Being smart

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*  Your examples are still flawed.

1.  Cake Example.  Paraphrasing you, you said that studying won't guarantee that a person can bake a cake.  But guess what?  Spending time in the kitchen without a recipe also won't guarantee that a person can bake a cake.  The example doesn't support you. 

2.  Cake Example Part 2.  Even in your hypothetical situation, the example does not support you.  It doesn't even matter how much time you want to give.  The person who studied the recipe and baking techniques has a better chance of baking a better cake.  Person A studies for an hour.  Person B has an hour in the kitchen.  They bake in the following hour.  Both cakes may not be good, but which one do you think is going to be better?  The example doesn't support your claim even if we don't move time forward.  If we move time forward, then Person A will just get better.  Person B can figure it out, but it may be tedious. 

3.  Gun Example.  Whether you want to set a time or keep time continuous, it doesn't really support you.  There may be a window of time that supports you, but it is small.  Once again, Person A studies how to shoot for an hour.  Person B plays with the gun for an hour.  The test is at the start of the 2nd hour.  It is not a guarantee that Person B will win. 

4.  The Fight Example.  How do you think you will have done against your friend in a taekwando tournament?  You are comparing two different things.  There are probably many people who can beat a boxer in a fight, but they probably can't beat the boxer in a boxing match. 

5.  You wrote, "One who studies but has never attempted something, may not do as well as someone who constantly attempts but fails."  That may be true, but guess what else is true?  "One who constantly attempts and fails may not do as well as someone who has studied."

6.  You wrote, "You can study all you want. If you never experienced it, your chance of success will be very slim compared to someone who has constantly experienced it but failed."  Unfortunately, you fail to look at the converse of your statement.  "You can constantly trial and error all you want, but if you never studied it, your chance of success will be very slim."  The Cake Example and the The Gun Example displays the same flaw in logic. 

Unfortunately, you don't seem to get it. 

You're missing the whole point of the examples I used. My examples are not flawed or invalid because I never stated that they are about moving forward. You're example was about moving forward.

This is what I said initially

That's what all my examples were pointing towards. My point was not about practice makes perfect or perfect practice.
It's about. I can read/watch something as much as I want, If i do not do it, I lack the experience of actually doing it, thus the results may be unsatisfactory .

that is why they are valid. It proves that point.

Not about progression.

so the cake example is valid depending on time and practice as I explained. if they are given several days to prepare. one spends the entire time reading while the other one spends the entire time baking cakes.  leverage goes to the one baking the cake because the one reading has never baked a cake.  it doesn't guarantee that one will be better, but the one with experience will have a better chance due to having baking experience. (assuming they both are given the directions and the recipe to bake the cake).

The gun example. That is not what I said. You see. all my examples minus the fighting has to do with a set time like a test. that is what I was pointing towards. down the road. yes. the one reading the recipe, the one studying the gun, and even the former friend will become better.  but at that time of the "test". they wouldn't be better because of experience. My fighting example was not to say I was a better fighter, far from it. I'm probably the most shittiest "fighter" there is.  But the example was to say, just because he's a red belt, just because he knows martial arts, just because he's been taught self defense, that doesn't mean anything when he meets someone and fights for the first time on the street.  It was never about me. It was never about how good I was (i can't fight for shit).  It was about how my former friend was a red belt and he thought he was the sh!t and could take on anyone in the streets because of however well he did in the dojo. he knows form, he knows how to punch correctly, how to kick, weak points, but he lacked the one thing I had. experience with a real street fight.  Sure i got my ass kicked on numerous occasions, but i had a better knowledge of fighting where he had no knowledge of it. I'm not comparing martial arts to street fighting. I'm comparing one who studies but never experienced it vs one who has never studied but has the experience. the edge goes to the one with experience. it doesn't guarantee that person will do better. they just have better odds as shown in all my examples.

cooking and shooting a gun is hard to debate. especially shooting a gun. if you've never shot a gun, it doesn't matter how much you read or watch videos on it.  if you've never shot it, you'll have a hard time shooting for the first time depending on the gun because you aren't familiar with it since, all guns are fixed a certain way. how you hold it. it's centering. bullet type. recoil. etc. you can read and know these things. but you can't obtain experience on aiming or recoil from just looking or reading, you need to feel it.
MMA isn't the best example for martial arts comparisons since just about anyone can win with a lucky punch, accidental eye poke, groin kick, ref error leading to a victory ( Kimbo was a shitty fighter anyway).  Sakuraba vs Royce Gracie. Gracie was an experienced veteran in MMA, arguably one of the all time greats. Had several years more experience, a couple more fights. he had special rules created specifically to gear it in his favor. he still loss. 


You missed my point entirely. yes my essay was rather confusing. but the very first cake example points towards the point I was trying to make.
One who studies but has never attempted something, may not do as well as someone who constantly attempts but fails.
It's taking the notion that one person wants to study study study and nail it on the first try.  While the other person will keep doing trial and error, trial and error.
If we gave them the same set time (a week or longer). the one that did the trial and error has a better chance because of experience compared to the one that studied but never attempted because he wants to nail it on the first try.

A shorter way of saying it is.
You can study all you want. If you never experienced it, your chance of success will be very slim compared to someone who has constantly experienced it but failed. the gun analogy proves this point, the fight analogy proves this point. the cake analogy proves this point.

Now do you get it?

We are talking about two different things.  You are talking about potential and what someone can become (practice makes perfect). I am talking about experience w/no studying vs no experience w/t studying.

[bulbasaur]

You still are not getting the point that your examples do not support your claim.  Your claim may be true, but your examples are not.  Your examples are null. 

1.  Cake Example.  It's true that studying a recipe without kitchen experience won't guarantee success.  However, spending time in the kitchen without recipe won't guarantee success either.  Null. 

2.  Gun Example.  It's true that only studying how to shoot won't guarantee success.  However, goofing around with a gun won't guarantee success either.  Null. 

3.  Basketball Example.  Studying tape alone won't get you on the team.  However, going out onto a court with a ball without knowing any of the rules won't get you on the team either. 

4.  Your Fight Example.  That is just a completely wrong example because you compared two different things. 

If anything, the examples go against you. 

A. Cake Example.  The person with the recipe has a better chance of baking a better cake during your proposed "test time."

B. Gun Example.  There is no guarantee on who wins this one.  There are a lot of variables. 

C. Basketball Example.  The person who studied the game might actually win; let's call him Person A.  The person goofing off on the court with a ball, let's call him Person B, may simply lose by not knowing the rules.  Of course, you can argue that Person B plays actual games with other people.  However, that would then mean it is no longer a controlled experiment because that Person B is technically "studying" as well; he is being taught how to play by other people.  If Person B is allowed to be taught by other people, then Person A should be allowed a court and ball and no people.  All of a sudden, the match-up can be close. 

D. Fight Example.  Well, we know how flawed that example is.  You already want to drop that argument. 

And since we are talking about basketball, let's actually look at real basketball players.  There are two players, a streetballer and a coached baller.  Both players can make it to the NBA.  However, why is it that a coached baller can surpass a streetballer when the streetballer has much more court experience?  Studying makes a difference. 

Your points are at best null, or they actually go against your claim.  Experience is important, but your examples do not illustrate that. 

You still are not getting my point.
I'm talking about the edge, more likely to win, not guaranteed. nothing is ever guaranteed.
Stop talking about me being in taekwondo tournaments. that is irrelevant.
It's about studying vs doing

Just put yourself in the shoes.
You can study Kobe or MJ shoot. you can watch Allen Iverson dribble the ball. You can watch videos of coaches telling you how to shoot and dribble.
Vs someone else shooting and dribbling.

The edge will go to the person shooting an dribbling. Otherwise, I can watch videos and study for 20 years, go out, challenge a streetballer, play by nba rules. and win.
But that won't happen. there is a very low probability that I will win.  Even if we play by nba rules on a nba court. I won't have the edge, because even though he didn't study like I did, he's played it.

If you don't believe me. try it out for yourself. I've seen it time and time again. someone studying and watching games thinking they got this. go for tryouts and get laughed at.

------
To put it simply.
You study basketball for 5 years (without playing) while someone else plays basketball for 5 years.
Who is more likely to make it onto a high school prep team? I'll give you a hint. it's not you.

Study for as many years as you want. the one playing will have the edge since you've never played.

Or do you disagree and you think the person studying will have a better chance?

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*  You should really try to be more concise.  Moreover, it's becoming absurd that you don't see the error in logic.  You are making null statements, or you are changing the argument.  Let's look at your BOLD.  It still doesn't support you. 

1.  Cake Example.  Even if you give both persons the recipe, it does not guarantee that the person with more time in the kitchen will be more successful, either during a prepared test or in the long run.  The physical component of baking is not so great that a person needs muscle memory.  If anything, the more studied person might even have more of an advantage.  This is a null argument because the success of either individual is not guaranteed, and the chance of success might be similar. 

2.  Gun Example.  Even with a "bare minimum knowledge," this is no guarantee that the person with more time will be more successful, either during a prepared test or in the long run.  This is another null argument. 

3.  Basketball Example.  Why would the streetballer have an edge?  There are a lot of streetballers with more physical talent and more court time than some NBA players.  You are just making up "facts" and passing them off as opinion.  Even I have beaten a streetballer with more talent and who plays more than me.  How?  I simply have more knowledge of the game.  This is another null argument. 

4.  The Fight Example.  If you don't understand the difference between a real fight and a martial arts competition, then you are truly lost.  If what you propose is true, then you should be able to go into a taekwando tournament and beat him.  Maybe you can, but somehow I doubt that. 

A.  Refer back to 1.  Even with the recipe, it's not a definite success for either one.  Neither one can be predicted to produce the better cake on the first test.  Null.

B.  It is about edge, and it's not a fact that an edge will favor either.  Null.

C.  It's only fair if both are given the opposite counterparts.  That is why choosing 1 vs. 1 is not a fair test.  The people who the guy plays against are "teaching" him.  If he is allowed to be taught, then the other guy should also be allowed to be taught by someone.  Either way you look at it, the end result doesn't favor either one.  There is no advantage in a controlled setting.  Null.

D.  The Fight Example Part 2.  You wrote, "When he fought me.  It wasn't taekwondo vs street fighting. no, it was him vs me. street fighter vs street fighter.  So yes, it is a valid comparison."  First, if we take what you wrote is true, then his "study" in taekwando has no influence, which nullifies your argument....ag ain.  Second, why would it be a valid comparison if you aren't using his background?  Clearly, you have a better street fighting background.  Third, do you really believe you would have the same success in a taekwando tournment?  Doubtful.  Null. 

1A.  Going back to the basketball example...Stre etballer has more time playing, Coached Player spends less time playing and more time studying.  1 on 1, who is going to win?  You can't really say, can you?  Null.

Your biggest flaw is that you fail to see how your statements are all null.  They are all filled with assumptions.  They are filled with things that can not be proven.  There are other ways to achieve the same success.  If anything, there are other ways to achieve the same success faster.  You wrote,

Experience gives the edge.  doesn't guarantee a win. but it gives the edge.

Point proven. Experience gives the edge.

Guess what? 

Knowledge gives the edge.  doesn't guarantee a win, but it gives the edge.

Point proven.  Knowledge gives the edge.

Your argument is so incredibly flimsy that anyone can literally substitute the opposite into your argument for a rebuttal.  If that doesn't show that your argument is a null argument, then I don't know what would.   



I am not going to bother with your football examples.  You should just try to defend your already seriously flawed examples. 

Look. read this part carefully. You are skipping a very important thing I said when it comes to the cake and gun examples.

You keep assuming they know absolutely nothing. it's obvious if someone don't know how to bake a cake and you just hand them a bag of sugar, eggs, and whatnot. of course they won't be able to bake a cake.  That is not up for debate because they have no clue what they are doing.

But as I've stated. with the cake. they both know nothing but have instructions on how to bake the cake. one just chose to study it while one jumps right into baking with the instructions. Lets say, in the time one studied it, the other made 10 cakes. some looking really bad. some tasting really bad. this gives him the edge because he is atleast familiar with the process.

When it came to the gun. they both were taught how to use the gun. not proficiently. but the bare minimum. safety, shooting, and reloading.
Of course if you don't know how to operate the weapon. of course, no matter what you do, you won't be able to do anything with it.

you missed these 2 key points so of course, if these 2 points were excluded. of course it would be invalid. but it's not so it still is valid.

3. You are missing the big point. it's not about guarantee. it's about the edge. the better chances.  or are you disagreeing with me that the person with streetball experience does not have the edge?
he's not guaranteed in. but he has a better chance. to what degree is questionable. but he has a better chance.

4. how so? it's still fighting knowledge. he can still use his taekwondo experience to his advantage. it gives him the better edge because he knows hand to hand combat vs me who don't know it at all. one person has training in fighting. one person doesn't have any training in fighting. that's what we are looking at.  we're not looking at a boxer going into mma or a wrestler going into mma.  we're talking about someone with some knowledge of self defense vs another person with little to no self defense knowledge. so it is valid.

---------------
A. you missed my key point. you assume one person was given the recipe, the other was just given tools. of course in this sense the one with the recipe would do better.  if you hand someone a bunch of metal scraps and a mig welding machine and say, i want you to weld these two pieces together. OF COURSE he wouldn't be able to do it. he has no clue what it is.
But if you give him and the other person the bare minimum knowledge on how to put it together, one studies while the other practices welding then he has the chance of obtaining a better edge due to experience.

You keep assuming one person is given instructions and the other is just given supplies when it comes to the cake example.  obviously if one person is given instructions and the other has none. obviously, they would be at a disadvantage. they didn't even start off on the same foot to begin with.  One is given a major advantage here.  so your argument is invalid because i clearly stated that they were both given instructions on how to bake the cake, but you keep saying that only one is given instructions.

B. I just said that it's not guaranteed. its about the edge. why do you keep talking about guaranteed win when I keep saying, edge, better chances.

C. Then how would that be fair? if person A gets to watch say, Megatron go up against Richard Sherman or Allen Iverson go up against Michael Jordan.  How is it fair to say Person B can only play with himself but person A can watch 2 opposing sides go at it? It would only be fair if Person A only watches a video of say Peyton Manning throwing the ball to nobody or Kobe shooting the ball by himself.  If you let one see the offense and defense, the other should be able to see it too. otherwise it'd be unfair.

Letting one study games and practice with the ball gives him an advantage. that is entirely not a fair experiment.

If we go into specifics.

Wide Receiver -
Person A watches Dez Bryant make awesome catches. or watches a receiver at the NFL combine.
Person B practices catching the ball.
edge goes to person B because of experience. it doesn't matter how poor his catching skills are.  he has more experience working with his butterfingers than person A is and there is a low probability Person A can even make those kind of catches that Dez Bryant makes to begin with, let alone his own butterfingers. Make it just basic catches, it's still the same thing.
You can't just expect to walk on the court and think you will be able to catch anything thrown at you. or expect to be able to throw something.

QB -
this one is debateable unless there is both a QB and receiver in comparison. 
If person A watches someone throw a football into a hanging tire while person B throws the ball into the tire.
Edge goes to person B, slightly. but if they are throwing to a reciever. it favors person B by a longshot because he's familiar with throwing to a moving target.

Runningback -
this one is a moot point because there would be no opposition to run at. if there is then the edge again goes to person B because he has time to practice doing spins and jukes.

your counter examples for cake and basketball is more flawed then what you are claiming my example to be. you are giving one a huge advantage over the other.

D. how is it flawed again? you keep looking at it as rules, dojo, tournament thing.
What I said was. He has knowledge in self defense via taekwondo. there is no restrictions that he can't use those things he learned.  he learned how to punch efficiently. he learned how to kick efficiently. he learned how to defend himself from certain attacks. he learned about deadly areas.
Vs me. who knows none of that.  The only thing I know is the pain from getting punched without any pads. how fast I must be able to react. the surroundings. and what some call Bas Rutten Self defense aka grab whatever sh!t you can grab and use it as a weapon.  but most importantly,I know to never expect to be able to "ready up".. shit just comes flying out of nowhere.
He can still use his experience to his advantage. he should still be able to obtain an edge because of his background.  However, the thing holding him back is never actually been in a street fight.
Lets get one thing cleared. this isn't talking about how well he is at taekwondo. this isn't about how well I am at street fighting. this is about him having knowledge about hand to hand combat while I have no actual knowledge about hand to hand combat, but i've been in a few scraps where i mostly got my ass kicked.  I had the better edge because I've been in scraps and I know what could possibly happen in a street fight.
It's not comparing a taekwondo match vs a street fight. I'm comparing knowledge in hand to hand combat but never actually experiencing street fighting vs no hand to hand knowledge but experience in street fights. pit the two together.  edge is expected to go to the one with the knowledge in hand to hand combat. however, he only has knowledge, not experience, so the knowledge isn't very useful since his knowledge comes from having a ref-like person saying "stop, ok. fight" allowing him to ready up and prep for attacks vs the other guy who already knows that you can't ready up. shit will come flying.
Or are you saying he won't be able to use taekwondo knowledge in a street fight? because that's false.  You can too use it, otherwise Martial arts wouldn't of been made for it's intent purpose, Attacking and Defending and to some, it was created for war/combat.

When he fought me.  It wasn't taekwondo vs street fighting. no, it was him vs me. street fighter vs street fighter.  So yes, it is a valid comparison.

If I had said.  I study karate, and karate is better than taekwondo. then yes that's a moot point and comparing apples and oranges.  But that's not what I'm comparing. I'm comparing hand to hand combat knowledge w/ no fight experience vs no hand to hand combat knowledge w/ fight experience. there are no rules/regulations holding either of us back. we use whatever tools we have. I have experience as my tools, he has knowledge as his tools. and as I pointed out. that day, experience beat knowledge

I never said I wanted to drop it.

Umm. a streetballer vs a coached player.
Do you not see the flaw in that argument?
street baller - possibly no coaching, no videos, no drills, just pick up games on the court. playing by streetball rules or no rules.
coached player - coaching, videos, drills, along with playing the game, playing with teammates/against teammates. talking to teammates. playing by rules geared towards NBA/NCAA Basketball.
 

the coached player has a huge advantage from the start. that's not a fair comparison at all.
that's almost like saying, here you can play your video game, but you only get to use half the buttons while your opponent gets to use all the buttons plus a higher handicap setting.


Your arguments are more flawed than you claim mine to be. atleast in mine, i try my best to make them as fair and equal as I can possibly make it.
You keep giving one a huge advantage over the other.

But look. since you think my examples are flawed and don't prove the point.

Try it out for yourself and then come back and talk to me about it.

I'll state it once more. It's not guaranteed that experience will win over studying. NO. that is not the point. the point is that, experience will give the edge over just studying without any experience.

 people would bet that someone with a 20-0 record is going to beat someone with a 2-1 record. the 20-0 is usually seen as having the edge, despite whatever accomplishment s they may have. it doesn't matter if the person has studied MMA for 20+ years, the favorite would be the one with the record.  Someone could be with the Blackzillians or AKA for 10 years but no  pro fight experience, while another has 7 pro matches but only been doing MMA for say 5 years. the one with the matches is the favorite.
There's a reason why people including myself would say JDF would beat CM Punk if they fought.  Experience. CM Punk can study all he wants, he can even train with Robby Lawler or Anthony Pettis. but JDF has the experience to prove the legitimacy of his skills while Punk has only words. JDF has a legit pro fighting record, he has a 7th degree blackbelt in karate. Punk has nothing. Your training partners can be the best in the world, that doesn't mean that you are.
Would you call it a fair fight to see Cain Velasquez go up against a 0-0 opponent? it's not a fair fight, it would be a squash match.  1. (moot point) the ufc  get no money cause it looks unappealing. 2. who would bet on the 0-0? heck, even the 0-0 guy might not think he can win. that's a huge disadvantage and entirely unfair.

another example.

Brock Lesnar vs Fedor
brock is 5-3
Fedor is 34-4

People have argued that fedor's undefeated streak pits him above Brock. And then others argue that Fedor's record is against nobodies therefore they are equal.
Fedor is given the edge based on his experience. the legitimacy of his opponents are heavily ignored by some.

How many times must I repeat this? It's not about who's guaranteed the win. its about who is considered to have the edge. It doesn't guarantee the win. it just gives them the edge.
A good example.
TJ Dillashaw vs Renan Barao.
Barao was expected to win. he was expected to be able to dominate because of how dominant he is(was). Dillashaw was the underdog, he was a kid from the same team as the California Kid, Urijah Faber, who was defeated by Barao twice in convincing fashion.  With Faber being considered the Mentor of Team Alpha Male, Dillashaw was expected to lose. but Barao got dominated and demolished the entire fight.

another example.
Jon Jones vs Daniel Cormier.
DC was given the edge by some because of his "olympic wrestling" background.  but he lacks experience.
He fought against washed up old guys (mir, hendo, Barnett), a nobody (Cummins) and an under-skilled fighter (Nelson) and those were his most credible matches. and he trains with Velasquez, who is a beast in the current heavyweight division.
 he lacks the experience that Jon Jones has.  Jon Jones has fought NCAA D3 champion Matt Hamill, former champion Lyoto Machida, Chael Sonnen, Rampage, Glover, Gustoffson (his win is debatable) etc.
You have an olympic wrestler vs a community college/ junior college wrestler.
the olympic wrestling was given the edge. it was supposed to give him a huge edge. but it was largely useless because he lacks the experience Jon Jones has with his wrestling skills.
And this directly correlates with my fight.  While he had Taekwondo, he's never used it in a street fight (never been in one to begin with) so it's largely irrelevant.

Maybe a non-MMA example should be given.

2014 Rams vs 49ers. 49ers were given the edge because they just beat the rams by about 3 scores. but nope. they lost.


The list goes on and on. but you get it.

Experience gives the edge.  doesn't guarantee a win. but it gives the edge.

Point proven. Experience gives the edge.

[bulbasaur]

What you should do is understand.  This is like the time when you went to a Hmong conference, and tried to convince everyone to study other things.  Your claim may be correct, but your examples do not correlate to situation. 

All of your examples suffer from the same problem.  They are null examples because the opposite is very likely to be just as true.  Or, in some cases, you are trying to pass your personal beliefs as fact.  Since you keep bringing up edge, I'll go with just 1% edge....

1.  Cake Example. You wrote, "There is no guarantee the cake will taste better. there is a better chance of it."  First, because there is no guarantee, then there is no significant causal relationship.  Second, why is there a better chance of it?  You are just making that up.  What you believe is true is not the same thing as being true.  Are you saying that at least 51% of the time, the person with  more kitchen experience will win in a taste test?  Under whatever rules you want to set, this might be a coin flip. 

2.  Gun Example.  This suffers the same error as the Cake Example. 

3.  Fight Example.  You talk a lot about "edge."  However, I don't give you an edge against your friend in a taekwando match.  Are you claiming that you have an edge against him in a taekwando match?  Yes or No?  Just answer the question.  You are comparing two DIFFERENT things.  If your friend counts as study for fighting, and you count as experience in fighting, then it shouldn't matter where the match takes place.   However, you know this is not true.  You know that your friend's study does not really count as for fighting.  If it did, you would be able to go beat him in a taekwando match. This example does not support you. 

4. Basketball Example.  Let's eliminate some variables and just make it into a free throw shooting contest.   First person to 80%.  Or, first person to 100 shots.  I'll even let them have "basic knowledge" of the game.  I'll even let your guy play pick-up games.  One day of study vs. one day of extra practice.  Are you really claiming that the person with an extra day of practice is going to win this competition 51% of the time? 
 
I'm not going to bother with your other examples.  You got enough flaws to deal with these four.  You are like some other guy here; when his example is wrong, he'll give more and more and more...it will never end.

Here is the ultimate test.  Let's eliminate the physical, and look at chess.  Person A studies chess from a book.  Person B spends the same amount of time playing against real people.  I'll let you choose the time frame.  I'll let you choose what knowledge they have to begin with.  When they meet, who would win?  You can't really say, can you?  Are you ready to claim that Person B will win 51% of the time?  Again, I am giving you every advantage in this argument.  If what you say is true, then it should also apply in this situation.  All I am asking is that you prove 1% for your proposed "edge."   

But don't take my word for it.  GI Joe says, "Knowing is half the battle."    HALF!  That's 50% if you aren't good at math. 

What you should do is read.

I never said it guarantees a win. I said it gives an edge. how many times must I say it before you understand I am not talking about winning. I am talking about obtaining the edge aka the higher chance of winning. stop bringing up guaranteed victory because that is not and never was what I was talking about.

There is no guarantee the cake will taste better. there is a better chance of it.
Same with the gun. no guarantee. but its possible that the person will do better with experience.

Really? so you went in with never played the game before, only watched it and you beat someone who has played it for the same amount of time you studied it? 
Or are you just assuming he/she has?  there's a chance the person has not played it very long, and there's a chance the person has. Unless you actually know to what extent they have played, you can't say the street baller has more experience. could just be a beginner.

a streetballer vs someone who's never played but study only. ask around. you would pick the person who actually has playing experience wouldn't you? or would you pick someone who watches videos and claims to know it?

Who was talking about a martial arts competition? Why do you keep bringing up martial arts competition? I'm talking about hand to hand combat knowledge with no fighting experience. You can't expect to be able to do well in something that you have no real combat experience in.  If all you know is knowledge and no experience, how will you know how to do what and react when?

A. Did I say guaranteed success? NO. did you even read anything I posted? Yes I type alot. but whatever. I've repeated dozens of times. ITS NOT ABOUT GUARANTEED WIN. you are the one that keeps bringing it up about a guarantee win. not me. Better chance would go to the one with more experience baking. its not guaranteed. the odds are just better.

C. "teaching" is dependent on whoever is testing. you may consider it teaching when people play together. but someone else may not. they might just be playing.

D. Please point to where I said I would be a badass in a taekwondo tournament. please point to it. I clearly stated I can't fight, i've gotten my ass kicked plenty of times. did you not read that?  I've said it numerous times, i can't fight. I'm not ashamed of saying it. I can't fight. It is valid because its knowledge and experience.  Who says he can't use taekwondo? who says taekwondo has no influence? only you are saying that. If you seriously believe that any form of martial arts is useless in a 1 on 1 (no guns) street fight, you are mistaken.  It can easily influence it. hell, anything can influence a street fight. gust of wind. dirt. noise. car. tree. flowers. whatever. anything can influence a street fight.  We were both street fighters when we fought. he wasn't fighting me as a taekwondo practitioner.  He wasn't fighting me with rules and regulations or taekwondo gear. It was a street fight, a 1 on 1 fight. We didn't go in with the title "Street fighter vs Taekwondo Red Belt" it was just a fight between 2 former friends.  In a street fight. anything goes. anything is useable. anything can influence it. if you don't believe that then I don't know what to say.

How do you know the street baller has more time playing? you can't. so your argument is null.  the streetballer could be playing on weekends only. the coached student could be playing every day after school. we don't know specific details.

Knowledge gives the edge over experience? In some cases yes.
but are you saying that if we were both clueless about a sport. say rugby. you studied for 20 years while I played for 20 years. our skills would be either equal or yours would surpass mine? That is false because of one thing. YOU never played it.  How can you say you know how to do something if you've never done it before? you don't know how well you are at it until you actually do it.  And nobody is an expert on their first try. nobody. study all you want. but that first try is never going to be this amazing first time.  Who knows, you might even be nervous cause it's your first time performing the act.

Perhaps you should just read and understand my point.

I just proved that knowledge did not give  the edge. look at the example.

Jon Jones vs Daniel Cormier.
JC/CC wrestling vs Olympic Wrestling.  Having the knowledge of Olympic Wrestling experience did not give him any edge.
Infact, he couldn't even do anything with it. How is it that JC/CC wrestling was able to nullify Olympic Wrestling? well that's because of EXP.

Did this not prove experience was better than knowledge? people were laughing at Jon Jone's wrestling background, but he still overcame DC's Olympic Wrestling background, and DC isn't someone who won't use his wrestling background to help win a fight, he uses it as much as he can. but it was useless in this fight.

In some cases the inverse is correct. knowledge does outshine experience.
But that's only some cases.

Here's examples of when knowledge doesn't outshine experience.

Matt Hughes vs Royce Gracie.
Gracie family, well known for their BJJ.  Has plenty of experience and knowledge when it comes to the submission game yet he was beaten by Matt Hughes and nearly had his arm broken.
And then there's the Gracie Killer. He is a wrestler. Yes a wrestler, shoot wrestling as it's coined.  Yet he beat several Gracies with a Kimura. He beat them using submission which is something they train to use, something they are well known for.  So no, knowledge does not surpass experience in this example. Gracies knowledge of the ground game gave them no edge compared to the experiences that Hughes and Sakuraba has with wrestling.

Although it's a moot point.  Gracie's were so pissed they even modified the rules  when Royce fought Sakura but he STILL LOST to Sakuraba.

And wait. I have more examples.

A year ago I was helping out at a Hmong agency. most of my clients came in and I ask how I can help them and they would often say they have "kev nyuaj siab."
One of my professor's douchey friends came to the classroom and made the statement that we only study Hmong for 1 semester, he recommends studying Hmong for something like 4 years so we can be as knowledgeable as his students.
I asked him what does "kev nyuaj siab" mean.  He said depression.  But guess what, he was incorrect.  despite teaching Hmong for 8+ years, despite being knowledgeable about Hmong culture and language.  Curious to know how he's incorrect? it's simple. to say it means depression would mean all my clients were depressed, and that's not it. many are not feeling well due to gout, stomach pain, headache, insomnia, and so much more.  It was general term similar to saying "I'm not feeling well."  I'm sure you know as well as I do that even if you know what is meant by a word or phrase, it doesn't mean that, that's what they are talking about.  He made it seem like it was a black and white world when it came to people using that phrase.  But I proved it wasn't because I have experience when it comes to that phrase.

After I explained it. guess what he did. He corrected himself and agreed with me.

Funny ain't it? You can consider me the least knowledgeable person when it comes to Hmong writing and language.  It's true I don't know much, but I try to learn from those I meet. Yet I was still able to prove this teacher was incorrect about something he was so cocky about. I proved him wrong via experience working with that term.

Knowledge < experience.

Same exact class with the same individual
(paraphrased) I asked him. x years from now, how will we know we are Hmong?
He had no answer.  He couldn't even answer how he knows he is hmong.  Which is ironic because you'd expect a self proclaimed knowledged person would know.
But he didn't. he was just silent.
And then I responded with my answer from experience.
I know I am Hmong because I believe I am Hmong.  I believe I'm Hmong, therefore I am Hmong.
where did I get this? well from everything in life. Just about anything I believed I was or could become. I became it and I was it.
That's not to say if you believe you're a dinosaur you'll all of a sudden become a dinosaur. that's just absurd.
I believed I would be a college student. it happened, i became one. I believed I was a social worker, I became one. I believed I was a college graduate, I became it.
You are what you believe you are. you can call this knowledge. but it is more along the lines of experience because I am drawing from my past experiences.
I will always be Hmong because as like everything else, I believe i'm it.

None of his students responded and they were standing next to him.  These students he claimed were knowledged Hmong students while I, along with my classmates, were in his words "college students who only knows 1 semester's worth of Hmong"
Yet I was able to prove why I will always be Hmong despite however we change. he couldn't. they couldn't
I'm sure they probably know more than I do. they could read at a better level than I can. they can write better than I can.  They probably do have more knowledge than I do on some level.
But this is one area where their knowledge couldn't help them at all.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. There is no right or wrong answer to this question.  there is only a difference between whether you can answer it or not. and he either couldn't or just didn't answer.  As generic and vague as my answer was, I atleast was able to draw from my experiences and give an answer. he couldn't draw from his "knowledge" and give an answer.
Experience > knowledge

Do you need more examples? I can go on for days about examples that prove my point.
keep in mind.  the inverse is true. but if you believe that experience can't outshine knowledge, then we can keep going.

My point has been proven whether you want to accept it or not is on you.
I have proven that in some cases, experience > knowledge. Will it guarantee you to be better? no, but it can provide you with an edge.
Will it work in all situations? no of course not.  In some situations, knowledge outshines experience.  In some situations it's the inverse.
In most situations, Knowledge is derived from Experience and vice versa.  They often go hand in hand. 

There was no guarantee that he wouldn't be able to prove why he will always be Hmong. No. that's just the way it went down.
His vast knowledge of Hmong culture and literacy was outshined by my experiences as a Hmong person.

There wasn't a guarantee that i couldn't be round house kicked into the ground.  If he threw the kick would I be able to defend it? probably not.  He could have thrown a powerful kick. even the very swift and powerful push kick could have easily knocked me down.  but it didn't happen. He wasn't able to use his knowledge to give him the edge.


It's really funny that you keep saying my arguments are flawed yet you weren't actually arguing with what I said. you change it and spin it to something else and argue against that.


I talk about chance and edge. you try to make it seem like i'm talking about a guaranteed win.
I talk about starting on almost equal footing with each person getting a recipe. you spin it to say only one person got the recipe.
I talk about 2 people having the same gun knowledge. you spun it to say only one person has knowledge.
I talk about hand to hand combat knowledge. you bring up martial arts tournament and talk about how well I will do in it.
I spoke about studying vs experience. You spun it to compare a streetballer with a coached baller.

If they are incredibly flawed, why were you talking about something else entirely? How come you kept going off topic?
And why did I have to repeat so many times. THIS IS NOT ABOUT A GUARANTEED WIN.

Go ahead. prove that my Hmong examples were not valid examples of experience > knowledge.

If you want to say that knowledge = experience or derived from experience then that is definitely true. but that still doesn't disprove that sometimes experience > knowledge.

Oh here's another example just to close up.
Public speaking.  Take two people who are equally very nervous about public speaking.  1 chooses to talk loudly infront of nobody (an empty auditorium). the other chooses to watch videos to read body language of the speakers and so on.
chances are, the person who practice speaking, even if in front of nobody, may be less nervous than the person who did not do it.
key word. Chance. It's not guaranteed. the chances are just higher. It doesn't matter to what degree, it's just higher.

There's a reason why you can't just watch videos and study tutorials and strategies then go into an EVO tournament and win.  It takes practice, experience.
If you've never played before. you won't know what you are doing.  And even if someone doesn't have knowledge of the game.  They may still be very capable  of doing better than you would.

If you don't believe me then try it. watch thousands of videos, study gameplay strategies, read about tips and tricks. but never actually the fighting game.
Then go challenge someone who actually plays it for a significant amount of time. and see who does better. chances are, it won't be you.

You can watch someone doing an infinite combo in MvC3 100x, but that doesn't mean you know how to do the air combo and can win vs someone else being able to just do their own air combos because they've done it before. 

It doesn't seem like you understood the first couple times I said it. But hey atleast. we come to the same conclusion that Experience can give you an edge over knowledge when it comes to certain things.

[bulbasaur]

*yawns*  Just answer the questions.  They are yes and no questions.  No need for long convoluted essays.

1.  Cake Example.  You keep whining how the chance is higher.  There is more "edge."  Are you saying that at least 51% of the time, the person with  more kitchen experience will win in a taste test? Yes or No. 

2.  Gun Example.  Same as the Cake Example.

3.  Basketball Example.  Same as the others. 

4.  Fight Example.  You fail to understand the error, and that is why you are whining about how you never mentioned a taekwando match.  I'll explain again.

A.  You claim experience is greater than study.
B.  You give the Fight Example.
C. Friend studies martial arts.
D. You experience fighting. 
E.  You win. 
F. You feel justified in your claim. 

Unfortunately, that is not true.  The "test" did not test what your friend studied.  Would you expect a math student to do better on a literature exam over a literature major?  Of course not.  Although both are forms of education, they are quite different.  You wrote, "You're the one comparing a street fight with a taekwondo fight." However, you seem to forget that this is YOUR example, not mine.  You admit the example is comparing two different things, yet you continue to claim that it supports your claim.   

I'm really not going to bother with your MMA examples.  You got enough flaws with just these four. 

You haven't proved that your claim is true.  Prove that experience will win over at least 51% of the time.  That is the smallest of edges, and you can't even prove it.  If you can't prove 51%, then you aren't going to prove 60%.    You are only believing that it is true, but your personal beliefs are not facts.   

Chess is the ultimate test of your claim.  Your claim makes no mention of the physical; it claims experience.  So you see, there are many other factors when it comes to gaining an "edge."  You actually list them in your examples.  Like I said, your examples actually go against you. 

And yes, you have been consistent.... consistently wrong.  If you really want to know how wrong you are, we can actually copy and paste your argument against itself.  Once again, you claim may actually prove correct in many situations, but your examples do not illustrate it. 

You still aren't getting it.
1. there isn't a guarantee. the chances are higher. someone who practices doing something has a better chance than someone who doesn't practice. it doesn't matter how much you study. if you don't actually do it, you will be missing the learning experience of actually doing it.

Someone could watch me do something for hours. I could explain it step by step.  But as soon as they are doing it themselves, they freeze and have no clue what they are doing. why? because even if you study it, it doesn't guarantee you'll even remotely know what you are doing.

You can study and watch Buddy Valastro Pipe and decorate all day, you can watch him perform it dozens of times. While someone else is just randomly piping on a cake.  The one with the piping experience would have a higher chance.  Why do you keep bringing up winning? it's not about winning.  it's about who has the better chance of winning.  the person who has the baking experience is not guaranteed to win 51% of the time. no, his chances of winning are just higher. he can still lose 90% of the time.

there is a better chance because of the experience. if you pit someone with experience vs someone with no experience. Who has the better odds of winning? the one with experience.
If you don't believe me then just go ask around. Who is the underdog in a fight, the person with more experience or the person with less experience? When you pit a someone without an established career vs one with an established career, guess who has the edge, the one with the career.

Why else would Fedor be given the edge over Brock.
Why else would Jon Jones be favored over DC by some fans.
Why else would people say that Conor Mcgregor lose to Jose Aldo or Chad Mendez. Because of experience.  Conor is considered untested and inexperienced compared to Aldo or Mendez.

People don't just bet on someone with no experience thinking, yea this guy is the one that's going to win. that guy over there with the experience, he's the underdog.
No. the more experienced person is usually the one that is believed to have the better chance.

3. DUDE! where did I say I would have an edge in a taekwondo match? WHERE. please point to where I said I would do better in a taekwondo match.  I never said that.  It definitely does matter where the match takes place.  If you don't believe that where the match takes place then you really don't know anything.  Where a match takes place can affect morale/spirit, it can affect their comfort and control.

If we fought in my backyard and all my friends were surrounding us,  would he want to even throw a fist? hell no. that's just stupid.
Where you fight can easily change the fight.  you're forgetting  environmental weapons and hazards.  Weather can easily affect the fight. All these variable comes into play.
Just like if we fought in a dojo, the circumstances would heavily change because of the surroundings. If someone had long legs and kicked all day. fighting in a closed space can easily affect it because they can't stretch out their legs as far as they want. There's a reason why Inside fighters have an edge over outside fighters once they get close.  because the situation suits them better.  climate can easily affect the situation. someone who has a hard time with cold weather can easily be beat by someone who isn't affected by cold weather. Everything can be a variable and change the outcome.

There's a reason why some people are better off playing inside a controlled area like a Dome and when they play in outdoor weather, they can't do anything. Or are you going to say that weather can't affect the outcome? because it definitely does.

Why else would Homefield advantage exist? One can argue that it's all mentality, its not actually real. Well, mentality affects you and makes it harder for you to concentrate. When someone is booing you nonstop, your concentration can easily be disrupted.


I don't know to what extent his study is for fighting. So I can't say and neither can you.  Some schools are about self defense, other's are about actual combat.  To say that they are all about self defense or all about combat is wrong.  And even if the school isn't for that purpose, that doesn't mean the person is following the school. As my former friend stated, his purpose for learning taekwondo was so he can fight against the people who picked on him.

Intentions are right there. he went to learn it for the purpose of inflicting pain on others.  It didn't matter how it was taught, the fact that his purpose was to use it to harm others is what matters.
Some instructors teach you about respecting your opponent and fighting with honor.  However, just because they taught it that way doesn't mean the person will take it that way.  Just look at the confrontation, he was using his taekwondo as somewhat of Bragging Rights to call others out and even call me out.

Just because I beat him in the streets doesn't mean I can beat him in a taekwondo match.  You seem to think I can.  But hey that's you.  The truth is, I won't be able to beat him in the taekwondo match. Heck if we fought 5x, chances are I won't be able to beat him again.  You need to understand that just because he loss in a street fight doesn't mean he'll lose in a taekwondo match.  I may have some limited knowledge of how street fights work, but that doesn't mean I can use what I know in a taekwondo match.
They won't let me poke his eyes. they won't let me kick him in the groin. they won't let me bite him.  In some/most taekwondo matches, they have protective gear, thus voiding any attacks to the temple, back of the head and so on. I won't be able to grab a weapon and hit him with it. grab my body spray and spray him in the eyes. These are considered illegal attacks, but in a street fight. they aren't illegal cause there is no rules. 
What I can do in the streets, I won't be able to do in a taekwondo match so it's obvious I won't win.  He has the advantage, he has the edge.  But as I've stated. he can bring his knowledge of combat to the streets. will he win? possibly. but because has no experience in a street fight. it hinders him of any advantages.

You're the one comparing a street fight with a taekwondo fight. I was comparing hand to hand combat knowledge with hand to hand combat experience. So you are the one with the flawed argument here. the example supports me. your flawed example is the one that doesn't support it. because you twisted it to say that just because I won in a street fight means I win in a taekwondo match.

4. WHERE DID I SAY HE IS GOING TO WIN? WHERE. please point to where I said the person would win 51%. I said he has the better chance. How many times do I have to say it before you understand this is not about winning. it's about obtaining the edge.  Stop bringing up winning.

And that isn't even a fair comparison.  Your example is UNREALISTIC. nobody can physically play a sport for an entire day. NOBODY. your body would fatigue, your body can even collapse.  it can easily be drained and sore when they play the next day. But someone can sit there, study, read, watch, footages and strategies for the entire day. That one is possible.
At the same time. this entire time. my responses were about the edge. and what contributes to the edge? variables. But of course in your example. you exclude realistic variables. Get out of the black and white world and get with the world of color. variables come into play here.

STOP TALKING ABOUT WINNING. I'm not talking about winning. I'm talking about an edge.  Winning is irrelevant to what I am talking about.


Why is that the ultimate test?  you went from physical to mental.
physical experience does not have a big factor when it comes to a game that utilizes your mind and doesn't require a physical and mental skillset.

Lets say we have several years to prep. I play, you study. I go against some of the top ranked chess players in the world. and with each day, I get better and better, even to the point that I can beat them. and then you and I go head to head. I will have the edge because I know what it's like to be in that spot.  Who knows, you might just be nervous and make the wrong move. you might take too long to think and the timer goes off. I might do the same too. But with practice, I can overcome these errors, be familiar, and be more calm.
You can't get over nervousness from watching videos. it takes practice to get over the nervousness and be comfortable. Even then. unless you can read minds, you have to be able to anticipate where I'm going. every player has a different strategy for how they play.  that one is true.  Everyone has their own strategies, so unless you know my strategy firsthand.

Or are you going to claim that you can beat a top ranked chess player just from watching videos but never playing it? 
There. proved it.

Here. I'll give another example.
You watch a video of someone throwing a jab. you repeat that video 1000x.
I practice throwing a jab 1000x. then we go head to head. who has the better chance of throwing a powerful jab that can knock the other person? obviously not you cause you have no experience with throwing the jab.  throwing a jab is a technique that requires control, power, speed, and so on.  it takes practice to be able to utilize it efficiently. you can't learn how to control your jab, control your power, and control your speed just from watching someone do it.

I can eliminate the physical and counter your example too.

lets take a MMO game like Aion.

you watch videos for 1 month.  I play the game for 1 month.  we both went in not knowing what the games about. and then after that month we go up against eachother
Who has the edge here? I do. you've never played Aion.We've never played it before.  But. I had 1 month to prep, learn the controls, learn the movements, practice attack patterns.  While you were just watching videos. you will be unfamiliar with the games mechanics firsthand. videos and actually playing are two different thing.

I have the edge when it comes to it.

Or I can switch to a more technical Player vs Player game. Guild Wars 2. a game where you go head to head, the attacks other than range attacks require positioning. dodging is not something you acquire from watching. dodging is learned from playing the game. you learn to dodge in the game. you learn about timing, transitions. not everyone uses the same controls. not everyone uses the same dodge mechanic. some dodge forward, some dodge backward, some dodge to the side. some use skills to move around instead of dodging.  You can watch some of the best PvP players go head to head. but in an actual match against someone who has played. surely you won't have the edge here. The experience of playing heavily factors into chance of success. 

It's why we always advise newer players. Learn the class, not the build. you can learn to play the build set up like a pro, but when the situation changes, you lose.  Learning the class helps you adapt to the situation.  You can't learn to adapt from watching videos and reading. no, adapting requires experience.

Before you bring out a different example. counter this last one. can you prove that I won't have the edge? I proved I have the edge.

You aren't actually proving my arguments are invalid or flawed. all you are doing is changing variables to make it invalid.

the cake. you changed the variable from chance of success to guaranteed success. 
Gun example. same thing.

Fight example. you changed it from combat knowledge vs combat experience to street fight vs taekwondo match.

basketball. you changed it from a realistic comparison to an unrealistic comparison.

is this other guy.. i don't know. YOU. cause you did it too. instead of countering what I said. you changed the variables. you changed the situation. you changed the entire scenario to fit your case.

I'll give more and more?
I've been consistent with my cake example have i not? I've been consistent with my gun example, have I not? I've been consistent with my fight example? have I not.

You just implied I change subjects when my argument is invalid. Did I do that? no. I'm still talking about cake. I'm still talking about gun. I'm still talking about fighting. I just brought more stuff.
When did I stop backing up my cake,gun,fighting example. When did I say, ok lets move on or forget what I just said. no i never said that. I'm still talking about it.  I didn't drop the examples like you claimed I did.


You're the one that keeps changing the situation. You're the one that keeps changing variables. You're the one that is inconsistent with your flawed arguments.

You went from coach vs streetball to freethrow with no variables. completely changing the argument.


You're not disproving anything.  All you are doing is changing variables to support your claim that my claim is flawed.

And stop talking about winning.  get it through your head. it's not about guaranteed winning. the discussion is about the edge. the chance of success. Winning 51% of the time is not the same as having a 60% chance of winning. 

Of course knowing is half the battle. THATS what the whole discussion is about.
You can know all you want from studying.  When you go head to head with someone who has experienced it. They have the better chance.

Experience will give someone the edge vs someone who has no firsthand experience.

Practice makes perfect..  If you don't practice. there is no way you can do better than someone who actually does.  It doesn't matter how crappy their technique is. the fact that they practice gives them the chance to be better than you.

Otherwise, I should be able to watch thousands of videos and be able to just pop off an airtrack into a windmill into a halo into another windmill into a headstand. I should be able to watch videos, join a tournament of beginners and just win. of course not.
I can't just watch videos, hop into a fighting tournament and win. No, I have a higher chance of getting demolished by someone with experience.
I should be able to run a mile from studying body movement. of course not. it takes practice along with other variables.

When it comes to things that require both physical and mental skill. Experience will give you the edge.

We can just use the most simple task. Running.
We both start the day with no experience with endurance running or sprinting. 
I practice jogging 5ks and 40 yard dashes for a month.  You watch videos for that same month without ever doing it.
Who has the edge? I do.  This is as clear as it gets.  If you still don't believe me that the runner will have the edge vs the watcher. then perhaps you just don't want to agree with me or just choose not to see the reality of the situation.

But you know what?
We aren't even on topic anymore. so lets just drop the entire discussion altogether.