Specialized styles or all encompassing system?

[BKR]

http://www.judocanada.org/long-term-...lopment-model/

I'm hoping I remembered it correctly, and you put that there to back me up, LOL ! Kids are not really supposed to do heavy duty weight training until 15 or 16 for boys, if memory serves...

Canada is an excellent example of a country that is developing a nation-wide program (Sports for Life) for athletic development/health of the general population, with each sport developing it's own program following the basic same principles.

But you knew that already.

[W. Rabbit]

And the percentage that can do that is tiny. So I'm not sure 10,000 hours applies to "everybody".

It really doesn't apply to anybody if you think about it, from a universal law perspective. It's really a journalist's (non-academic) theory that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

"Hours" are not a universal measurement of any sort, which is why Gladwell's "system" for expertise is so much hot air, based on his own case studies of what he considers to be "greatness" etc, as well as his conditions/opinions of success (according to him, retiring to a horse farm in the Midwest is not "success", but creating an atom bomb is. Some people may disagree).

There are plenty of people who spend their "hour" at class in outer space; their hour isn't the same as the hour of the person listening intently and taking notes etc, internalizing the training to the max. That goes for everybody, whether they train alive or dead.

It's always been that way, your grade/high school days were no different. You can't measure students by the hours they spend in school.

At 7 hours per day, 180 days per year for 12 years, you spent about 15,000 hours in school before colleges. This process creates very few "expert students".

If we replace physical education for academic, would it be any different?

[BKR]

It really doesn't apply to anybody if you think about it, from a universal law perspective. It's really a journalist's (non-academic) theory that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

"Hours" are not a universal measurement of any sort, which is why Gladwell's "system" for expertise is so much hot air, based on his own case studies of what he considers to be "greatness" etc, as well as his conditions/opinions of success (according to him, retiring to a horse farm in the Midwest is not "success", but creating an atom bomb is. Some people may disagree).

There are plenty of people who spend their "hour" at class in outer space; their hour isn't the same as the hour of the person listening intently and taking notes etc, internalizing the training to the max. That goes for everybody, whether they train alive or dead.

It's always been that way, your grade/high school days were no different. You can't measure students by the hours they spend in school.

At 7 hours per day, 180 days per year for 12 years, you spent about 15,000 hours in school before colleges. This process creates very few "expert students".

If we replace physical education for academic, would it be any different?

I agree. I didn't even bother to calculate 5 -6 days a week of judo training, multiple hours per day for 10 years.

I've practiced way more than 10,000 hours, and I wasn't in outer space,either, except for perhaps near-earth orbit from being thrown, or getting choked out...

And I'm not "expert" nor have I "mastered" Judo. Or anything else for that matter.

[W. Rabbit]

There is an old kung fu saying that applies here: "there are no great masters, only varying levels of poor".

I think it's more important to put distance between yourself and inexperience, than it is to aim or worry about what "expertise" requires, especially if it's driven solely by a desire to be recognized for it. Who the fuck knows what it requires of each person, my guess is some people are more equal than others in that regard...

I think real expertise comes from purposefully seeking out your vulnerabilities, weaknesses etc, and utterly annihilating them.

MMA is an almost flawless method for that from an MA point of view, it assails most vectors in a very realistic sense, encouraging growth. Whatever "field effectiveness" it might be missing in some format is relatively easy to supplement, whatever that might be.

In some cases an MMA gym will teach arts separately (e.g. BJJ night, MT night), which probably isn't the best for competitors, but fills a "commodity" need for the public desire for such training diversity...others will combine the arts and provide the right environment to blend skills for ammy/pro MMA, and get the experience as close to the ammy/pro rule set as possible.

[mike321]

You didn't get it. Or you are being sarcastic. If so, Bazinga !

The last part was joking! I have not digested all of your thoughts on this. However, just a quick read challenged my theory that continued dominance of specialized arts was due to inherently superior type of training. I did not think about the maturity of sports like wrestling at the youth level. As I mentioned, I still need to think about the rest of your post.

[ChenPengFi]

First paragraph would be the old Soviet Union style system in a nutshell, right ?

I agree about avoiding head trauma. That's an issue in grappling as well, especially Judo. Training has to be adjusted according to age and experience.

Blackmonk's comments in another thread come to mind.

[Raycetpfl]

I agree. I didn't even bother to calculate 5 -6 days a week of judo training, multiple hours per day for 10 years.

I've practiced way more than 10,000 hours, and I wasn't in outer space,either, except for perhaps near-earth orbit from being thrown, or getting choked out...

And I'm not "expert" nor have I "mastered" Judo. Or anything else for that matter.

If you trained 2 hours a day , 6 days a week, for 10 years that's 6240 hours.

[W. Rabbit]

If you trained 2 hours a day , 6 days a week, for 10 years that's 6240 hours.

More accurately, "sets of 60 minute intervals BKR has spent training", and 6,300 hours can be just as good as 10,000, if you keep in mind you can lag in between training and effectively reverse your progress, making all such measurements meaningless.

The # of hours you've trained is relatively useless number UNLESS you are in to keeping count of that sort of thing...

All that really matters is how well you are trained today, not how well you were trained over the last 10,000 hours.

[1point2]

First paragraph would be the old Soviet Union style system in a nutshell, right ?

I think so. Plus a fair bit of coercion, I hear. Around my neck of the woods in the States, we get a similar effect with most kids by accident: peewee soccer, karate for a couple years, then track or volleyball or wrestling or football in high school, et cetera. Some people switch on their own.

In any case, the general development of physical attributes is what counts. Otherwise, elite level performance will not follow.

Absolutely. I really hope that people reading this thread hear this point: early specialization, particularly for children, is enormously counterproductive to success in sport.

[W. Rabbit]

Absolutely. I really hope that people reading this thread hear this point: early specialization, particularly for children, is enormously counterproductive to success in sport.

You have a source for that bold claim, of course.

I know you didn't just make your opinion seem like a fact, without some serious evidence.

I'm particularly interested in your data/statistics on this subject, since I have a kid specializing right now, and you'll have to pull quite a rabbit out of your hat to convince me it's counterproductive to future success in anything.

[ChenPengFi]

Lol, do some homework wabbit, ffs...

Research supports the recommendation that child athletes avoid early sports specialization. Those who participate in a variety of sports and specialize only after reaching the age of puberty tend to be more consistent performers, have fewer injuries, and adhere to sports play longer than those who specialize early.15

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...106/1/154.full

The same thing applies to academics.

[Raycetpfl]

You have a source for that bold claim, of course.

I know you didn't just make your opinion seem like a fact, without some serious evidence.

I'm particularly interested in your data/statistics on this subject, since I have a kid specializing right now, and you'll have to pull quite a rabbit out of your hat to convince me it's counterproductive to future success in anything.

Yea.... I don't care enough about the subject to argue one way or the other. I will just keep doing what I think is right for my family and me . Here are some people that have specialized from a young age
Roger gracie
Mckenzie Dern
The Manning bros
Ken Griffy Jr
Zak maxwell bjj
Wayne Gretzky
Tiger Woods
I am sure there are more but I feel that is enough to make my point. I suppose you could find some names that make another point too.
Ultimately there isnt an exact formula for success in a physical activity . I think the important thing to remember is just to work hard and enjoy the things that you love. the real key to success? Enjoying the journey and finding fulfillment.

[ChenPengFi]

Yea.... I don't care enough about the subject to argue one way or the other. I will just keep doing what I think is right for my family and me . Here are some people that have specialized from a young age
Roger gracie
Mckenzie Dern
The Manning bros
Ken Griffy Jr
Zak maxwell bjj
Wayne Gretzky
Tiger Woods
I am sure there are more but I feel that is enough to make my point. I suppose you could find some names that make another point too.
Ultimately there isnt an exact formula for success in a physical activity . I think the important thing to remember is just to work hard and enjoy the things that you love. the real key to success? Enjoying the journey and finding fulfillment.

LOL, the guy quoting "Outliers" is using outliers to make a general point...

[W. Rabbit]

Lol, do some homework wabbit, ffs...

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...106/1/154.full

The same thing applies to academics.

I asked him, not you, to defend his claim, but fine.

Explain:

- BKR and 1point2 were discussing "the general development of physical attributes", but your quote is specifically from the section on "PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT", and it cites this book "From Childhood to Champion Athlete" (http://www.amazon.com/Childhood-Cham.../dp/0969755716). I know who Tudor Bompa is and what Periodization Theory is, but I question just how much "research" his book involved, or whether it's largely anecdotal.

- Any chance you've actually read Bompa's book and can give us a first-hand detail?

- Even if we accept that single study as best evidence, how as 1point2 put it, how can you claim it is "enormously counterproductive" to train anything for any particular child, when situations and environments are different in EVERY single case. Again, you posted the PSYCHO SOCIAL aspects, and here's the part you left out, which suggests less of a PHYSICAL issue, than a stress/burnout/mental one.

Considerable research has addressed anxiety and stress that affect children who engage in competitive sports but little data exist about the effects of more intense or sustained training on young athletes. Anecdotal reports suggest risks of “burnout” from physical and emotional stress, missed social and educational opportunities, and disruptions of family life. Unrealistic parental expectations and/or exploitation of young athletes for extrinsic gain can contribute to negative psychological consequences for elite young athletes.

[ChenPengFi]

...and the strawmen start marching!

Your penchant for misquoting and misrepresenting is shameless.