Give it a read and let me know what you think.
In the meantime…
This is true. But I think it’s because I spend probably 99% of my practice time tinkering, refining, and just enjoying the process of building and learning it and probably only like 1% actually working on using it and improving my speed. I’m also in my 40’s and despite my seemingly constant posting here, haha, there is also other life stuff happening that takes priority for me and I’ve just been slacking on the application.
I initially wanted to try a big 2-card / 3-digit system simply for the challenge and mental exercise of it. With no real aspirations to be a champion memory athlete. Before I started with Shadow, and before discovering this forum, my best time was in the several minutes range, like 6 or 7 minutes for a full deck with a traditional style PAO. I had heard about the technique from a random article and casually tried it out. Then I saw @BradenExplosion do a sub 30-second deck on youtube and found this site and his explanation of what he was doing. I decided I wanted to prove to myself that I could handle learning a crazy system like Shadow with over 1000 associations and do it well enough to go under one minute. I gave myself a year to do it. (Almost in a cliche way like Josh Foer’s journey in everyone’s favorite memory book Moonwalking With Einstein.)
Once I hit that goal and reached that time, I basically stopped trying to push any faster. I took an introspective look at the pros and cons of the whole process, the system itself, 2-block vs PAO vs true 2-card, the process of building and learning a system, the structural requirements for cards, and the way I got down to that speed from where I started. I saw things that I thought could be improved, and since I didn’t feel any self-imposed pressure to go even faster, and because I really loved the creation process, I restarted, embracing that challenge all over again.
The second time, with my split Shadow P/O, I got down to under a minute in about four months, (again probably 90+% of that time being tinkering rather than actually making deck attempts and time improvements), and again stopped and reevaluated once I got that system down under a minute. At that time Lance was revealing an updated system of his own, and some of his thoughts made me re-think how I could design my own system, using the best ideas from what I experienced and trying to scrap the frustrating parts.
I wanted to develop something that if I could go back in time I would have used from day one. I wanted it to be simple and intuitive and contain a 3-digit and 2-digit Major list. I wanted no exceptions to phonetic structure or how card pairs were read. I wanted strict rules for translation so there would be no ambiguity as to the sounds that each number, suit combo, or card value represented.
So I built it. At the end of last year, I settled on my final system structure and have learned it pretty fluently since then, but this time with less discipline and urgency. I’m confident that if I put as much drive into this system as I did with my initial experiment with Shadow, I’d have dialed it in under one minute in only a month or two. (Of course, I have no way of proving that, but I’m confident in the details.)
Yes.
I think that if someone wants to use classic Major structure, that it is the cleanest way to use it for both numbers and cards that I’ve seen. Overall, I would still give the slightest of edges to @Zoomy’s Ben system, due to the way that it creates a single syllable key word for every entry, but in his system, numbers can represents consonants or vowels depending on which digit place they’re in. And doesn’t easily mesh with classic major. My system removes that duality so that any time a number appears it always makes the same singular sound. But I know that is a preference thing and may not tip the scales one way another.
I don’t see my personal lack of drive to really push myself to go ultra-fast as a knock against the system itself. It’s just a knock against me not really being cut out for the grind needed to be an elite memory athlete. And thats ok. I just hope people don’t discount the potential of the system because I personally haven’t used it at elite speeds.
I like to think I’m like a race car designer looking for ways to make the car more aerodynamic. I may not be able to get in it myself and drive it well enough to win the Indy 500, but I think someone could.
I think the build time and learning time is similar to other 2704 systems, but the consistency in phonetics and structure would likely make it a bit easier to onboard, especially for someone used to Major already.
Again, I have only a sample size of one for its use, and I’m not a memory athlete. But, I would venture to confidently say that someone who was more serious than me about competing with the advantages of a large system would find it very appealing.
I’ll preface this by noting that my system CAN be used in 2-block / 1352 configuration with all the advantages of its simplified structure and consistent unambiguous phonetics…
I think the most important thing is the effort that is put into learning and applying a system, rather than the details of the system itself. This may seem like a self contradiction or hypocriticism on my part since I absolutely have lagged on the application phase of things and have been hyper-focused on the details of my system, haha. I do think though that training a true 2704 system where there is no ambiguity and every pair is a unique element with no need for block distinction provides an advantage over a block system.
All things being equal (fluency, reaction time of recognition, speed of scene building), I think that a true 2-card system conveys an advantage in consistency and confidence knowing that you can construct your scenes in a specific way and plan a set number of loci for every run. At elite levels, with enough training, when people are talking about sub 15-second times, the difference is likely extremely minute, but I think it is there, and when the times between places or records is measured in milleseconds, it may be what puts someone over the top.
But as @Goldfish mentioned, the current WR was done with a single card PAO. With only 152 associationa to learn, someone can get 20x the reps in as a 2704 user in the same amount of time. Really it’s a matter of commitment to the system, whatever that is, that usually makes the difference.
Respectfully, I disagree completely. But I’m naturally just curious about things and am coming from a place where I’m more interested in exploring the theoretical than applying and pushing those limits myself. I want to explore how different approaches could bring different advantages and consider what the tradeoffs of different strategies might be.
For someone who is deep into elite competition, it probably doesn’t make sense to scrap whatever system is in use in order to start from scratch with a new 2704 system/structure, even if it might be “better” in terms of structure or consistency. The months of learning and overwriting associations would be better spent in that case practicing and pushing the limits of the already fluent system. But to say we’ve peaked in pretty much anything does nothing but stagnate the field in question.
I do appreciate all the points you made in your post and the criticism/skepticism is valid. I hope I addressed it satisfactorily.
If you haven’t noticed, I like to put my thoughts out there and see what resonates. I enjoy discussing theory and efficiency and effectiveness and learning all kinds of ways that people approach these disciplines. I know I like to ramble and usually get pretty wordy, but hopefully you all get something out of it or it makes you think about something in a new way.
At the end of the day… As long as you enjoy the ride, then it’s worth it whatever the end result is!
