# Building a strong foundation



## PhotonGuy (Jun 21, 2017)

I believe that building a strong foundation is important for beginners, especially in a striking based art where you fight on your feet. Therefore what might be a good approach to teaching a beginner is to first teach stances and how to move in the stances. Then after that to teach kicking techniques. Finally hand techniques would be taught. By teaching stances, movement, and kicking first it helps build the legs and it helps to develop a strong base. In order to have effective hand techniques you do need a strong base so that's why I would want to develop that first.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2017)

I disagree, one teaches the basics first. This includes basic kicks, punches and stances, you cannot spend weeks teaching stances, then more weeks teaching kicks etc. Techniques are connected to each other, just learning stances, kicks and punches would end up with  instructors having to re-teach everything to join them all together.  
 How many students have you taught by the way?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 21, 2017)

I don't see much value in teaching stances without technique. I have some traditional drills/exercises I'll use that specifically focus on the stance, but I mostly use those for students who have specific issues. For everyone else, their stances develop through use in the techniques. That applies to both the striking and grappling parts of the art.

I also don't see teaching kicks before hand/arm strikes. Kicks require the most development for most folks, to become useful. I start people on the simplest strikes first, and add harder ones as they progress. That way, as their base gets more solid, they can add "tippier" techniques like kicks.

Basically, I want people to develop movement and base within a fighting context, so I help them develop movement and base in relationship to the techniques they'd fight with.


----------



## Reedone816 (Jun 21, 2017)

Read in a cma school website that they used to have their students to do stance only in the first two years of training.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk


----------



## pgsmith (Jun 21, 2017)

I agree that building a strong foundation is very important. This is why it's always a good idea to take into consideration the type of soil in your area before you begin. Different soil types require different building techniques in order to have a strong foundation to build upon.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 21, 2017)

How good foundation is good? If you go to a grade school, do you have to obtain all "A" before you can graduate from it and move into your high school? Can you just obtain all "B" and move on? IMO, you can. When you are in your high school, you can still "enhance" what you have learned in grade school.

If you insist to obtain all "A" in grade school before you can move on, you may find that one day you are too old to go to high school.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 21, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I disagree, one teaches the basics first. This includes basic kicks, punches and stances, you cannot spend weeks teaching stances, then more weeks teaching kicks etc. Techniques are connected to each other, just learning stances, kicks and punches would end up with  instructors having to re-teach everything to join them all together.
> How many students have you taught by the way?



What I mean is on a students first day I would just teach stances and movement. On their second day I would review stances and movement and then introduce kicks. On their third day I would introduce hand techniques. All the kicks and hand techniques would obviously be done from stances so I wouldn't be separating stances from kicks and hand strikes. I've never taught as a primary instructor but I have taught many students as an assistant instructor.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't see much value in teaching stances without technique. I have some traditional drills/exercises I'll use that specifically focus on the stance, but I mostly use those for students who have specific issues. For everyone else, their stances develop through use in the techniques. That applies to both the striking and grappling parts of the art.


Before they learn techniques they've got to learn stances. In some of the schools from thousands of years back supposedly students would spend their first six months doing just stances and only then would they start learning techniques. I would not go for six months having a new student do just stances but I might work on only stances and movement on their first day.



gpseymour said:


> I also don't see teaching kicks before hand/arm strikes. Kicks require the most development for most folks, to become useful. I start people on the simplest strikes first, and add harder ones as they progress. That way, as their base gets more solid, they can add "tippier" techniques like kicks.


That is one of the reasons why I might teach kicks first, they're harder and if a student can learn kicks, learning and developing hand strikes will be that much easier. The main reason I might teach kicks first is because they use the legs the most and a strong base is very important.


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 21, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> What I mean is on a students first day I would just teach stances and movement. On their second day I would review stances and movement and then introduce kicks. On their third day I would introduce hand techniques. All the kicks and hand techniques would obviously be done from stances so I wouldn't be separating stances from kicks and hand strikes. I've never taught as a primary instructor but I have taught many students as an assistant instructor.


If you taught like that maybe you'd have about 2 students because frankly that would bore people to death. People turn up to martial arts for different but everyone wants to learn how to punch and kick, if you spend an hour or whatever the class length just teaching stances they're not going to come back. Hell I'd be bored even now with a class just on stances. They don't need to be brilliant on day 1 just give them the basic facts. The most important thing in a first class has nothing to do with skill in my opinion it's about getting them interested so they come back.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jun 21, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How good foundation is good? If you go to a grade school, do you have to obtain all "A" before you can graduate from it and move into your high school? Can you just obtain all "B" and move on? IMO, you can. When you are in your high school, you can still "enhance" what you have learned in grade school.
> 
> If you insist to obtain all "A" in grade school before you can move on, you may find that one day you are too old to go to high school.


No you don't have to get straight As in elementary school to move on to middle school and then high school but they do have standards for going up a grade. They do sometimes hold students back if the student doesn't perform good enough in their current grade.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 21, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Before they learn techniques they've got to learn stances. In some of the schools from thousands of years back supposedly students would spend their first six months doing just stances and only then would they start learning techniques. I would not go for six months having a new student do just stances but I might work on only stances and movement on their first day.


I've never had trouble teaching a student the stance with the technique. After they've done the technique several times, I explain the stance, why we use it, and what we call it.



> That is one of the reasons why I might teach kicks first, they're harder and if a student can learn kicks, learning and developing hand strikes will be that much easier. The main reason I might teach kicks first is because they use the legs the most and a strong base is very important.


That's a valid approach, that compromises in the opposite direction of my choices. You force better foundation early by stressing it more.

My focus is getting them something they can use as quickly as possible, so I delay kicks. Kicks take more skill to use effectively, so I teach hand/arm strikes earlier, to give them useful tools quickly.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 21, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> What I mean is on a students first day I would just teach stances and movement. On their second day I would review stances and movement and then introduce kicks. On their third day I would introduce hand techniques. All the kicks and hand techniques would obviously be done from stances so I wouldn't be separating stances from kicks and hand strikes. I've never taught as a primary instructor but I have taught many students as an assistant instructor.



How long do you imagine these classes would last? Do you think people would be able to process so much information in one go? Don't you think it would be better to teach basics first rather than all stances, all kicks and punches? There's an accepted way that people learn a physical activity and doing it your way will end up with as has been said, bored students and poor learning.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 21, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> but I might work on only stances and movement on their first day.


There are 2 different methods to learn MA.

1. Develop strong foundation first. You then use those foundation to develop your fighting skill.
2. Develop fighting skill first. You then develop foundation along with your fighting skill development.

You have described the 1st method in your post. The example for the 2nd method can be you teach "hip throw" first. You then ask your students to use "hip throw" to throw their opponent down 10,000 times. During that 10,000 times hip throw training, you gradually correct your student's "horse stance" until it's perfect.

I like method 2 better than method 1.

Let

A = horse stance
B = hip throw

The difference is

- If you have B, you will have A for sure.
- If you have A, you may still not have B.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 21, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Therefore what might be a good approach to teaching a beginner is to first teach stances and how to move in the stances.


This is a good fit for Jow Ga.  Some student's get lazy with this and half train it, only to discover 3 years later just how important the stances and movement is stances are..  Without this training the brain has a hard time making the feet react.


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 21, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Before they learn techniques they've got to learn stances. In some of the schools from thousands of years back supposedly students would spend their first six months doing just stances and only then would they start learning techniques. I would not go for six months having a new student do just stances but I might work on only stances and movement on their first day.
> 
> 
> That is one of the reasons why I might teach kicks first, they're harder and if a student can learn kicks, learning and developing hand strikes will be that much easier. The main reason I might teach kicks first is because they use the legs the most and a strong base is very important.


Yeah but this isn't thousands of years ago In china. People want things fast these days. Why would they spend a few lessons doing nothing but stances when they could go to a kickboxing club and spend an hour hitting and kicking bags, sparring and drilling and getting a sweat on. I know which I'd choose


----------



## Buka (Jun 21, 2017)

Let's keep in mind we are all teaching different arts, in different places, with different people, for different reasons. Ain't no way we will all teach the same thing, or in the same order.

I don't have a set "first day" set of techniques. It depends on the group, if it is a group, or on the person. 
But it usually consists of stance (what I consider a proper stance, not necessarily what you use in your school) moving forward, back sideways and with accompanying angles, a jab, a straight punch with the rear hand (either hand) and a front kick.

The only three things I teach, guaranteed on that first day, is getting up fast, undivided attention and dojo protocol.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 21, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Before they learn techniques they've got to learn stances. In some of the schools from thousands of years back supposedly students would spend their first six months doing just stances and only then would they start learning techniques. I would not go for six months having a new student do just stances but I might work on only stances and movement on their first day.
> 
> 
> That is one of the reasons why I might teach kicks first, they're harder and if a student can learn kicks, learning and developing hand strikes will be that much easier. The main reason I might teach kicks first is because they use the legs the most and a strong base is very important.



The issue is it really might take 6 months to get stances right. And that would grind.

We do stance work but a bit each class. Which is just more palatable from a training point of view.

Now having said that. Because of the importance of stance training. All of it is stance training. So I am working a bag. I am working stances.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 21, 2017)

There's nothing wrong with combining elements together for beginners, as long as you don't overload them. What you need to ask yourself is can your student adequately practice the basics whilst doing other things. In the case of stances, most people are more than capable of doing simple punches while holding a horse or fighting stance, so instead of boring the student by making them just do the stance, combine it with basic hand techniques. This not only speeds up the learning process but makes it more interesting for the student.


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2017)

isn't kata for teaching stances and movement?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> isn't kata for teaching stances and movement?


I use it for training transitions and control. I think most people/systems include stance training in their kata work. I do some stance focus in the short kata (single-technique forms), but I don't like folks focusing on the stances so much in the long-form kata. Those are for them to develop movement.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> isn't kata for teaching stances and movement?


Yes.


----------



## JR 137 (Jun 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I use it for training transitions and control. I think most people/systems include stance training in their kata work. I do some stance focus in the short kata (single-technique forms), but I don't like folks focusing on the stances so much in the long-form kata. Those are for them to develop movement.


Not to start yet another kata debate, but shouldn't kata be all about learning/developing/teaching movement?  Some people get hung up on the end of each movement, or pose, if you will.  While I think that part's important, as if things are in the wrong places the student probably has the wrong technique and/or idea of what it means, how the student got to that position is more important IMO.

Take the first count of the most basic kata I know, Taikyoku 1...
Turn left 90 degrees into forward leaning stance, left hand low block.

The student looking, sliding the feet, and performing the block with two hands (and performing the block correctly), and timing it altogether is far more important than what it looks like when he/she has finished the count.  I look at the finished part of the count as more of a pose than anything else.  If getting from point A to point B isn't done right, the bunkai of the technique won't work the way it's supposed to.

I think too many people get hung up on the pose at the end of the count rather than how they got into it.  What the pose looks like is the most irrelevant part IMO.  It would be like watching a baseball pitcher and only analyzing where his hands and feet ended after the follow-through rather than analyzing the entire pitch from the preparatory phase through execution and recovery phases.

Sorry, I guess that's my kinesiology classes speaking.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 22, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Not to start yet another kata debate, but shouldn't kata be all about learning/developing/teaching movement?  Some people get hung up on the end of each movement, or pose, if you will.  While I think that part's important, as if things are in the wrong places the student probably has the wrong technique and/or idea of what it means, how the student got to that position is more important IMO.
> 
> Take the first count of the most basic kata I know, Taikyoku 1...
> Turn left 90 degrees into forward leaning stance, left hand low block.
> ...



I love it when people do that....

"I don't mean to start a debate on this highly polarising topic, but I'm going to do it anyway"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 22, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Not to start yet another kata debate, but shouldn't kata be all about learning/developing/teaching movement?  Some people get hung up on the end of each movement, or pose, if you will.  While I think that part's important, as if things are in the wrong places the student probably has the wrong technique and/or idea of what it means, how the student got to that position is more important IMO.
> 
> Take the first count of the most basic kata I know, Taikyoku 1...
> Turn left 90 degrees into forward leaning stance, left hand low block.
> ...


Actually, I rant about this to my students on a regular basis. They want to know what the angles should be, and where their feet should end up. I tel them to focus on the trchnique, and how to use it against the imaginary attack. If their feet are in the wrong place, that's not their feet's fault. Feet go where they are needed. Get the movement and technique right, and I don't really care about the stance or finishing angle (because they will be appropriate to the technique).


----------



## jobo (Jun 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I rant about this to my students on a regular basis. They want to know what the angles should be, and where their feet should end up. I tel them to focus on the trchnique, and how to use it against the imaginary attack. If their feet are in the wrong place, that's not their feet's fault. Feet go where they are needed. Get the movement and technique right, and I don't really care about the stance or finishing angle (because they will be appropriate to the technique).


I've changed my mind on kata, I at first thought it silly and and a waste of time, now I see it as a sure fire way of developing motor skills and to a lessor extent muscle development .

if you do the movements very very slowly using maximum contraction, its a very good way of increasing strengh


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've changed my mind on kata, I at first thought it silly and and a waste of time, now I see it as a sure fire way of developing motor skills and to a lessor extent muscle development .
> 
> if you do the movements very very slowly using maximum contraction, its a very good way of increasing strengh


I work a grave shift, and I dance around that shop, all the time. People should just do forms, when they are bored, or if they are not bored.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've changed my mind on kata, I at first thought it silly and and a waste of time, now I see it as a sure fire way of developing motor skills and to a lessor extent muscle development .
> 
> if you do the movements very very slowly using maximum contraction, its a very good way of increasing strengh


I've encouraged students to practice them very, very slowly (without the maximum contraction) for balance development. So far, only one has taken up that suggestion (I don't spend a lot of class time on long kata). I need to try ours out with contraction to see how they feel. That might be something for me to work with, and maybe some advanced students.


----------



## JR 137 (Jun 22, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've encouraged students to practice them very, very slowly (without the maximum contraction) for balance development. So far, only one has taken up that suggestion (I don't spend a lot of class time on long kata). I need to try ours out with contraction to see how they feel. That might be something for me to work with, and maybe some advanced students.



Sanchin kata may inspire you...





We do this one at our dojo.  We're supposed to have maximal tension, and we don't breathe as loud.  During the kata, we'll occasionally have a higher rank pushing and pulling us from different directions, and they'll grab our arms and resist our movement.  It teaches quite a few things.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've changed my mind on kata, I at first thought it silly and and a waste of time, now I see it as a sure fire way of developing motor skills and to a lessor extent muscle development .
> 
> if you do the movements very very slowly using maximum contraction, its a very good way of increasing strengh



Yeah. It can be used in the same way as animal walks.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Jun 23, 2017)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yes.


yap


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 23, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Sanchin kata may inspire you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had a training partner years ago who taught me some of this technique. It may have actually been part of that very kata we worked with. I need to look for my notes on that.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jun 23, 2017)

I think the trick is to mix things into the perfect blend, or the best blend that you can. I agree with Photon about the importance of stances, although I would say "teach hand techniques next" because in Wing Chun, there are more upper than lower body attacks.

However, I agree with other sentiments that people would get bored. At the previous Wing Chun school I attended, he eliminated self-defense applications and made it so class was all forms...unless you were advanced enough to do chi sao. People would be working on section 1 of Sil Lum Tao for weeks and maybe even sometimes months. As Drop Bear said, it got to be a grind. Not everyone is resilient/patient enough to wait to move on to the next thing.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 23, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Sanchin kata may inspire you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We have a similar form called San Zhan which is a conditioning form (I'm told that Sanchin was developed from San Zhan hence the similarities). When done correctly it gives you a surprisingly good workout. Some of the toughest sessions I've done have been where we have spent an hour just doing this form.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2017)

Kata is useful for a number of things, you can take out of it what you need. Perhaps that's why they were 'invented' .


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 28, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> What I mean is on a students first day I would just teach stances and movement. On their second day I would review stances and movement and then introduce kicks. On their third day I would introduce hand techniques. All the kicks and hand techniques would obviously be done from stances so I wouldn't be separating stances from kicks and hand strikes. I've never taught as a primary instructor but I have taught many students as an assistant instructor.



Talking about "first days" it makes more sense.  But frankly, I think trying to do all that in the first three lessons may be a little fast.  When I studied TKD, there was indeed emphasis on stances.  I was taught stances for a long time, and I didn't stop learning stances just because I learned kicking and punching.  When the punching, kicking and kata came in to it I don't recall, since there was such an emphasis on correct stance for balance and moving.  Having to go up and down the do jang making sure one's feet stay on the tiles at the same place, is hard to forget when you are doing it for an entire lesson, maybe more.    But when I began learning other things, I did have proper stance.  



Buka said:


> Let's keep in mind we are all teaching different arts, in different places, with different people, for different reasons. Ain't no way we will all teach the same thing, or in the same order.
> 
> I don't have a set "first day" set of techniques. It depends on the group, if it is a group, or on the person.
> But it usually consists of stance (what I consider a proper stance, not necessarily what you use in your school) moving forward, back sideways and with accompanying angles, a jab, a straight punch with the rear hand (either hand) and a front kick.
> ...



I agree on what to emphasize first, but might add how to put on the uniform and tie their belt if they didn't already have a more senior student show them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I agree on what to emphasize first, but might add how to put on the uniform and tie their belt if they didn't already have a more senior student show them.


First day, my students are only in uniform if they already owned one. Either way, there won't likely be a need to teach them to put one on. Most of my folks buy theirs after a few weeks (I require it after about 8 weeks - when they transition to the formal curriculum).


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> First day, my students are only in uniform if they already owned one. Either way, there won't likely be a need to teach them to put one on. Most of my folks buy theirs after a few weeks (I require it after about 8 weeks - when they transition to the formal curriculum).



Not a bad way to do things at all, but it seems many schools keep uniforms on had and expect new students to buy on right away.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Not a bad way to do things at all, but it seems many schools keep uniforms on had and expect new students to buy on right away.


Most do. I think all the schools in NGA do, at least all those I'm aware of. Probably not those who don't have their own school, though. For me, I offer a free first class, and it wouldn't make sense for folks to have to buy a gi to try out the class, so even if I had the storage space to keep a few on hand, I'd still have folks starting out in street clothes.


----------



## Buka (Jun 29, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Sanchin kata may inspire you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As someone who hasn't done a Kata in a long time - that's the one I really liked. Kind of miss it.


----------

