kusojiji

You had a Samoyed? The best dogs!

I disagree. The fencer isn't stupid. And he will pick all of it up faster than the kid who didn't do squat growing up. Has nothing to do with intelligence. And I agree, he will be better off than the couch potato, however, you are shifting your argument. A kid who is athletic but dabbles in many things has to learn to control his body in many different ways. Whether he achieves excellence in any of his "dabbles", he will still be better able to pick up another sport than someone that has intensively trained in one sport for a long time will be able to break out of his training. Aodhan I continue to disagree. The dabbler will almost invariably be a much less athletic individual and will therefore have a more shallow reserve of talent to draw from.

You know that's been tried out before, right? What was the name of that...?

If I can choose between having a knife-weilding attacker squaring off with me from a couple of feet away, or have positional control of him and his arms from a grappling position, I know which one I'd choose, 'cause I know which one was easier for me in the past.

so is not learning how to fight on the ground, getting blindsided by a punch then flailing like a fish out of water while you are viciously held down and beaten... It's unfair to make a sweeping generalization like that. Are there alot of times when it a bad idea to go to the ground? yes. Are there times when you have no choice? yes. Are there times when it's a good idea? yes. Great post!

This attitude seems to be much more prevalent in the West than in China in my experience.

I disagree. The fencer isn't stupid. And he will pick all of it up faster than the kid who didn't do squat growing up.

I fail to see any logic in the assumption that athletic people would have more trouble learning something athletic. It depends on the level of the athlete, and how adaptable they are. If you have someone that spends 15 years learning a specific sport, and then they try to learn a completely different sport, they may have trouble getting their old patterns and muscle memory retrained. They will nonetheless still have far, far greater athletic ability than someone who has done nothing, right? Doing nothing doesn't make you better at anything. And I submit to you that someone who has achieved a high level in any one sport is likely to be a naturally gifted athlete. More so than someone who has done a little of this and a little of that. And again, greater athletic ability cannot but be an advantage in an athletic endeavor.

I'd be careful with the "wrap your arms around him" part. If you are that close he is either already in too deep or you are getting too high.

'Traditionally' there have always been both slower and fast sets.

I fail to see any logic in the assumption that athletic people would have more trouble learning something athletic.