You might want to search these forums for ‘lanier verbatim memory system’. I believe there’s a full break-down somewhere.
Back to your initial question, I think that you are effectively asking, “Why are memory systems designed for memory competitions not great for memorising text…?”
The examples you’ve given were developed specifically for the purpose of memorising things like numbers and cards. However, Greg Lanier’s system was originally conceived, I believe, to memorise religious texts.
It’s a while since I’ve been called a monster! I have some pre-memorised images for common words, but they rarely come up. I memorise two words per location (which seems far more effective than just one word) and the way the words interact is different depending on whether or not they’re nouns or verbs, etc.
There’s no more to it than that. The minute the top stars apply themselves to words as much as to cards, I’ll be left in the dust! I’m just hoping to break a record before thy do! I use my ‘speed cards’ journeys for 5-minute words, so my mind is primed to zip through it. Just as it’s possible to doubt you’ve fully memorised a card, to find that it is later there in the location, I’ve found that our minds can link words together much quicker than we might think.
I’d love to think that I have some unique contribution to add to the random words event, by I don’t. However, interestingly, I first got into memory back when I was religious and learning books of the Bible. So, maybe there’s something there, just in terms of familiarity with memorising words.
(Personally, I don’t go for 3 words. I like any ‘peripheral’ memory to attach to the linking between locations (e.g. Word 2 to word 3). I’ve also found that three words limits the interplay I can concoct between words if they’re verbs, and so on.)
Not sure if that makes sense?
Memoriad, although I have sympathy with some of you points, I wonder if that’s a separate discussion?