Effectivness vs. Efficiency?

[Fu-Pow]

Which concept is more important for martial arts? :confused:

[PangQuan]

Ill go out there and poll my vote for effectivness. Its nice to be efficient, but whats it worth if it doesnt always work.

[Chief Fox]

Which concept is more important for martial arts? :confused:

I would say effectiveness is more important. Something can be effcient but if it's not effective then it doesn't matter. Something can be effective but not efficient. This means that whatever your doing gets the job done but can be improved upon.

[red5angel]

how can something be efficient and not work?

[Reggie1]

I don't see how effectiveness and efficiency are mutually exclusive.

[PangQuan]

You can have a very efficient method of doing something such as punching many times in a short amount of time, but without effectivness, many of these punches will not connect.

However you can be inefficient such as punching slow (such as less punches in the same time frame, but with effectiveness you will connect with your technique.

Of course a natural course of training will develop both qualities simultaneously, there is not always a perfect balance. So stressing the effectiveness of your technique is always a good idea.

[SevenStar]

how can something be efficient and not work?

Ask that question on the WC forum...

[PangQuan]

Ask that question on the WC forum...

HA!!!!!!!!

[norther practitioner]

Ask that question on the WC forum...

Funniest post by 7* in a grip..

[joedoe]

You can have a very efficient method of doing something such as punching many times in a short amount of time, but without effectivness, many of these punches will not connect.

However you can be inefficient such as punching slow (such as less punches in the same time frame, but with effectiveness you will connect with your technique.

Of course a natural course of training will develop both qualities simultaneously, there is not always a perfect balance. So stressing the effectiveness of your technique is always a good idea.

But you could argue that punching many times in a short amount of time but not hitting your target is inefficient since you expend energy/resources on an activity that does not achieve your goal. Whereas a single slow punch that connects is efficient because you achieve your goal in a direct (though slow) fashion.

Efficiency is not a concept that stands alone - it is tied to the ability to achieve your goal. An engine that only burns 1 litre of petrol per day is no good if it cannot propel the vehicle it is attached to.

[Waidan]

Wouldn't something HAVE to be effective to prove efficient? Would a computer that could make 984468146574684 calculations per second, all with 0% accuracy, be considered efficiant?

"I'm doing jack-squat, but I'm doing it at the speed of light."

[PangQuan]

lol, yes that analogy is much better than mine. To true JoeDoe my analogy sucked.

[joedoe]

lol, yes that analogy is much better than mine. To true JoeDoe my analogy sucked.

I find car analogies always work best :)

[rogue]

Ask that question on the WC forum...
Street cred raised 5 points!

[red5angel]

You can have a very efficient method of doing something such as punching many times in a short amount of time, but without effectivness, many of these punches will not connect.


I guess I'd disagree, Efficiency implies to me that it not only works, but it works better then most other options.
If you can throw a lot of punches really fast but you can't connect or can't hit hard enough to make a difference, then I couldn't call that efficient.


STRAIGHTBLAST!!!!!!!!HIIIIIYYEEEEEYAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

[black and blue]

I guess it depends on how far you take the definition.

But maybe Wing Chun IS a good example. The WCK punch is efficient - it's more or less (wink) straight, travelling from the centre, and takes the shortest route. But it's not the most powerful method of punching... so perhaps lacks some effect.

Of course, the most powerful punch in the world is useless if you can't land it.

Guess you have to strike (no pun intended) a balance.

[wdl]

From dict.org:

Effective \Ef*fect"ive\, a. [L. effectivus: cf. F. effectif.]
Having the power to produce an effect or effects; producing a
decided or decisive effect; efficient; serviceable;
operative; as, an effective force, remedy, speech; the
effective men in a regiment.

efficient \ef*fi"cient\ ([e^]f*f[i^]sh"ent), a. [L. efficiens,
-entis, p. pr. of efficere to effect: cf. F. efficient. See
Effect, n.]
Causing effects; producing results; that makes the effect to
be what it is; actively operative; not inactive, slack, or
incapable; characterized by energetic and useful activity;
as, an efficient officer, power.

The two words are NOT mutually exclusive. You must have both. "Effectiveness" is the power and "efficiency" is the cause. The effect, or result is defined by the efficiency thus the amount of efficiency will always have sway on the result. So there is ALWAYS efficiency involved with the effect no matter how little or how great.


-Will

[Ray Pina]

Which concept is more important for martial arts? :confused:


Both! I want good stuff and I want it cheap.

[PangQuan]

Wills right, case closed.

[ninthdrunk]

lineage....!

[PangQuan]

lineage....!
?.........

[ninthdrunk]

Isn't that the most important part of martial arts?

[red5angel]

Isn't that the most important part of martial arts?


you must be in WC?

[PangQuan]

Kung Fu is the most important part of martial arts. ie; kung fu = time, effort, skill.

[PangQuan]

you must be in WC?

Hes in SD...

[wdl]

Isn't that the most important part of martial arts?

LOL. I think they were trying to compare which was more important not what is the most important part. But, you make a good point. Atleast something was being discussed besides lineage for once. :)

-Will

[Ray Pina]

But maybe Wing Chun IS a good example. The WCK punch is efficient - it's more or less (wink) straight, travelling from the centre, and takes the shortest route. But it's not the most powerful method of punching... so perhaps lacks some effect.

Of course, the most powerful punch in the world is useless if you can't land it.

Guess you have to strike (no pun intended) a balance.

This is a great post!!!!!!!!!!

[ninthdrunk]

Sorry, bad joke.

Seriously though. If something is effective, doesn't that mean it works? So, who cares how efficient it is if it works. Now if someone comes along with a more efficient way of doing something that is ALSO more effective, by all means jump aboard.

[red5angel]

I just think that in general effectiveness and efficiency are the same thing.

[ninthdrunk]

I kinda agree. It's really hard to differentiate between the two. I would imagine the most efficient way to be the most effective. But, I think that is what makes this type of thing a good discussion. If you are forced to split the two, it kinda helps you figure out what type of martial artist you are...what's important to you as a fighter/trainer.

[PangQuan]

I think Will's last post covered this issue the best.

[red5angel]

I think Will's last post covered this issue the best.

I think your mom has my issues covered.

[SevenStar]

something to take into consideration is perspective. compare a tma snapping roundhouse to a thai roundhouse. the tma kick is more efficient.

perspective -

for power, the thai kick is far superior.

BUT, for speed, the tma kick would be.

What are you thinking of specifically when you say "effective"?

[red5angel]

something to take into consideration is perspective. compare a tma snapping roundhouse to a thai roundhouse. the tma kick is more efficient.

perspective -

for power, the thai kick is far superior.

BUT, for speed, the tma kick would be.

What are you thinking of specifically when you say "effective"?

then for power the thai kick would be more efficient for power while for speed the TMA kick would be more efficient no?

[SevenStar]

d@mmit, stop complicating things :p

I guess efficiency would depend on perspective as well.

[red5angel]

I think for the most yeah, it's a matter of perspective. You have to establish what it is you're being effective at then determine what is efficient.

[PangQuan]

I think your mom has my issues covered.

I think she does but now shes trying to figure out what do do with her other eight fingers. :p

[wdl]

Seriously though. If something is effective, doesn't that mean it works? So, who cares how efficient it is if it works. Now if someone comes along with a more efficient way of doing something that is ALSO more effective, by all means jump aboard.

But still, if it's effective it's efficient in one form or another. Efficiency and inefficiency both have an effect on the outcome. An inefficiency would be paramount to something like a mechanical disadvantage and result in an ineffective outcome.

The whole "Effectivness vs. Efficiency" discussion is somewhat like comparing accuracy and precision in scientific terms. To be truely effective and efficient you have to have both.

-Will

[Fu-Pow]

In terms of general application:

Efficiency is important for well-defined and stable processes.

Effectiveness is important for poorly defined and unstable processes.

Is a street fight a stable and defined process?

[wdl]

Is a street fight a stable and defined process?


Absolutely not, it's a chaoticly dynamic event. However I'm not sure about your application of effectiveness and efficiency mostly because I see a lack of defining what's efficient and effective and what's only effective.

-Will

[red5angel]

In terms of general application:

Efficiency is important for well-defined and stable processes.

Effectiveness is important for poorly defined and unstable processes.

Is a street fight a stable and defined process?


how are you getting one withoput the other?

[FuXnDajenariht]

i just wanna add that sumthin can be poorly planned out and still be effective. you know the saying. crazy idea....but it worked didn't it? :D luck can come into play. i think efficiency is high percentage effectiveness. effective and efficient aren't synonyms though.

effective means that sumthin works. efficient means it works quickly and usually without fail.

[SimonM]

Which concept is more important for martial arts? :confused:
Efficiency is PART of effectiveness. An inefficient martial art will not be as effective as it could be.

You can have a very efficient method of doing something such as punching many times in a short amount of time, but without effectivness, many of these punches will not connect.

I wouldn't consider rapidly flailing againse an opponent's guard with no bridging or penetration to be inefficient. It is also ineffective.


However you can be inefficient such as punching slow (such as less punches in the same time frame, but with effectiveness you will connect with your technique.

If reducing your attack speed allows you to penetrate MORE there is a problem with your technique.

lineage... Isn't that the most important part of martial arts?
No. That is possibly the LEAST important part of martial arts except: uniforms (belts, patches, etc.) and cheezy sensei-bob moustaches.

[FuXnDajenariht]

and since we're on the subject. i think the most important thing in martial arts, as in life as well, is will, as in determination.

will finds a way. the great equalizer.

[Gangsterfist]

Ask that question on the WC forum...


Tsk tsk.................:(



Today in class we worked on a lot of chin na, grappling, knife attacks, etc. We did lots of clinch and stand up work, and typically 9 times out of the ten the most effecient answer was also a very effective one.

I think effeciency and effectiveness go hand in hand. Your effectiveness is not determined by a system or by a technique, its determined by hard hard you train it, and your physical attributes. For some people, some things are more natural and they catch on or learn faster, others need to do it 100 times before they can get the "effective technique" down at a basic level.

Now, lets say you take something like choy li fut, or taiji that tend to have larger circular motions over something like boxing or wing chun which is more linear, who is to say which is more effecient? It depends on the person I would say, but typical linear arts, IMO (opinion here not fact) tend to yield results faster than others because thery are more direct and to the point of fighting. That is ofcourse when it comes to striking, obviously a linear, angular, circular, etc art is not going to help you much on the ground, unless its principles and concepts carry over to that medium.