regardless. The idea as far as I can see, is keeping things simple, yet effective.

Now, for the record, my experience with Krav is limited compared to some others, so what I said above is not just my words, but the words that I've also heard from others.

I've also heard similar remarks about Paul Vunak and his R.A.T. system that he has. Simple effective moves designed to teach you how to be effective in a short amount of time.

So, enough ranting for now. To get on with the question: Is it possible to learn effective skills in a given art in a short amount of time?

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

I think it depends on the teacher and the amount of time a student puts into learning and practicing the art. For example I studied jujutsu in America and for the first few months I felt as if I did not learn much. However when I went to Japan to train I learned more in the 3 months of practice than I did in the few months in America. Reason being 1. The teacher taught in a very detailed oriented manner. 2. I practice the techniques with a partner on off time. I also think there is obviously a difference between effective basis in an art vs depth, fine tuning, and theory. An example may be Boxing which you can learn a stance and the one two combo you will have perhaps a greater effect than someone who does not know how to box. Learning depth of the art such as timing distancing etc may take a bit longer to perfect. The fine tuning of making your jabs fast and tight making sure your stance is correct and knowing how to creat combos.
The theory of the art knowing the odds and ends of it in which the idea of a jab can be used to measure distance or to add to another punch.

 

[YoungMan]

Learn techniques? Yes. Learn an art well enough to be effective? Nope. An art like Tae Kwon Do is so complex and demanding that 5 months is nowhere near enough time to become proficient in it. The most you could attain is perhaps 7th gup, and I doubt anyone here would classify a 7th gup as proficient.
The most you could do is learn several techniques from an art and practice those for 5 months. Then you might be proficient in them. But that's not the same as being proficient in an art. That's like learning several words and phrases from a language.
And unless you learn the underlying dynamics and principles behind those techniques, it would be very difficult to make them work for you. That's why I dislike teaching self defense techniques to non-TKD students. Unless you actually practice, it will be very difficult to make them work for you.

 

[7starmarc]

I think that it also depends on your definition of effective, and effective against who?

Many techniques are effective. I've seen little of Krav Maga myself, but what I have seen still relies on two components - the defense and the counterstrike. Getting the defense down may be easier than getting the offensive component requires more practice. Some may be happy in avoiding the brunt of the damage of the incoming attack. Others would not be satisfied unless the complete technique (including counterstrike) is executed.

Also, if you do not practice a technique, it will be much less effective against a skilled/experienced fighter. I think it's pretty safe to say that an unexperienced fighter is easier to block and easier to execute on than a well developed fighter.

 

[LawDog]

Learning physical preset patterns can be done, not mastered, in a short time. What does take a long period of time is understanding the tactical application of these presets and their proper application during various situations.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

You can learn things in a short period of time and definately improve your skills. However, if you do not have on going training then those skills will probably not be there for you when you need them.

 

[terryl965]

You can learn things in a short period of time and definately improve your skills. However, if you do not have on going training then those skills will probably not be there for you when you need them.

Very well said Brian

 

[shesulsa]

An 18-month-old toddler can walk - much better than when s/he was 12 months. But s/he cannot walk with anywhere near the expertise a four-year-old can. A four-year old - with three years walking experience can run, jump, maybe hop and skip ... but not like an 8-year-old.

Now ... a person with lots of experience walking, should they lose their ability to walk temporarily, will re-learn faster. Someone who can already walk well can learn how to skip.

If a martial artist already has, say, 10 years experience in another art, they may learn the basics and underlying general theory of a second art and successive others much faster though NOT master it. Along the same theory, I'd say someone with 20 years experience may be able to master a second art in a much shorter time span than someone who started with the art brand new.

On-going training, however, is a must for these to really stick.

There are others (very few) who have been training since childhood and are 30 and 40 year veterans who have cross-trained much and I think are just born to do this and grasp arts much quicker, know what works and what doesn't, know what's a training tool versus what is a street tool, combat tool, etcetera.

 

[tellner]

You can learn to be a brain surgeon in ten years. This is not brain surgery. For example, a decent Thai boxer with a couple year's experience can go through most martial artists like grass through a goose. Hell, after a couple years in the ring he's ready to retire. Kano Sensei had teaching certificates in several old styles of martial arts by the time he was in his twenties. A wrestler with four years in high school and four in college hasn't spent too little time to be in the Olympics. The US Marine Corps can turn someone into a highly trained professional warrior, the functional equal of the samurai, European chivalry and so on in a matter of months. There's always more you can learn, but it's a logistic curve rather than a ramp. After you hit a certain point on the ramp more progress takes a lot more time and effort. By then you've probably gotten the important parts of the system if you ever will. If it took twenty or thirty years to develop useful skill nobody would ever have bothered. If the essentials can't be mastered in a few years the system would either never have been developed or would be a curiosity, not a real combative practice.

 

[thardey]

Useful against who?

Trained? Untrained? Same system? Different System? Well Rounded? Specific?

Old armies would be made of a large range of people (using Europe as my example). In a battle, all the men in the territory would fight. So you had a bunch of peasants (armed with farming tools), some soldiers (armed with cheap weapons), a few knights/swordsmen, a lord or two, and maybe a king.

From most of what I've seen, "effective styles" (although that is limited) basically can elevate someone from "peasant class" to "soldier class." That is, you're more likely to defeat someone who only has their instincts to rely on.

That takes care of a large cross-section of people (including the ones who get their "training" from watching kung-fu movies and youtube.) I figure about 60% of the fighting population (not including those who are likely to never fight).

However, "soldier class" is still canon fodder. You're not really "valuable" as a fighter. So then you have the "swordsman class" of fighter, who can defeat most soldiers (25% or so), and most peasants (Total of 85%). Then there's the "warrior class (10%)", the "master class (5%)", etc, (I just made these up, if you couldn't tell, but you get the point.) Like tellner said, it's a curve, not a ramp. Each class takes a lot more training to advance (and usually money). Plus, as you move "up" the classes, each class you beat is a smaller cross-section of people.

Eventually you hit a personal point of diminishing returns. At this point, "self-defense" training stops, and learning for the "art" begins. You begin learning for your own sake, and not for the sake of defeating others.

I think for the most part, people consider black belt to be the initiation into the "swordsman class" that is, you could probably hold your own against "basic training" type soldiers, and the "peasant class" of fighters. Whether that's true or not . . . well that's another thread.

Me? I figure there's still a lot of black-belt level people out there that I may have to deal with some day, so I have to learn to deal with them. There's not a lot of "masters" (say, 5th degree BB) that are likely to attack me in a self-defense scenario. So if I train at that level, it's for sport.

 

[still learning]

Hello, The answers would be "YES" to learn a few skills to fight back and defend yourself.

Women in rape prevention class can learn a few things in ONE night and be able to use those self-defense skills the very next day.

Most people can punch and kick? ....to poke someone eyes or smash their noses or hit the groin....will not take a life time to learn and to do it!

Most people with no martial art skills can still fight back.....not as good as a train person.

How much time one needs to learn a few good skills.....very little...to be really effective...maybe longeR?

Learning self-defense should not be a long process....

In daughters high school wreslting? ...it will take a few weeks for the beginners to learn the basic's....at the end of the season...most of the beginners...got the major points of wrestling (three months)...off course to be real good will take a little longer! Sprawing is learning real quickly by all!

Remember all you need a few good self-defense skills to escape and run?

How long does it take to learn "running"? ...escaping?

If one forcus on learning what to hit? (tarkets)...then the tools will come automatic!

For soldiers in the army, basic training is two months, AIT, is about 6 months...than you are ready for COMBAT....most soldiers are ready for WAR! in less than a year!

Police officers is less than a years training before becoming a Police officer and they must handle and takedown supects!

To learn to use a gun is less than a day...to become proficient... may take years.

To learn to block and counter? ...anyone can learn to do this in one day...to know when to use this may take more time!

Aloha ( for the slower learners....all you will need is more time)

PS: Oh!to learn to open a coconut? ...takes a few minutes to learn...once learn...you can do it any time.

Many people can learn to drive a car in a week...yet many who being driving for years...still do not know how?

 

[Sanchin-J]

I think Brian said it best, but I'd like to add in a little perspective as well. In my experience as a Law Enforcement Officer, we learned several techniques that took little to no time to quickly become efficient in, is this to say we had mastered them? No. But, we were able to execute them easily after a few short weekly sessions. I was especially fond of the wrist locks, pressure points and take downs we learned, and believe me, they do work quite well and have been used effectively by the department.

Now saying that, you really cannot judge the "time" it would take to be effective using techniques from multiple styles in my opinion. Some things are straight forward ie a kick to the groin, elbow, punch to the nose, while other things require a much more in depth understanding of the technique. This is why we train like we do in Sanchin-Ryu, you have to learn and refine the basics before you get into advanced technique and strategy, knowing what to throw to open an opponent up for a multitude of other things and knowing exactly what compromises you'll make in the process are lessons that can only truly be learned by prolonged study and practice. How much time could it take? Depends on the style really and how they teach, some styles don't truly get into advanced content until you've been well primed for Black Belt, then your education truly begins.

 

[JWLuiza]

I think most are hitting the point pretty well. MMA learning curve is so much smaller than a TMA because the focus is on basic techniques and conditioning. That's 80-95% of any conflict right there. You don't need 5+ years to fight, it ain't brain surgery (love that!). But, most of us aren't here to JUST learn to fight, but to master an art, so that's where time in practice becomes important.

I know somoene who focused on MMA training for 6mo-1yr could give me a run for my money (ok, maybe even kick my keister) and I'm 16 years in training 6'7" and 250 lbs.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Is it possible to learn effective skills in a given art in a short amount of time?

I would have yes, but this is coming from personal experience. In only a few months after I started my training I had to defend myself at a local bar. Now more than likely I would have been able to so without the training but I like to think that the training helped me out.

But I do not think that only those few months of training would have been that effective if say the guy was not intoxicated and/or if had a weapon. While we learn weapon defenses at lower ranks it take a long time to get the body movement, and reaction times right to completely avoid danger. I know for a fact that if we were using real knives in class Id have been dead along time ago

B

 

[Xue Sheng]

it possible to learn effective skills in a given art in a short amount of time?

Maybe, it depends on what you consider effective, what style you are talking about and the person's dedication to training

You can learn things in a short period of time and definately improve your skills. However, if you do not have on going training then those skills will probably not be there for you when you need them.

Agreed

 

[Christina05]

You can learn things in a short period of time and definately improve your skills. However, if you do not have on going training then those skills will probably not be there for you when you need them.

Very well stated and so true

 

[SageGhost83]

It all depends on the individual. Some people learn and "pick it up" faster than others. There are those who can take something and make it effective within 5 months, and there are some who can train an entire lifetime and not be effective or only be marginally effective. I have never really put a timeline on effectiveness because different people are going to "click" at different times. However, learning an art, now that takes many years and for a variety of reasons. First, you are learning an entire body of work at the pace that the instructor decides to teach and test you. Second, he/she may not teach you anything beyond a few basics to get your feet wet within the first 6 months of training and those basics may not be sufficient enough to constitute a well-rounded toolset with which to work from. This is more of an issue with the school and the instructor, though. My old sensei used to say "if you want to hurt somebody or defend yourself, then why are you taking karate? You can just go out and get a weapon to do that!" It really made me think, and well, if your goal is to be effective within a relatively short amount of time, then perhaps the martial arts are not the best place to look for that effectiveness (at least not the traditional martial arts). There are better ways to gain that effectiveness, perhaps purchasing a weapon or learning self-defense and/or combatives from the local police or military personel. They may become suspicious, and rightly so, they may wonder exactly why you want to become that effective in such a short amount time in the first place. I also agree with Youngman - there is no way that you can learn an art and become effective at using it within 5 months, there is just too much to learn within an art for that approach to work. Different people learn at different speeds, but the sheer amount of stuff contained within an entire art coupled with the pace at which you are brought along by the instructor would make it impossible to accomplish such a thing in such a short period of time. There is more to it than just techniques.

 

[MJS]

Sorry I neglected this thread. As far as the question goes...yes, IMHO, I think that you can, and should be able to learn effective things in a short amount of time. However, as Brian said, you still need to have constant training to ga back to. Can someone go to a 1 day, 8hr SD course and learn something? Sure. But, considering whats taught is the basic of the basic material, you need something to continue to re-enforce what you learned.

Now, even if you come from a TMA, I still think that you shouldn't have to spend 10yrs before you actually 'get it', but instead, within a short period of time, be able to grasp the basic punching, kicking, and some techniques.

IMO, I think what draws alot of people to arts like KM and many of the RBSD people in general, is not so much what they're teaching, but how they're teaching. If we look at whats taught, chances are, it'll be very similar to what we see in many arts, such as Kenpo, TKD, etc. But its the way its taught. Are you having someone stand like a statue, training the same thing over and over, 1,000 times, or are you putting them in an effective stance, adding in some movement and giving them a more realistic feel? After all, in a fight, we don't stand still.

Now, this is not me knocking TMAs. Ive trained in Kenpo, which could be considered a TMA. But, I feel that its the way things are taught. The study of an art can take a lifetime, so even with something like KM, there is a ton of stuff to learn. I'm just saying that the road to get there, shouldnt necessarily be that long.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think most are hitting the point pretty well. MMA learning curve is so much smaller than a TMA because the focus is on basic techniques and conditioning.

I'm gonna object a little too this, MMA is not simply a focus on basic techniques, it has a incredible amount of depth to it. If you look at the technical skills of the top guys in the sport they are simply amazing in their depth of understanding about minor details.

But regardless, I think it's more about what you do in training, in a MMA class, within a few months you are likely going to be sparring pretty hard, with very few rules. Conditioning is going to play a big part of it, you are going to get hit, get thrown, submitted and generally beat up a little, and you are going to be doing it back.

Just like swimming, once you get tossed in the water you gain some basic skills pretty quick, then fine tune them for years. MMA likes to toss people in the water early, while some traditional styles tend to focus on theory and technique for quite some time before diving in.

The same sort of differences in approach do exist in swimming instruction as well. You could spend a good deal of time in shallow water, working kicking up against the wall, or stroke patterns with someone supporting you. Lots of use with flutter boards and other buoyancy devices that let you learn form before worrying about staying above water. Who knows, maybe with enough time you would become an amazing swimmer, but until you dive in to the deep end you don't get that sudden jump in the learning curve. MMA usually puts that jump in really early, Traditional styles often leave it for later.