Jump to content
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Recommended Posts

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Posted

the same amount of time it takes a person to be a good mechanic, or a good mathematician. Good is a highly subjective term. How proficient a person is at any given subject will be directly related to how much effort is given toward mastery of that subject.

That being said, I don't think a person can outright claim that you can be a good boxer after (X) amount of time.

An example: I have been training in the martial arts for the last 13 years. Do I consider myself good? Sure, but what is my basis for comparison? What is my control? Somebody who never trains? Somebody who dabbles?

Further than that, in my 13 years of training, have I mastered it? Of course not...I learn daily how little I actually know. Now, the persons that I consider masters of my art I would think of as being 'good.' Am I of their caliber? Again, of course not, but I still think I'm good...however, in comparison to them, I am inept. So, you have to consider the huge variability of the measurement 'good.'

When a man's fortunate time comes, he meets a good friend;

When a man has lost his luck, he meets a beautiful woman.


-anonymous

Posted

Depends on how you consider good. Then it depends on how athletic and quickly you learn. After a year of training I was able to beat guys who were bigger and stronger then me, however, they were never trained to fight. Beating your average joe and being good are two diffrent things, well depending on your definition of good. Just stick with it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...