# Keep useful, dump useless: curriculum or individual?



## zDom (Aug 13, 2008)

When Bruce Lee said keep what is useful and dump the rest (to paraphrase, sorry I can't recall exact wording at this moment),

do you think he meant eliminate it from the curriculum?

Or do you think he meant on an individual basis? 

(i.e., learn it all and then only hone what works for you as an individual?)


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 13, 2008)

interesting thought, and it could be one and the same.

Obviously, this would be meant for the individual.  But how could it not go beyond this?

If it is not useful for yourself, how could you teach it to someone else?  WHY would you even try?  After all, in your opinion, it is not useful.

Why is it not useful for yourself?  Is it because you believe it is truly a bad idea?  Then dump it completely.  

Is it because you don't fully understand it?  Well, you cannot teach something to others for them to use, if you don't understand it.  You will only teach it poorly, and it is almost guaranteed to also not be useful to them as a result.  So how can you keep it?  Maybe you will meet someone later who can help you understand it better, and then it becomes useful for you.  Then you can re-evaluate.  But until then, how can you justify keeping it?

What makes up a curriculum anyway?  It's something that someone compiled.  We often act on faith that this someone is wiser and more experienced than we are.  That may even be true.  But these men were not gods.  They were men, like us.  What works well for one may not work so well for another.  So no curriculum is ultimately carved in stone, is not perfect in an absolute way.  In the end, we all need to make our own decisions.


----------



## zDom (Aug 14, 2008)

Well, I know in our hapkido curriculum there are some techniques that I can do well enough to pass a test or teach to a student, but I don't think I would ever use in a self-defense situation. For example, my sweeping hip throw isn't exactly great. I just don't have much time on the mat using this against a resisting opponent that my instructor, who was a judo player before studying hapkido, or his instructor, a judo master, had.

But who is to say that one of my student someday might have a really great sweeping hip?



And then there are techniques that I KNOW I could depend on (if the situation called for that technique) that for ME would be very effective &#8212; say a side kick or front kick &#8212; but I don't think would work for a particular student.

So, as you said, Crane, "What works well for one may not work so well for another."

Here's the question though: if every generation of instructors "weeds out" techinques that THEY don't find useful, eventually the curriculum will be down to just a few techniques.

But what if I toss out a technique from the curriculum that one of my students*&#8212; or one of my student's students &#8212; would find particularly useful?

My opinion is, we should keep our curriculum intact and pass it ALL down &#8212; even techniques that we might think are highly unlikely to work. For this reason (in addition to being required to know the material for testing), I continue to train all the techniques.

But on the OTHER hand, for MY martial arts, I do focus on techniques that work for me, that I find useful. The list of techniques I am likely to use in a self defense situation are significantly fewer than I know and train.


So my question is: do the JKD concepts people agree with my opinion?

Is keeping the curriculum intact but focusing personal training on a select few techniques what Lee was talking about? Or do you think he intended, over time, for techniques to be permanently weeded out from the curriculum?

For example, he had a great spinning heel kick &#8212; but not everybody does. Should it be taught and trained?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 14, 2008)

First off, I didn't realize this was in the JKD section, so I apologize if I'm leading the thread astray or stepping outside of my area or something.  But I thought I'd jump in and add some thoughts...



zDom said:


> Well, I know in our hapkido curriculum there are some techniques that I can do well enough to pass a test or teach to a student, but I don't think I would ever use in a self-defense situation. For example, my sweeping hip throw isn't exactly great. I just don't have much time on the mat using this against a resisting opponent that my instructor, who was a judo player before studying hapkido, or his instructor, a judo master, had.
> 
> But who is to say that one of my student someday might have a really great sweeping hip?


 
well in this example, it sounds like you understand the technique well enough to be able to teach it correctly to a student, and you recognize that it is a technique with a lot of potential, even tho you have not realized that potential yourself.  So under those circumstances, I think it makes sense to keep it and pass it to your students.



> And then there are techniques that I KNOW I could depend on (if the situation called for that technique) that for ME would be very effective  say a side kick or front kick  but I don't think would work for a particular student.
> 
> So, as you said, Crane, "What works well for one may not work so well for another."


 
but of course you must teach the things for which you are strongest.  That is your specialty.  Sure, not every one of your students will be able to do it, but some will.  But the point is, these are your strong points so clearly you teach them.  I wouldn't necessarily decide for a student that he won't be able to use something that you have to teach.  That student needs to make that decision himself.  But you are good at it, so definitely teach it.

Obviously common sense must step in at times.  If you have an overweight, 75 year-old student who is a beginner and has trouble just walking in the door, you probably don't want to start him working on hip throws and jump spinning kicks.  Some things are pretty clear in that way.



> Here's the question though: if every generation of instructors "weeds out" techinques that THEY don't find useful, eventually the curriculum will be down to just a few techniques.


 
this is a possible end result, but it fails to consider what else might be brought into the curriculum in the mean time.  I guess you gotta ask yourself, what is it you want to practice and teach, and why?  Do you want to remain faithful to a system established by someone else, or do you want to focus on the things that are really effective for you?  These may be the same thing, or they may not.  You need to decide.

Systems do change.  Every generation does things a little differently.  Sometimes it is just the result of a different body type or something.  Other times it is because things have been deliberately changed, or material has been eliminated or new material developed or borrowed from elsewhere.  There really is no such thing as a "pure" system.  I think it's really a result of these modern Federations and whatnot that have made us feel we need to keep a system "intact", but historically I'm not convinced this was such a concern.



> But what if I toss out a technique from the curriculum that one of my students* or one of my student's students  would find particularly useful?


 
again, if you understand the technique well enough to teach it correctly, then do so.  If you feel the technique is actually a bad idea altogether, or you simply don't understand it at all, then you can't really teach it in good faith.  Under those conditions, I don't think it makes sense to worry about depriving a student of something that THEY might be able to use, if you cannot.  Maybe someone else can teach it to them and they might find benefit in it.  But you, perhaps not.



> My opinion is, we should keep our curriculum intact and pass it ALL down  even techniques that we might think are highly unlikely to work. For this reason (in addition to being required to know the material for testing), I continue to train all the techniques.
> 
> But on the OTHER hand, for MY martial arts, I do focus on techniques that work for me, that I find useful. The list of techniques I am likely to use in a self defense situation are significantly fewer than I know and train.


 
I tend to feel the same way, I don't feel i'm yet in a position to decide what, if anything, ought to be eliminated.  But I do feel that it makes sense to make your own short list of hot items that really work for you.  Those are the ones you get really good at and you rely on.  The others you maintain well enough to keep the system together, and you polish them up when it comes time to test again.  But the bulk of your training is on your list of old faithfuls.


----------



## Bodhisattva (Aug 14, 2008)

zDom said:


> When Bruce Lee said keep what is useful and dump the rest (to paraphrase, sorry I can't recall exact wording at this moment),
> 
> do you think he meant eliminate it from the curriculum?
> 
> ...



Good fighting techniques can work for anyone.

Bad fighting techniques are outside of what is "real" and therefore cannot work for anyone.

The way you find out what works is to work it against all kinds of fighters from all styles (not just in a classroom with one style present.)

If it doesn't work - get rid of it.


----------



## zDom (Aug 15, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Good fighting techniques can work for anyone.



:bs:




Bodhisattva said:


> Bad fighting techniques are outside of what is "real" and therefore cannot work for anyone.



"Outside of 'real'"? What is that supposed to mean?

I guess it stands to reason that if it doesn't work for ANYONE than it isn't worth practicing BY anyone.




Bodhisattva said:


> The way you find out what works is to work it against all kinds of fighters from all styles (not just in a classroom with one style present.)



I disagree. This testing method is flawed because most of the time it has more to do with the FIGHTER than a specific technique.

A poorly trained fighter may consistently fail with a technique whereas a better trained fighter may be able to consistently make that very same technique work time and time again.




Bodhisattva said:


> If it doesn't work - get rid of it.



And that is the question:

Do YOU think that just because ONE INDIVIDUAL fails to make a technique work that it should be discarded completely?

OR should just that individual get rid of the technique from THEIR skill set?

And at what point do you decide to get rid of it? A brand new fighter may fail to effectively land a right cross. Does that mean he should just discard it?

It might ALSO mean that HE has a poor right cross  not that the right cross technique is flawed. Or that his TIMING and understanding of bridging the gap needs development.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 15, 2008)

zDom said:


> When Bruce Lee said keep what is useful and dump the rest (to paraphrase, sorry I can't recall exact wording at this moment),
> 
> do you think he meant eliminate it from the curriculum?
> 
> ...


I think we should dump the word eliminate. Decide what is usefull and devote the majority of training to that purpose. Spend one or two percent of your time studying the things that you may need one or two percent of the time.
Sean


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 15, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Good fighting techniques can work for anyone.
> 
> Bad fighting techniques are outside of what is "real" and therefore cannot work for anyone.
> 
> ...


This is a simplistic view.  I'm big, and strong.  There are techniques that work just fine for me, like using a high elbow cover, and absorbing a shot to enable me to move in and strike.  But for someone with a smaller frame and less muscle... that approach isn't too smart; they're better off deflecting and moving in from an outside angle.  Both techniques are good -- but better suited to different people.  Or, I know people who have trained their knuckles and can strike effectively with a single knuckle punch; I haven't.  I can do the punch -- ONCE against a target!  Not a good choice for me...  But that doesn't make it a bad technique.

In a like vein, just because a technique doesn't work against one person or even one whole style, that doesn't make the technique itself always ineffective.  For example, a heel rake down the shins of a professional soccer player or muay thai fighter may not be very effective; they're used to the pain on their shins.  But, on someone else -- it's incredibly effective.  Many pressure point attacks don't work on everyone; you can go after my radial nerve or several of the shoulder/neck pressure points all day.  I don't feel 'em.  (There are others that work just great, though!)  That doesn't mean they're bad techniques -- just a bad technique to use ON ME.  Ever seen a boxer take an incredible right cross, and just grin?


----------



## Franc0 (Aug 15, 2008)

I'd like to think that it's best to learn a complete curriculum, then let the individual decide what works best for them in actual applications, i.e. sparring, non-compliant drilling, actual self-defense applications etc. The "discarding" or "eliminating" of specific moves or techniques happens only when the indivdual simply doesn't use them in applications. Like I mentioned in a similar thread, the individual may not use it, but they'll still have it in their "tool box".  
I have a student that pissed & moaned when it came to learning sweeps. He insisted that he'd never use them, they aren't efficient, they'll never work in the street blah blah blah. I told him too bad, if he wanted to advance, he had to learn them and thats that. So he did, and I made him work extra hard to get them perfect. Later on, he was able to apply them so sneaky-like that you never saw them coming, though he still personally feels he wouldn't use them in a real street application. So mentally he might have "dumped" sweeps, be he's still got 'em if he ever need's 'em.

Franco


----------



## joeygil (Aug 15, 2008)

I say gray area.

Some techniques are pretty obviously not effective - such as no touch Chi attacks.

But for the techniques that don't work for your body type, or you can't pull off, that's the gray area.  If you plan to teach, you should learn them, so you can pass them on to others who may find it useful.  

I don't speak for Sifu Dan Inosanto, but I've heard him mention in class several techniques he states doesn't work well for him (for example, because he has short legs), but he insists we learn as they may work for us, or to pass onto our students.


So I suppose it depends if you plan to pass on the art.  Even then, you may find something complete bunk, and don't want to teach it.


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 16, 2008)

We are looking at the premise of JKD and this idea of "dumping curriculum" from the wrong perspective.

Bruce Lee had JKD as a concept and an idea.  There was a limited set curriculum to express many of his ideas (Jun Fan Gung Fu).  Also, look at his other writings and two things become obvious.

1)  It was not meant to be "a style", it was concerned about the individual and the individual learning his own approach for what works best for him and not being set by a set paradigm.  (ie: technique A is very effective, but it is not found in Style X so I can't use it.  If it works for you, incorporate it no matter the source).

2)  JKD was not meant to be really "taught" to large groups of people.  It wasn't meant to be a school and propagated as such.  Bruce closed all of his schools eventually.

So the bigger question is what do we do with this, and where does it leave us?  I think that if you look at Bruce's evolution it is similiar to one that most people should follow.  Learn a set style or curriculum, then figure out where the weaknesses are or the gaps in that curriculum and add things to fill them (not just for the sake of adding or adding things that just look neat).  The things you learn that do not fit into your personal approach (that has been honed through real applicable training) you don't keep investing energy into.

If you are going to be an instructor, then you need to keep up on ALL the things you learn so you can pass them onto your students so they can also go through the same approach.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Aug 16, 2008)

what is useless to you and useful  to the next person will varry so are you not taking away from their possible knowledge base by throwing away material you feel is useless


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 16, 2008)

masterfinger said:


> I'd like to think that it's best to learn a complete curriculum, then let the individual decide what works best for them in actual applications, i.e. sparring, non-compliant drilling, actual self-defense applications etc. The "discarding" or "eliminating" of specific moves or techniques happens only when the indivdual simply doesn't use them in applications. Like I mentioned in a similar thread, the individual may not use it, but they'll still have it in their "tool box".
> I have a student that pissed & moaned when it came to learning sweeps. He insisted that he'd never use them, they aren't efficient, they'll never work in the street blah blah blah. I told him too bad, if he wanted to advance, he had to learn them and thats that. So he did, and I made him work extra hard to get them perfect. Later on, he was able to apply them so sneaky-like that you never saw them coming, though he still personally feels he wouldn't use them in a real street application. So mentally he might have "dumped" sweeps, be he's still got 'em if he ever need's 'em.
> 
> Franco


I say keep dumping him on his *** until he gets the point, but thats just me.
Sean


----------



## arnisador (Aug 17, 2008)

zDom said:


> When Bruce Lee said keep what is useful and dump the rest (to paraphrase, sorry I can't recall exact wording at this moment),
> 
> do you think he meant eliminate it from the curriculum?
> 
> Or do you think he meant on an individual basis?



I very much think he meant that for individuals--that everyone should take what they like from the smorgasbord of martial arts and retain only what's useful from this in their own personal fighting style.


----------



## Kwanjang (Aug 17, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I very much think he meant that for individuals--that everyone should take what they like from the smorgasbord of martial arts and retain only what's useful from this in their own personal fighting style.


 
Well said!


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 17, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I very much think he meant that for individuals--that everyone should take what they like from the smorgasbord of martial arts and retain only what's useful from this in their own personal fighting style.


 
ezcellent way of saying it


----------



## zDom (Aug 18, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I very much think he meant that for individuals--that everyone should take what they like from the smorgasbord of martial arts and retain only what's useful from this in their own personal fighting style.



I agree, and it was well said.

But then like I tell my daughter: what you might not like TODAY *could* end up being a favorite food down the road if you give it a chance


----------

