# Teaching beginners lots of moves



## PhotonGuy

I wonder if its a good idea to teach beginners lots of moves when they first start learning a martial art. The idea is for a student to have lots of moves to choose from when they choose which moves to particularly focus on.


----------



## Chester Wright

Not a good idea in my opinion. Drilling a few moves and working on developing good muscle memory is the way to go. Fear not the man who has practiced 10000 techniques once, but the man who has practiced one technique 10000 times.


----------



## drop bear

I go for less moves.  But i don't learn all that quickly.


----------



## DanT

For new new students they just learn: straight punch, tan da, gan da, pak sao, front kick and side kick. (6 techniques and once they get those they learn more). This tends to be the maximum that 95% of people can remember for the first month or so.


----------



## hoshin1600

Depends on what your doing. If I link this to your other post about Royler  Gracie, I would say beginners are really learning basics that need to be drilled over and over. The teaching of lots of other cool moves is just entertainment while you drill the same basics.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Chester Wright said:


> Not a good idea in my opinion. Drilling a few moves and working on developing good muscle memory is the way to go. Fear not the man who has practiced 10000 techniques once, but the man who has practiced one technique 10000 times.


Well, if you move the same way, it shouldn't matter how many. The different moves will be at different point on the circle, or simply require a different position of your hand. So, the moves aren't the issue, teaching them as something different, is the issue.


----------



## kuniggety

It's a hard balance. If people are coming to class and training the same thing over and over, I would think some people would get bored. At the same time, I've trained for years in a BJJ environment where you'll learn 2 or 3 moves in a class and who knows when they'll go over it again. You're kind of left to try to pick up bits here and there and eventually piece it together. Both ways work.


----------



## marques

kuniggety said:


> It's a hard balance.


I would say less is better. Then, for motivation (and entertainment) is also useful to have a broader idea of what we will be mastering in the future, eventually. (Or if it is a seminar with people at different levels, showing more increases the chance of having everyone learning something new).

My initial training was not designed for beginners. I trained a couple of different techniques every class. So I was not great in anything, for years. But I was quite all-rounded and with options against different kinds of opponent.

Focus on a few techniques, perhaps made you more predictable _and_ unstoppable (as some professional fighters are).

Different ways, different results.


----------



## jobo

PhotonGuy said:


> I wonder if its a good idea to teach beginners lots of moves when they first start learning a martial art. The idea is for a student to have lots of moves to choose from when they choose which moves to particularly focus on.


it depend what you are trying to teach them I suppose, if they are learning karate, then lots of techniques' that they refine over the years. If you are teaching them how to defend themselves in the short term, then a very few techniques' done to a high standard is the way to go


----------



## Danny T

Few movements utilized in many different ways.


----------



## Hyoho

Teaching beginners lots of moves and they always will be beginners. Fundamentals are the key to the china cabinet, Sometimes you will find false beginners who know what is required to advance.


----------



## Headhunter

PhotonGuy said:


> I wonder if its a good idea to teach beginners lots of moves when they first start learning a martial art. The idea is for a student to have lots of moves to choose from when they choose which moves to particularly focus on.


Very bad idea. Teach them to much there head is flooded with info and can't remember the basics properly so they have a lot of moves but can't do any or them well at all


----------



## Bill Mattocks

First thing we teach them is how to walk.

Then we start teaching them things like how to make a fist correctly.

Then we start with kihon (basics).

Advanced techniques come much later.  Some students come in wanting to 'just learn to fight' or 'just learn chi' or whatever.  They can want what they like, they're going to get what we teach, when they are ready.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

PhotonGuy said:


> I wonder if its a good idea to teach beginners lots of moves when they first start learning a martial art. The idea is for a student to have lots of moves to choose from when they choose which moves to particularly focus on.


There's a balance to strike here. Give them too many choices, and they don't get to spend enough time on any of them to get good. Give them too few for too long, and they don't really get the overall concept. This latter one is something I've seen with students who over-focus on a technique. They start trying to "make the technique work", using it places where it's not really a good choice, rather than using a more appropriate technique. Of course, when they only have a few moves to use, they pretty much have to choose from those.

On the whole, I like to move them through several simple movements in the first couple of classes, then build on those (and revisit them) in later classes. When they (still a relative beginner) get a more complex set of movements, I prefer them to stay on it most of a class, and part of the next.


----------



## Tez3

Bill Mattocks said:


> First thing we teach them is how to walk.
> .



This! so important. People walk perfectly well outside the dojo but as soon as they walk in something happens, it's usually the one foot directly in front of the other walk they do so often I do have point out the feet walk with a distance apart. If they don't walk properly then stances are difficult which leads to everything else being off.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Chester Wright said:


> Fear not the man who has practiced 10000 techniques once, but the man who has practiced one technique 10000 times.



I agree, but the idea is to know 10000 techniques so than you can pick from them which one works best for you and which one to practice 10000 times. Its good to have a big selection to pick from.


----------



## JP3

PhotonGuy said:


> I wonder if its a good idea to teach beginners lots of moves when they first start learning a martial art. The idea is for a student to have lots of moves to choose from when they choose which moves to particularly focus on.


Having a huge toolbox if it is disorganized (as it would be for a beginner) would amount to being little better than having no tools at all if you can't find what you need.


----------



## drop bear

PhotonGuy said:


> I agree, but the idea is to know 10000 techniques so than you can pick from them which one works best for you and which one to practice 10000 times. Its good to have a big selection to pick from.



They tend to run into each other a bit at the start.


----------



## Touch Of Death

drop bear said:


> They tend to run into each other a bit at the start.


It should be an exercise, in doing the same thing every time.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> I agree, but the idea is to know 10000 techniques so than you can pick from them which one works best for you and which one to practice 10000 times. Its good to have a big selection to pick from.



What makes you think the idea is to have 10000 techniques to choose from? It's not actually a good idea to have a big selection because you obviously haven't heard the story of the fox and the hounds. A fox and a cat are sitting chatting, they hear the hounds baying in the distance. The fox tells the cat he has hundreds of ways to outwit the hounds, the cat says she only has one, that's to run up a tree which she does as they hear the hounds come closer, the fox sits there considering which of his hundreds of ways to use, he sits there so long thinking of the many ways that he doesn't actually use any because the hounds are on him and he's ripped to pieces. So no, 10000 techniques is not useful, pick one, practice, practice and practice.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tez3 said:


> What makes you think the idea is to have 10000 techniques to choose from? It's not actually a good idea to have a big selection because you obviously haven't heard the story of the fox and the hounds. A fox and a cat are sitting chatting, they hear the hounds baying in the distance. The fox tells the cat he has hundreds of ways to outwit the hounds, the cat says she only has one, that's to run up a tree which she does as they hear the hounds come closer, the fox sits there considering which of his hundreds of ways to use, he sits there so long thinking of the many ways that he doesn't actually use any because the hounds are on him and he's ripped to pieces. So no, 10000 techniques is not useful, pick one, practice, practice and practice.


Well, you can cut your self off from 66.33333% of them, by simply using the ones available for the position you are in, at that moment.


----------



## Tez3

Touch Of Death said:


> Well, you can cut your self off from 66.33333% of them, by simply using the ones available for the position you are in, at that moment.



If you know which ones are available that is, that you aren't confused and out of practise because you know so many techniques that you can only practice each one once a year.


----------



## Paul_D

PhotonGuy said:


> I agree, but the idea is to know 10000 techniques so than you can pick from them which one works best for you and which one to practice 10000 times. Its good to have a big selection to pick from.


Actually the idea should be to internalise the principals on which the techniques are based so you can apply them when needed. Techniques have a finite use, and are essentially nothing more than physical manifestations of the principals. Principals on the other hand have an almost infinite number of applications.


----------



## Andrew Green

PhotonGuy said:


> I agree, but the idea is to know 10000 techniques so than you can pick from them which one works best for you and which one to practice 10000 times. Its good to have a big selection to pick from.



Beginners don't need that.  It makes little sense in any context.

Some things are needed by everyone.  If you do kickboxing you'll need a jab, you'll need a cross and a half dozen other core techniques before you can really do much.  You don't need 20 different types of kicks.    You get the basics and then build on top of it with the less used stuff as it suits you.  You don't need a ax kick, could it help?  Sure, but you don't need it.  You do need a jab, and a few other things.  

It's like building a tool box.  Start with a couple screw drivers, adjustable wrench, maybe a hammer and a hand saw.  The stuff you'll need the most and that does the most basic things.  

Different coaches might have slightly different takes on what those fundamentals are, but they are going to be pretty similar within a given ruleset or context under most coaches.  If you are taking Muay Thai and are learning spin kicks before jabs... somethings not right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> What makes you think the idea is to have 10000 techniques to choose from? It's not actually a good idea to have a big selection because you obviously haven't heard the story of the fox and the hounds. A fox and a cat are sitting chatting, they hear the hounds baying in the distance. The fox tells the cat he has hundreds of ways to outwit the hounds, the cat says she only has one, that's to run up a tree which she does as they hear the hounds come closer, the fox sits there considering which of his hundreds of ways to use, he sits there so long thinking of the many ways that he doesn't actually use any because the hounds are on him and he's ripped to pieces. So no, 10000 techniques is not useful, pick one, practice, practice and practice.


True enough, so long as the one technique is always appropriate.


----------



## Hyoho

Sounds like a lot are people are still having to think too much when they fight. No two situations will ever be the same. Adaptability of just one technique is fine "if" you understand timing/interval.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> What makes you think the idea is to have 10000 techniques to choose from? It's not actually a good idea to have a big selection because you obviously haven't heard the story of the fox and the hounds. A fox and a cat are sitting chatting, they hear the hounds baying in the distance. The fox tells the cat he has hundreds of ways to outwit the hounds, the cat says she only has one, that's to run up a tree which she does as they hear the hounds come closer, the fox sits there considering which of his hundreds of ways to use, he sits there so long thinking of the many ways that he doesn't actually use any because the hounds are on him and he's ripped to pieces. So no, 10000 techniques is not useful, pick one, practice, practice and practice.



Lets say I know 10000 techniques, I pick one or two of them, and I practice, practice, practice with just those one or two moves. Of course 10000 techniques is an exaggeration. The point is I've got a big selection to choose from. As for the fox, perhaps he should've picked one of his hundreds of ways beforehand and planned to use that one way in such emergencies.


----------



## JR 137

There's good a reason why every syllabus I've seen has far fewer techniques at white belt than any other rank.

Learn how to stand, move, make a fist, throw a punch, a kick or two, and how to avoid those things.    Then do more advanced stuff once you've got those down.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Lets say I know 10000 techniques, I pick one or two of them, and I practice, practice, practice with just those one or two moves. Of course 10000 techniques is an exaggeration. The point is I've got a big selection to choose from. As for the fox, perhaps he should've picked one of his hundreds of ways beforehand and planned to use that one way in such emergencies.



If the fox does that he's going back to the original premise of practising one technique  thousands of times. that is a simplification but certainly beginners do not need hundreds of techniques and the more experienced don't need thousands, just ones they know very well and can be adapted for any situation.


----------



## eddiecharette

My grandson has started of his training classes. From what he shared with me, they had a slow start. 
he keeps checking online for improving his moves and is very passionate. He likes viewing youtube like this cute video


----------



## Buka

I don't think it's an either or question. It's dependent on the dojo, the Art, how said dojo is run, how the classes are set up, the teachers, the frequency and availability of classes for the students, whether it's a fighting dojo, or a training dojo, the pedagogical talent and attitude of teachers, and of the students, too....and a whole lot of other factors.

Think about ALL the students you've know throughout the years. They don't learn the same way, at the same pace, in the same comfort, and some learn some things better than other things, and other things less than some things. (really clunky sentence)

Throw them in the water for five years (hey, the OP said "beginners") - see what shakes out. Less than five years are just hobbyists anyway. (yes, I realize this is not sound business advice)

I always had a beginners class - and the regular class. Once you had some idea (even if it was minimal) of our basics - stance, hands up always, movement, basic punches and kicks, blocks, parries, counters, position and base on the ground, etc, you got to go to the regular class. Sometimes this was your decision, sometimes we guided you when you were stalling.

The people in the regular class didn't look at you like new meat, they adopted you, they helped you, they took you under their wing. That's just the way it was.

It's all different in all schools, and in all Arts, and it pretty much works out whatever way you do it. 
Most times, anyway.


----------



## Hyoho

eddiecharette said:


> My grandson has started of his training classes. From what he shared with me, they had a slow start.
> he keeps checking online for improving his moves and is very passionate. He likes viewing youtube like this cute video



All Japanese children are like that regardless of MA. Even Yochien (Kindergarden) has a strict regimen of teaching small kids to memorise complicated actions. But for sure they are sweet kids.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> If the fox does that he's going back to the original premise of practising one technique  thousands of times. that is a simplification but certainly beginners do not need hundreds of techniques and the more experienced don't need thousands, just ones they know very well and can be adapted for any situation.



Thats the idea, to practice one or two moves thousands of times but to have a big pot to choose from.


----------



## Xue Sheng

_I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times. - Bruce Lee_

Teaching beginners many things does not give them a lot to chose from, it gives them a lot to get confused about, do wrong and then forget.


----------



## JR 137

Xue Sheng said:


> _I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times. - Bruce Lee_
> 
> Teaching beginners many things does not give them a lot to chose from, it gives them a lot to get confused about, do wrong and then forget.



Or lots of new ways to mess something up and get KOed because of it.


----------



## PhotonGuy

As discussed before 10,000 techniques is an exaggeration but lets put it this way. Lets say as a white belt you're taught the front kick, side kick, round kick, back kick, reverse punch, jab punch, palm strike, and shuto strike. That's eight different techniques, a rather large selection. Than as a yellow belt, the next belt up, you're taught the crescent kick, foot sweep, knee kick, elbow strike, ridge hand, and finger strike, which brings the total techniques in your arsenal up to 14. Now, lets say out of all those techniques you choose to primarily focus on the front kick and the reverse punch. So you practice the front kick and the reverse punch both 10,000 times and you keep training primarily in those two techniques throughout your entire martial arts career. If you were to do so you would become extremely effective with the front kick and reverse punch and you wouldn't need much more. So while I believe its a good idea to focus on just a few techniques and to bring them to a level where you've mastered them and to get them as good as you possibly can, I also think its a good idea to know or at least be familiar with many different techniques. That way you will have a big pot to choose from and you will also be better at defending against such techniques.


----------



## Touch Of Death

PhotonGuy said:


> As discussed before 10,000 techniques is an exaggeration but lets put it this way. Lets say as a white belt you're taught the front kick, side kick, round kick, back kick, reverse punch, jab punch, palm strike, and shuto strike. That's eight different techniques, a rather large selection. Than as a yellow belt, the next belt up, you're taught the crescent kick, foot sweep, knee kick, elbow strike, ridge hand, and finger strike, which brings the total techniques in your arsenal up to 14. Now, lets say out of all those techniques you choose to primarily focus on the front kick and the reverse punch. So you practice the front kick and the reverse punch both 10,000 times and you keep training primarily in those two techniques throughout your entire martial arts career. If you were to do so you would become extremely effective with the front kick and reverse punch and you wouldn't need much more. So while I believe its a good idea to focus on just a few techniques and to bring them to a level where you've mastered them and to get them as good as you possibly can, I also think its a good idea to know or at least be familiar with many different techniques. That way you will have a big pot to choose from and you will also be better at defending against such techniques.


But if you just show them, and work with them on the idea, the number of techniques rise quite drastically if you show them that the different techs are just points on a circle. So, you just teach the student where to place their hands (usually either side of the face), and offer them different targets, and they will know enough to shape their hand for the strike, ie back knuckles, eye whip, hammer fist,  grabs, elbows, tiger claws, pokes, and plucking or pulling, on the return motion. This can be taught rather quickly, given, the circle never changes, just the point, on that circle.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> As discussed before 10,000 techniques is an exaggeration but lets put it this way. Lets say as a white belt you're taught the front kick, side kick, round kick, back kick, reverse punch, jab punch, palm strike, and shuto strike. That's eight different techniques, a rather large selection. Than as a yellow belt, the next belt up, you're taught the crescent kick, foot sweep, knee kick, elbow strike, ridge hand, and finger strike, which brings the total techniques in your arsenal up to 14. Now, lets say out of all those techniques you choose to primarily focus on the front kick and the reverse punch. So you practice the front kick and the reverse punch both 10,000 times and you keep training primarily in those two techniques throughout your entire martial arts career. If you were to do so you would become extremely effective with the front kick and reverse punch and you wouldn't need much more. So while I believe its a good idea to focus on just a few techniques and to bring them to a level where you've mastered them and to get them as good as you possibly can, I also think its a good idea to know or at least be familiar with many different techniques. That way you will have a big pot to choose from and you will also be better at defending against such techniques.


Except that you won't do that.  Like most people, you will get caught up in doing what will get you your next promotion.  You will not focus on those couple.  You will spread yourself out trying to do it all, because you want a promotion too.

That's human nature.  Most people lack the self-awareness and the self-control.  Better to not show them yet.


----------



## Flying Crane

Less is more, usually.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Flying Crane said:


> Except that you won't do that.  Like most people, you will get caught up in doing what will get you your next promotion.  You will not focus on those couple.  You will spread yourself out trying to do it all, because you want a promotion too.
> 
> That's human nature.  Most people lack the self-awareness and the self-control.  Better to not show them yet.



Well that depends on what's required for promotion. Lets say that for promotion an instructor requires a student to have basic knowledge of all the techniques he's been taught but in addition to that the instructor requires the student to perform one kick and one hand strike of the student's choice to a much higher standard than the other techniques.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Bill Mattocks said:


> Then we start teaching them things like how to make a fist correctly.


This is probably a bigger issue for the fighting systems that we train.  We have an uncommon way to make a fist in comparison to other many other systems.   One would think making a fist would be easy to learn but it often causes difficulty as it forces people to break the habit of how they originally made a fist.  The other problem with the type of fist that female beginners have is that somehow the grip in such a way that it angles the bones in the knuckles instead of lining them up correctly.  It takes about 3 - 6 months of reminding new students and eventually it goes away as it becomes natural and replaces the old habit. 

I'm always telling students to take their time with learning the techniques and to not try to rush the learning process.  There's a difference between a gifted student that learns fast and a student trying to force the learning process.


----------



## JowGaWolf

PhotonGuy said:


> I agree, but the idea is to know 10000 techniques so than you can pick from them which one works best for you and which one to practice 10000 times. Its good to have a big selection to pick from.


That's not how it works.  There isn't a one size fits all technique.  Lets take a look at all of the techniques that many kung fu practitioners know and yet for most of them, the only techniques that work best is a jab and round house.  We often see this where the student can't use anything beyond that. 

I know with kung fu, the purpose of learning multiple techniques is so that the body naturally reacts when it's put in various positions.  There have been 3 times that I can think of, where I used a kung fu technique without thinking.  My body simply reacted because it recognized the position that it was in, and then my body just moved as if I was doing the solo drills.  I didn't choose the technique. My body simply reacted in a way that was familiar..


----------



## DanT

JowGaWolf said:


> That's now how it works.  There isn't a one size fits all technique.  Lets take a look at all of the techniques that many kung fu practitioners know and yet for most of them, the only techniques that work best is a jab and round house.  We often see this where the student can't use anything beyond that.
> 
> I know with kung fu, the purpose of learning multiple techniques is so that the body naturally reacts when it's put in various positions.  There have been 3 times that I can think of, where I used a kung fu technique without thinking.  My body simply reacted because it recognized the position that it was in, and then my body just moved as if I was doing the solo drills.  I didn't choose the technique. My body simply reacted in a way that was familiar..


Isn't that feeling amazing, when you almost do the form exactly, but in sparring or combat without actually thinking about doing it because your body is used to moving that way?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tez3 said:


> What makes you think the idea is to have 10000 techniques to choose from? It's not actually a good idea to have a big selection because you obviously haven't heard the story of the fox and the hounds. A fox and a cat are sitting chatting, they hear the hounds baying in the distance. The fox tells the cat he has hundreds of ways to outwit the hounds, the cat says she only has one, that's to run up a tree which she does as they hear the hounds come closer, the fox sits there considering which of his hundreds of ways to use, he sits there so long thinking of the many ways that he doesn't actually use any because the hounds are on him and he's ripped to pieces. So no, 10000 techniques is not useful, pick one, practice, practice and practice.


And this is why I like you.


----------



## JowGaWolf

DanT said:


> Isn't that feeling amazing, when you almost do the form exactly, but in sparring or combat without actually thinking about doing it because your body is used to moving that way?


yes it really is. It's one of the experiences that I really treasure.  It's one of those things that create a huge boost in understanding martial arts.  There's really no way to explain the enlightenment from it.  But it will definitely make it clear, why techniques and forms are drilled numerous times.


----------



## JowGaWolf

PhotonGuy said:


> front kick, side kick, round kick, back kick, reverse punch, jab punch, palm strike


Here's my real world perspective of a front kick. The ones that beginners know are in bold. The others are the ones that intermediate and advance students learn once they reach a certain level of "comfort and understanding" of the the technique. There is no way a beginner will have the skill, balance and mechanics to do all of these or even train all of these with any quality.  

Front Kick
- Front kick to knee
- Front kick to thigh
-* Front kick to stomach*
- Front kick to ribs
- Front kick to heart
- Front kick to chin
- Front kick to standing leg
- Front kick to the arms.
- Front kick to the shoulder
- Front kick with lead leg
- *Front kick with rear leg*
- Front kick moving forward
- Front kick moving backwards
- *Front kick in high stance*
- Front kick in low stance
- Front kick rear leg low stance
- Front kick front leg low stance
- Front kick from cat stance
- Font kick into a cross stance
- Front kick after untwist from cross stance.
- Front kick to groin
-* Power front kick*
- Quick front kick (used like a jab but with a kick)
- Delay front kick.
- Downward front kick


----------



## PhotonGuy

JowGaWolf said:


> Here's my real world perspective of a front kick. The ones that beginners know are in bold. The others are the ones that intermediate and advance students learn once they reach a certain level of "comfort and understanding" of the the technique. There is no way a beginner will have the skill, balance and mechanics to do all of these or even train all of these with any quality.
> 
> Front Kick
> - Front kick to knee
> - Front kick to thigh
> -* Front kick to stomach*
> - Front kick to ribs
> - Front kick to heart
> - Front kick to chin
> - Front kick to standing leg
> - Front kick to the arms.
> - Front kick to the shoulder
> - Front kick with lead leg
> - *Front kick with rear leg*
> - Front kick moving forward
> - Front kick moving backwards
> - *Front kick in high stance*
> - Front kick in low stance
> - Front kick rear leg low stance
> - Front kick front leg low stance
> - Front kick from cat stance
> - Font kick into a cross stance
> - Front kick after untwist from cross stance.
> - Front kick to groin
> -* Power front kick*
> - Quick front kick (used like a jab but with a kick)
> - Delay front kick.
> - Downward front kick



Well in the examples above, in my style a beginner would start with learning to throw a front kick with the rear leg to the stomach. That's the basics to throwing a front kick and you learn that before you learn any of the other variations that you mention above. And even if you do get to be really advanced and you use the front kick as one of your primary techniques you will most likely still practice the front kick with the rear leg to the stomach most of the time and sometimes you might practice any of the other variations you mention. As for the front kick from the high stance and the power front kick, I am not familiar with those specific techniques or if I am they are not the same kinds of names that they use in my style. Each style can vary in the names that it gives the techniques, even if the techniques are identical.

Anyway, from my experience I can say that as a white belt you learn most of the techniques you will use as a martial artist. I would say as much as ninety percent of what you will use you learn within your first few belts, or at least the basics of what you will use.


----------



## Hyoho

In Japan, beginners make tea and watch.


----------



## EMT

Nope. It is better if you focus on a few basic techniques and then introduce more complicated moves one-by-one to your training routine until it becomes natural to use them in a sparring


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I don't think it's an either or question. It's dependent on the dojo, the Art, how said dojo is run, how the classes are set up, the teachers, the frequency and availability of classes for the students, whether it's a fighting dojo, or a training dojo, the pedagogical talent and attitude of teachers, and of the students, too....and a whole lot of other factors.
> 
> Think about ALL the students you've know throughout the years. They don't learn the same way, at the same pace, in the same comfort, and some learn some things better than other things, and other things less than some things. (really clunky sentence)
> 
> Throw them in the water for five years (hey, the OP said "beginners") - see what shakes out. Less than five years are just hobbyists anyway. (yes, I realize this is not sound business advice)
> 
> I always had a beginners class - and the regular class. Once you had some idea (even if it was minimal) of our basics - stance, hands up always, movement, basic punches and kicks, blocks, parries, counters, position and base on the ground, etc, you got to go to the regular class. Sometimes this was your decision, sometimes we guided you when you were stalling.
> 
> The people in the regular class didn't look at you like new meat, they adopted you, they helped you, they took you under their wing. That's just the way it was.
> 
> It's all different in all schools, and in all Arts, and it pretty much works out whatever way you do it.
> Most times, anyway.


I've always liked the idea of a beginner's class. I actually put my curriculum together with that concept in mind, though my program is too small (too few students, and too few classes) to actually implement a different set of classes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

PhotonGuy said:


> As discussed before 10,000 techniques is an exaggeration but lets put it this way. Lets say as a white belt you're taught the front kick, side kick, round kick, back kick, reverse punch, jab punch, palm strike, and shuto strike. That's eight different techniques, a rather large selection. Than as a yellow belt, the next belt up, you're taught the crescent kick, foot sweep, knee kick, elbow strike, ridge hand, and finger strike, which brings the total techniques in your arsenal up to 14. Now, lets say out of all those techniques you choose to primarily focus on the front kick and the reverse punch. So you practice the front kick and the reverse punch both 10,000 times and you keep training primarily in those two techniques throughout your entire martial arts career. If you were to do so you would become extremely effective with the front kick and reverse punch and you wouldn't need much more. So while I believe its a good idea to focus on just a few techniques and to bring them to a level where you've mastered them and to get them as good as you possibly can, I also think its a good idea to know or at least be familiar with many different techniques. That way you will have a big pot to choose from and you will also be better at defending against such techniques.


Depending how long you stay at each rank, I don't consider that a lot of techniques. 8 techniques at white belt is pretty sparse, unless they'll only be there a few weeks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Except that you won't do that.  Like most people, you will get caught up in doing what will get you your next promotion.  You will not focus on those couple.  You will spread yourself out trying to do it all, because you want a promotion too.
> 
> That's human nature.  Most people lack the self-awareness and the self-control.  Better to not show them yet.


I've found that the culture of the individual school and the attitude of the instructor influence this a lot. I was never much driven to get rank (except when someone I didn't like was about to get theirs, but that's a personal failing of mine). My students tend to not be very focused on the ranks, either. I eventually tell them it's time to test. Rarely do they even bother to ask what they need to do to be ready for their next test/rank.

I'm not touting this approach as something I did well. I didn't expect this result, and am not sure what I did to encourage it (I wish I did). I just focused on the progressive application, and so they did, too.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> There's a balance to strike here. Give them too many choices, and they don't get to spend enough time on any of them to get good. Give them too few for too long, and they don't really get the overall concept. This latter one is something I've seen with students who over-focus on a technique. They start trying to "make the technique work", using it places where it's not really a good choice, rather than using a more appropriate technique. Of course, when they only have a few moves to use, they pretty much have to choose from those.
> 
> On the whole, I like to move them through several simple movements in the first couple of classes, then build on those (and revisit them) in later classes. When they (still a relative beginner) get a more complex set of movements, I prefer them to stay on it most of a class, and part of the next.


 
I would tweak what you said just a little bit: give too few, and they will get bored! LOL

And of course, not grasping the overall concept is a good point too.


----------



## Flying Crane

wingchun100 said:


> I would tweak what you said just a little bit: give too few, and they will get bored! LOL
> 
> And of course, not grasping the overall concept is a good point too.


See, this whole thing about the student getting bored, maybe leaving and stuff.  Maybe we ought to consider the idea that there just isn't all that much to this stuff.  We don't need to apprentice ourselves to someone for the better part of a lifetime to learn this.  It can be learned somewhat quickly, although developing skill takes a long time and a lot of practice.  But there isn't a good reason for a big curriculum beyond keeping paying customers.  Maybe a healthier and more honest approach is to acknowledge that there is this body of principles and concepts that are taught through the medium of a smallish body of useful techniques, and that is it, that's the end to the formal instruction.  What you do with it is now up to you, and you shouldn't need more than maybe five years to learn that.  If it takes longer than that, then maybe there is a lot of clutter in there, and a lot of filler, and a lot of things that are not necessary and some stuff that might even be a bit stupid.


----------



## Touch Of Death

You should really use the term, un-useful.


----------



## Flying Crane

Touch Of Death said:


> You should really use the term, un-useful.


Sometimes the term stupid hits the mark better.


----------



## PhotonGuy

gpseymour said:


> I've found that the culture of the individual school and the attitude of the instructor influence this a lot. I was never much driven to get rank (except when someone I didn't like was about to get theirs, but that's a personal failing of mine). My students tend to not be very focused on the ranks, either. I eventually tell them it's time to test. Rarely do they even bother to ask what they need to do to be ready for their next test/rank.
> 
> I'm not touting this approach as something I did well. I didn't expect this result, and am not sure what I did to encourage it (I wish I did). I just focused on the progressive application, and so they did, too.



Alright, not every student does care about earning rank. The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with a student not wanting to earn rank and there is also nothing wrong if a student does want to earn rank. As it is, even within a school rank is not a perfect method of reflecting a student's skill level. However, even if you don't care to advance, advancing in rank sooner or later might be a good idea if for any reason to learn the more advanced stuff. Some of the more advanced techniques, and particularly some of the more advanced katas you might not learn until you reach the appropriate belt level.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright, not every student does care about earning rank. The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with a student not wanting to earn rank and there is also nothing wrong if a student does want to earn rank. As it is, even within a school rank is not a perfect method of reflecting a student's skill level. However, even if you don't care to advance, advancing in rank sooner or later might be a good idea if for any reason to learn the more advanced stuff. Some of the more advanced techniques, and particularly some of the more advanced katas you might not learn until you reach the appropriate belt level.


The best stuff is the fundamentals and foundation you learn as a beginner.  That is the most useful.  Our most basic form in my system is the best of the bunch.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Flying Crane said:


> The best stuff is the fundamentals and foundation you learn as a beginner.  That is the most useful.  Our most basic form in my system is the best of the bunch.



Well when you learn the basic techniques as a beginner, techniques such as front kick, side kick, reverse punch, jab punch, ect. what you're learning is the foundation for those techniques. A beginner who is learning the front kick will be working on certain aspects of the technique and a more advanced student will be working on other aspects about the front kick that only an advanced student would understand. A more advanced student will also know more advanced techniques but usually will not use them that much. As you said the best stuff is the basics, the foundation. What you learn as a beginner makes up most of what you will use for your entire career. The stuff you need the most is the stuff you're taught first.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> Well when you learn the basic techniques as a beginner, techniques such as front kick, side kick, reverse punch, jab punch, ect. what you're learning is the foundation for those techniques. A beginner who is learning the front kick will be working on certain aspects of the technique and a more advanced student will be working on other aspects about the front kick that only an advanced student would understand. A more advanced student will also know more advanced techniques but usually will not use them that much. As you said the best stuff is the basics, the foundation. What you learn as a beginner makes up most of what you will use for your entire career. The stuff you need the most is the stuff you're taught first.


Ok, so what is your conclusion, then?


----------



## Midnight-shadow

While I don't teach Martial Arts (only a beginner at those), I do teach Springboard diving which very much involves a lot of repetition of the basics. Every dive we do consists of 2 basic elements: The jump at the beginning, and the entry into the water at the end of the dive. So we practice the jumps first, over and over again until you can do them without thinking. Then you practice the entry into the water by literally just falling in head-first. Again this is practiced over and over until it is muscle memory. Then you put the 2 elements together to create your basic forward dive. After that, you slowly build on it by adding somersaults and by doing the dives in different directions. But no matter what kind of dive you do, it will always have a jump at the beginning and an entry into the water. 

This can be very boring for new students when you spend 30 minutes each week just doing basic jumps, but they are necessary in order to be able to do the dives properly. I imagine a lot of Martial Arts follow the same principle.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so what is your conclusion, then?



I would teach a beginner a good set of basics, enough to be well rounded. As I said in an earlier post, the front kick, side kick, round kick, back kick, reverse punch, jab punch, palm strike, and shuto strike would be good techniques to start with. That's eight techniques and some people would say eight isn't that much but for a beginner to try to gain expertise in all of them I believe they would be spreading themselves too thin. So I would ask the beginner to pick a kick and a hand strike and while working on developing basic proficiency in all of the techniques to focus on the kick and hand strike that works best for them and focus on them more than the other techniques.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> I would teach a beginner a good set of basics, enough to be well rounded. As I said in an earlier post, the front kick, side kick, round kick, back kick, reverse punch, jab punch, palm strike, and shuto strike would be good techniques to start with. That's eight techniques and some people would say eight isn't that much but for a beginner to try to gain expertise in all of them I believe they would be spreading themselves too thin. So I would ask the beginner to pick a kick and a hand strike and while working on developing basic proficiency in all of the techniques to focus on the kick and hand strike that works best for them and focus on them more than the other techniques.


I would not give a beginner the option of making a choice.  They aren't ready to do that.

I would decide, this is what you need to work on for now and I will give you something more when I feel you are ready.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright, not every student does care about earning rank. The way I see it, there is nothing wrong with a student not wanting to earn rank and there is also nothing wrong if a student does want to earn rank. As it is, even within a school rank is not a perfect method of reflecting a student's skill level. However, even if you don't care to advance, advancing in rank sooner or later might be a good idea if for any reason to learn the more advanced stuff. Some of the more advanced techniques, and particularly some of the more advanced katas you might not learn until you reach the appropriate belt level.



Agreed, on all points.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Flying Crane said:


> I would not give a beginner the option of making a choice.  They aren't ready to do that.
> 
> I would decide, this is what you need to work on for now and I will give you something more when I feel you are ready.



Well maybe as a yellow or orange belt I would ask them to pick a favorite kick and favorite hand strike and to focus on those. A student finds out what works best for them with experience. As a white belt I might just work on introducing the student to the basics and helping them to develop a basic level of proficiency in them.


----------



## JR 137

PhotonGuy said:


> Well maybe as a yellow or orange belt I would ask them to pick a favorite kick and favorite hand strike and to focus on those. A student finds out what works best for them with experience. As a white belt I might just work on introducing the student to the basics and helping them to develop a basic level of proficiency in them.



As a teacher you have to ask yourself if you're looking for proficiency or mastery to determine when the student advances to the the next step.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

JR 137 said:


> As a teacher you have to ask yourself if you're looking for proficiency or mastery to determine when the student advances to the the next step.



Expecting mastery of a skill in order to progress is unsustainable in my opinion. When I'm teaching and looking to move someone onto the next step, I look at 2 criteria:

1. Are they safe moving onto the next step? There's no point in pushing a student to the next step if they are just going to hurt themselves the moment they try. All this will accomplish is scaring the student making them unlikely to want to do the skill in the future. 

2. Will their current skill level heavily hinder their performance of the higher step? Many higher level movements build on simpler techniques, so if there are glaring flaws in the basic technique, those flaws will transfer to the higher level techniques. Left unchecked you'll have a student that has the same basic flaw in all their techniques and you'll have a hell of a time correcting it at that point. 

Ironically, more often than not in trying to push a student too fast, you inevitably slow them down as they will end up hitting a wall (the point where the flaw in their basic technique prevents them from progressing) and you'll have to take them back to the basics anyway.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> Well maybe as a yellow or orange belt I would ask them to pick a favorite kick and favorite hand strike and to focus on those. A student finds out what works best for them with experience. As a white belt I might just work on introducing the student to the basics and helping them to develop a basic level of proficiency in them.


I wouldn't.

 If the student comes to me to learn something, then it is my responsibility to decide what he learns and what he works on and when he is ready for more.  Telling to student to decide what he wants to learn from me is piss-poor teaching.  The student doesn't know enough to make such a decision, and telling him to focus on his favorites, after teaching him more than he is ready for when he is at a rudimentary level, will undermine the process.

I had a guitar teacher in college who did just that.  "So what kind of things do you want to work on?"  Um I want to learn to play guitar you idiot, where do I start, what is the progression?  The whole semester was like that.  Needless to say, I learned nothing from him.


----------



## clfsean

In a simple word, no.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

Flying Crane said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> If the student comes to me to learn something, then it is my responsibility to decide what he learns and what he works on and when he is ready for more.  Telling to student to decide what he wants to learn from me is piss-poor teaching.  The student doesn't know enough to make such a decision, and telling him to focus on his favorites, after teaching him more than he is ready for when he is at a rudimentary level, will undermine the process.
> 
> I had a guitar teacher in college who did just that.  "So what kind of things do you want to work on?"  Um I want to learn to play guitar you idiot, where do I start, what is the progression?  The whole semester was like that.  Needless to say, I learned nothing from him.



The laissez faire approach to teaching (the whole "do what you want" style of teaching) is generally reserved for higher level students. At the Martial Arts club I train at, most of the classes are very controlled with the instructor dictating everything that is going on. However, after some classes there is an optional "supplementary training" half an hour session for senior students, where the instructor just let's us get on with it and do what we want, within reason of course. Most of the time we use this extra session to practice our higher level forms that we didn't get a chance to do during the main class. This works well for the senior students who all have individual things they want to work on but complete beginners wouldn't gain anything from a session like this.


----------



## Flying Crane

Midnight-shadow said:


> The laissez faire approach to teaching (the whole "do what you want" style of teaching) is generally reserved for higher level students. At the Martial Arts club I train at, most of the classes are very controlled with the instructor dictating everything that is going on. However, after some classes there is an optional "supplementary training" half an hour session for senior students, where the instructor just let's us get on with it and do what we want, within reason of course. Most of the time we use this extra session to practice our higher level forms that we didn't get a chance to do during the main class. This works well for the senior students who all have individual things they want to work on but complete beginners wouldn't gain anything from a session like this.


Yup, context matters.


----------



## Headhunter

Flying Crane said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> If the student comes to me to learn something, then it is my responsibility to decide what he learns and what he works on and when he is ready for more.  Telling to student to decide what he wants to learn from me is piss-poor teaching.  The student doesn't know enough to make such a decision, and telling him to focus on his favorites, after teaching him more than he is ready for when he is at a rudimentary level, will undermine the process.
> 
> I had a guitar teacher in college who did just that.  "So what kind of things do you want to work on?"  Um I want to learn to play guitar you idiot, where do I start, what is the progression?  The whole semester was like that.  Needless to say, I learned nothing from him.


Agreed on that most people especially younger students will want to do things they're good at so say one guy is great at roundhouse kicks and you ask that he'll say he wants to do roundhouse kicks because it makes him look better because he can do what he's good at and look good as opposed to looking bad


----------



## PhotonGuy

It wasn't until around orange belt that I was told to pick a favorite technique to work on but that's just the way I was taught. You wouldn't ask a white belt to pick a favorite technique, you would teach them the basics. I've taken guitar lessons and when I first started out I was not asked what I wanted to learn, it was obvious I wanted to learn to play the guitar so I was taught the basic stuff such as the parts of the guitar and their definitions, how to hold the guitar, how to hold the pick, how to tune the guitar, the letters of the strings and so forth. A more advanced guitar student might want to work on a specific skill such as cords but somebody who is just starting out needs to learn the rudiments. Same thing with a martial arts student, I would certainly not ask a student on their first day to pick a favorite move, rather I would teach them the fundamentals, how to stand, how to move in a stance, the basic kicks and strikes and so forth. After a student gains a certain level of proficiency with all that I might then ask them to pick a favorite technique. As I said it was around the time I was an orange belt that I was told that.

Anyway, the point is that somebody who devotes most of their time to just one or two techniques is going to me much more effective than somebody who tries to spread their training over many techniques. Somebody who practices just the front kick and reverse punch and does so tens of thousands of times is going to be much more effective than somebody with 100 moves.


----------



## Flying Crane

PhotonGuy said:


> It wasn't until around orange belt that I was told to pick a favorite technique to work on but that's just the way I was taught. You wouldn't ask a white belt to pick a favorite technique, you would teach them the basics. I've taken guitar lessons and when I first started out I was not asked what I wanted to learn, it was obvious I wanted to learn to play the guitar so I was taught the basic stuff such as the parts of the guitar and their definitions, how to hold the guitar, how to hold the pick, how to tune the guitar, the letters of the strings and so forth. A more advanced guitar student might want to work on a specific skill such as cords but somebody who is just starting out needs to learn the rudiments. Same thing with a martial arts student, I would certainly not ask a student on their first day to pick a favorite move, rather I would teach them the fundamentals, how to stand, how to move in a stance, the basic kicks and strikes and so forth. After a student gains a certain level of proficiency with all that I might then ask them to pick a favorite technique. As I said it was around the time I was an orange belt that I was told that.
> 
> Anyway, the point is that somebody who devotes most of their time to just one or two techniques is going to me much more effective than somebody who tries to spread their training over many techniques. Somebody who practices just the front kick and reverse punch and does so tens of thousands of times is going to be much more effective than somebody with 100 moves.


I agree with you so I'm not quite sure what the debate is.

I guess it's the issue of teaching a lot of stuff to a beginner and then letting him choose, vs simply teaching at a slower pace to give a student time to develop some actual skill and understanding with the material, before giving more.  Don't give him things to distract him, when he is not ready for it.

But where the boundaries lie is open for debate.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Once had a teacher had me stay at the school all day and I learned some Long fist, taijiquan, taiji sword, shaolin sword, shaolin staff and some bagua... now I was not a beginner.... I was actually one of his teachers, and I have to tell you...I pretty much remembered none of it, other than what I learned in the last class that day, which was bagua.


----------



## Hyoho

In Japan practice starts with the first fundamental move. Then after a few hours and nearing the end Sensei will apologise to all the students for not having covered anything else. With old schools it's always the prerogative of Sensei for "all" to do basics all the time or alternatively cover the many waza. I have watched one school go through three headmasters and see it on a down at the moment as all the waza are covered and not enough fundamentals. 

One might not think one is progressing not to mention the fact that it's a bit boring doing one thing again and again. Most of all beginners might not last long. We have to do something interesting now and then to peak their interest. One might think basics give little progression but when you finally are allowed to move on its truly amazing to be able to do almost anything having that basic knowledge and ability.

I did one waza for seven years before I was allowed to move on.

I can't speak for other countries but Japans success is grounded in the fact that everything is based on repetition.


----------



## KangTsai

I think devoting 30 minutes every class to introduce a new move/straregy isn't overwhelming at all. That's how it worked for me.


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> I think devoting 30 minutes every class to introduce a new move/straregy isn't overwhelming at all. That's how it worked for me.



It depends how long the class is, I've know classes which are only 45 minutes and other like ours which are  2 hours long.


----------



## oftheherd1

PhotonGuy said:


> Well in the examples above, in my style a beginner would start with learning to throw a front kick with the rear leg to the stomach. That's the basics to throwing a front kick and you learn that before you learn any of the other variations that you mention above. And even if you do get to be really advanced and you use the front kick as one of your primary techniques you will most likely still practice the front kick with the rear leg to the stomach most of the time and sometimes you might practice any of the other variations you mention. As for the front kick from the high stance and the power front kick, I am not familiar with those specific techniques or if I am they are not the same kinds of names that they use in my style. Each style can vary in the names that it gives the techniques, even if the techniques are identical.
> 
> Anyway, from my experience I can say that as a white belt you learn most of the techniques you will use as a martial artist. I would say as much as ninety percent of what you will use you learn within your first few belts, or at least the basics of what you will use.



If I understand you correctly, it is pretty much how we were taught in the TKD I learned many years ago.  What JowGaWolf mentions are simpy variations to several basic kicks.  One learns them along the way.


----------



## oftheherd1

PhotonGuy said:


> I wonder if its a good idea to teach beginners lots of moves when they first start learning a martial art. The idea is for a student to have lots of moves to choose from when they choose which moves to particularly focus on.



I haven't read this whole thread, but sort of bounced around in it.  Interesting to see the different opinions and their reasoning.

From my experience, there should be no favorite technique.  I want to learn all techniques equally well.  If I choose to focus, it will be on a technique I don't feel I have mastered.

In the Hapkido I studied, when testing, one had to do a certain amount from each set of techniques taught.  Each student was allowed to use whatever techniques he wished.  I saw a lot of students practice and then pick easy techniques.  I refused to do that.  I didn't pick techniques.  When my practice partner attacked, I used the technique that came to mind.  I didn't try to think of it.  I just reacted.

For me that was the only way I thought made sense.  YMMV


----------



## PhotonGuy

oftheherd1 said:


> From my experience, there should be no favorite technique.  I want to learn all techniques equally well.  If I choose to focus, it will be on a technique I don't feel I have mastered.


In my opinion the problem with that is you spread yourself too thin and you become a jack of all trades master of none in regard to techniques. Somebody who practices time and time again just a couple of techniques, after thousands or millions of times doing those techniques they will have honed them to a level that would go far beyond what somebody who tries to practice all the techniques equally will ever get them at. Look at Muai Thai and how strong the low round kick is for professional Thai fighters. They have really strong low round kicks because they practice that one technique day in and day out.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> In my opinion the problem with that is you spread yourself too thin and you become a jack of all trades master of none in regard to techniques. Somebody who practices time and time again just a couple of techniques, after thousands or millions of times doing those techniques they will have honed them to a level that would go far beyond what somebody who tries to practice all the techniques equally will ever get them at. Look at Muai Thai and how strong the low round kick is for professional Thai fighters. They have really strong low round kicks because they practice that one technique day in and day out.



It depends on how many techniques he has in his style though, doesn't it? You are assuming he has a huge amount, he may not have many so the idea of doing all techniques well is perfectly feasible and practicable.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> It depends on how many techniques he has in his style though, doesn't it? You are assuming he has a huge amount, he may not have many so the idea of doing all techniques well is perfectly feasible and practicable.



Sure if its a style such as Muai Thai. Most of the styles I know of do have a rather large arsenal of techniques. This is just me but I would say that its good to really focus on two or three techniques and to some extent to maybe train in another two or three so there's  5 or 6 techniques that you really focus on, some more than others. Some people might say that's too little but like I said, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

PhotonGuy said:


> I wonder if its a good idea to teach beginners lots of moves when they first start learning a martial art.


You can

- write a book with 200 techniques (you only need to take static pictures).
- put up a DVD with 100 techniques (you can remake your video until you are satisfied).
- teach a workshop with 50 techniques (you can teach your workshop in slow speed).
- demo in public with 25 techniques (your demo partner is not going to fight you back).
- fight with 5 techniques (you have to do everything in combat speed and you only have one chance).

The less that you have learned, the easier for you can master it. You don't need to learn 200 throws to be a good wrestler. If you can use single leg to take your opponent down, you don't need anything else.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I wouldn't.
> 
> If the student comes to me to learn something, then it is my responsibility to decide what he learns and what he works on and when he is ready for more.  Telling to student to decide what he wants to learn from me is piss-poor teaching.  The student doesn't know enough to make such a decision, and telling him to focus on his favorites, after teaching him more than he is ready for when he is at a rudimentary level, will undermine the process.
> 
> I had a guitar teacher in college who did just that.  "So what kind of things do you want to work on?"  Um I want to learn to play guitar you idiot, where do I start, what is the progression?  The whole semester was like that.  Needless to say, I learned nothing from him.


That's a good analogy, though I think it also supports the idea of a "favorite technique", too. If a guitar student finds he really likes a certain style of music, it would be useful for the teacher to use that type of music as part of the exercises a bit more often. The same would go for me if I found a student had a preference for a type of response. I won't stop teaching the other areas, but I'll give them more exercises around that thing they like, and use lessons from it to help them learn other skills, too. 

They'll still have to do the stuff they don't like, though. Why? Because I'm mean.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> That's a good analogy, though I think it also supports the idea of a "favorite technique", too. If a guitar student finds he really likes a certain style of music, it would be useful for the teacher to use that type of music as part of the exercises a bit more often. The same would go for me if I found a student had a preference for a type of response. I won't stop teaching the other areas, but I'll give them more exercises around that thing they like, and use lessons from it to help them learn other skills, too.
> 
> They'll still have to do the stuff they don't like, though. Why? Because I'm mean.


Sure, and I wanted to learn rock electric guitar, so I would expect the lessons and exercises to support that.  But he would just say, what do you want to do today?  Well hell, I dunno, I'd like to play like David Gilmore, how do I go about that???


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KangTsai said:


> I think devoting 30 minutes every class to introduce a new move/straregy isn't overwhelming at all. That's how it worked for me.


If each new move is fairly simple or highly related to something they already know, I'm okay with that. When I teach a new technique, students might or might not get more than one movement/use/application of that technique that class. Next class, they'll get another (and maybe a very related second one), then another the next class, until I think they're ready for the next technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> I haven't read this whole thread, but sort of bounced around in it.  Interesting to see the different opinions and their reasoning.
> 
> From my experience, there should be no favorite technique.  I want to learn all techniques equally well.  If I choose to focus, it will be on a technique I don't feel I have mastered.
> 
> In the Hapkido I studied, when testing, one had to do a certain amount from each set of techniques taught.  Each student was allowed to use whatever techniques he wished.  I saw a lot of students practice and then pick easy techniques.  I refused to do that.  I didn't pick techniques.  When my practice partner attacked, I used the technique that came to mind.  I didn't try to think of it.  I just reacted.
> 
> For me that was the only way I thought made sense.  YMMV


Eventually, there actually should be favorites, IMO. Those should be the ones that work best, most reliably and most often, for that student. You still practice the others, and take time from time to time to focus on one you aren't particularly good at, but that bread-and-butter technique...mmmmm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, and I wanted to learn rock electric guitar, so I would expect the lessons and exercises to support that.  But he would just say, what do you want to do today?  Well hell, I dunno, I'd like to play like David Gilmore, how do I go about that???


Yeah, that would be like someone coming into my dojo and me asking what drills they want to do. Eventually, that becomes a valid question (because I want them to have things they want to work on), but not with a beginner.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> Eventually, there actually should be favorites, IMO. Those should be the ones that work best, most reliably and most often, for that student. You still practice the others, and take time from time to time to focus on one you aren't particularly good at, but that bread-and-butter technique...mmmmm.



To each his own.  I just don't think that is the best way myself.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> It depends on how many techniques he has in his style though, doesn't it? You are assuming he has a huge amount, he may not have many so the idea of doing all techniques well is perfectly feasible and practicable.



That is of course correct.  But I think it raises an interesting question.  How many "techniques" does a striking art have versus a grappling art?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> That is of course correct.  But I think it raises an interesting question.  How many "techniques" does a striking art have versus a grappling art?


I think counting "techniques" between two arts is difficult. JGW demonstrated that in his list of kicks. There are at least 3 Judo techniques that all fall under the "Leg Sweep" technique in Nihon Goshin Aikido. And there are at least three techniques in NGA that I could argue are actually the same single technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> There are at least 3 Judo techniques that all fall under the "Leg Sweep" technique in Nihon Goshin Aikido.


There are 35 different way to do a "leg sweep" in Chinese wrestling. The foot contact may be just ankle, instep, foot bottom, ... but the hands control can be front belt lift, back belt pull, upper collar pull, side lapel pull, sleeve pull, under shoulder lift, back neck push, side neck pull, head twist pull, shoulder pull, ...

But the principle is all the same - pull upper body down and sweep leg up.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> I think counting "techniques" between two arts is difficult. JGW demonstrated that in his list of kicks. There are at least 3 Judo techniques that all fall under the "Leg Sweep" technique in Nihon Goshin Aikido. And there are at least three techniques in NGA that I could argue are actually the same single technique.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are 35 different way to do a "leg sweep" in Chinese wrestling. The foot contact may be just ankle, instep, foot bottom, ... but the hands control can be front belt lift, back belt pull, upper collar pull, side lapel pull, sleeve pull, under shoulder lift, back neck push, side neck pull, head twist pull, shoulder pull, ...
> 
> But the principle is all the same - pull upper body down and sweep leg up.



Good points.  And to be honest, there are techniques in the Hapkido I learned that are extensions of prior techniques learned.  Sometimes the differences are quite minor.  If we aren't trying to inflate the number of techniques we want to say we have learned, how many are really different techniques?  Granted there are reasons we may want to use one variation over another.  I'm not trying to deflect this thread by the way.  I think it is a valid part of the discussin.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> Good points.  And to be honest, there are techniques in the Hapkido I learned that are extensions of prior techniques learned.  Sometimes the differences are quite minor.  If we aren't trying to inflate the number of techniques we want to say we have learned, how many are really different techniques?  Granted there are reasons we may want to use one variation over another.  I'm not trying to deflect this thread by the way.  I think it is a valid part of the discussin.


It's much a matter of how you want to define the boundaries of a "technique". I'm used to the boundaries in NGA, yet if I were asked to draw them (not knowing what they are now), there would be fewer "techniques" and more "variations". Note that I'm not saying there's anything amiss in the way they're divided now, rather that I don't see the same divisions in my mind. For instance, there are 3 basic wrist locks that are separate techniques. Two of them are so close in my viewpoint that I actually teach them together most of the time. The third one I see as a variation of the other two. So, to me, they are all the "basic wrist lock" technique.

Now, just to make things more complicated, there are "applications" of techniques that I can reasonably classify in at least two different "techniques" (using the traditional definition of that term). The grey areas aren't as visible to new students, so the classification works for them for a while. To me, they are too obvious to ignore.


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The less that you have learned, the easier for you can master it. You don't need to learn 200 throws to be a good wrestler. If you can use single leg to take your opponent down, you don't need anything else.


What do you do with your opponent once you've successfully taken him down with that single leg?

I fully agree with less is more.  But you need a few more things than just a single leg takedown.  You can win many wrestling matches only using a single leg takedown - 2 points for the takedown, 1 point for the opponent getting back up, over and over again until time runs out.  I actually beat the same opponent twice exactly that way.  I couldn't keep him down, so I shot takedowns over and over again both times we wrestled.  I won by technical fall both times (being ahead by 15? points).  If that was a fight, the result wouldn't have been the same.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JR 137 said:


> What do you do with your opponent once you've successfully taken him down with that single leg?


The "single leg" that I'm taking about is to use

- one hand to pull your opponent's leading leg.
- another hand to push his neck/shoulder/face.

There are many ways to finish with a "single leg" take down. You can:

- smash the back of his head on the ground.
- drop your forearm across his neck.
- drop elbow straight down on his heart area.
- drop your knee into his groin area.
- ...

You can also:

- hold on your opponent's leading leg.
- use leg to hook his rooting leg off the ground.

Since he will have no leg on the ground, he will fall with head on the ground first.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

in our karate school we teach 2 technique every day like for example on monday you do 1and 2 if you dont go on monday it will be the same on Tuesday 1 and 2 then wed 3 and 4 if you dont go on wed in will be the same on thursday and like friday it will be 5and 6 if you dont go it will be the same n saturday thats what we do so we dont teach lot in 1 day in yellow we have 10 tech but in orange to black we have 24 techniques and we teach the basics too depensing which basic is assign that day


----------



## oftheherd1

KenpoMaster805 said:


> in our karate school we teach 2 technique every day like for example on monday you do 1and 2 if you dont go on monday it will be the same on Tuesday 1 and 2 then wed 3 and 4 if you dont go on wed in will be the same on thursday and like friday it will be 5and 6 if you dont go it will be the same n saturday thats what we do so we dont teach lot in 1 day in yellow we have 10 tech but in orange to black we have 24 techniques and we teach the basics too depensing which basic is assign that day



When you say techniques are you referring forms or techniques like "... this is strike defense 2, grab his ..."?


----------



## JR 137

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The "single leg" that I'm taking about is to use
> 
> - one hand to pull your opponent's leading leg.
> - another hand to push his neck/shoulder/face.
> 
> There are many ways to finish with a "single leg" take down. You can:
> 
> - smash the back of his head on the ground.
> - drop your forearm across his neck.
> - drop elbow straight down on his heart area.
> - drop your knee into his groin area.
> - ...
> 
> You can also:
> 
> - hold on your opponent's leading leg.
> - use leg to hook his rooting leg off the ground.
> 
> Since he will have no leg on the ground, he will fall with head on the ground first.



I  understand what you're saying.  And there's plenty more that can be done after successfully taking the opponent down.

You're doing other things after the takedown.  Those must be trained too.  Saying all you need to know is the takedown itself isn't accurate; you need to know how to follow it up so that the opponent doesn't get back up or beat you up while you're on the ground.

You need more than that one technique, obviously.


----------



## Ranger87

Of all the places I have trained I really like the way my Sifu teaches. While my style of kung fu is huge, every class we devote a 15 minute or so block to drilling core combinations. From no sash to black sash, those core fighting combinations are drilled into your head. Then, as you are introduced to various techniques and the over all fighting philosophy of the art that you can incorporate into the core combinations to develop own personal style.

I also train privately in blade work and his style is a very slow, methodological system. Each week I leave with one or at the most two new physical techniques and at least one question or topic I am to research.

I have been places where it seemed as if an abundance of techniques were thrown at you and you just barely grasped them and then moved on. I did not care for that style.


----------



## Tez3

Welcome to MT Ranger87.


----------



## hoshin1600

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, and I wanted to learn rock electric guitar, so I would expect the lessons and exercises to support that.  But he would just say, what do you want to do today?  Well hell, I dunno, I'd like to play like David Gilmore, how do I go about that???


i always found my instructor to be amusing, he would ask 3 or 4 people what they wanted to work on that day. then he would completely ignore what anyone said and have us work on what ever it was he was going to do anyway.


----------



## Touch Of Death

hoshin1600 said:


> i always found my instructor to be amusing, he would ask 3 or 4 people what they wanted to work on that day. then he would completely ignore what anyone said and have us work on what ever it was he was going to do anyway.


We are the opposite. The students all have a list to check off; so, ignoring their requests would defy our whole system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> i always found my instructor to be amusing, he would ask 3 or 4 people what they wanted to work on that day. then he would completely ignore what anyone said and have us work on what ever it was he was going to do anyway.


I have been guilty of that.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oftheherd1 said:


> That is of course correct.  But I think it raises an interesting question.  How many "techniques" does a striking art have versus a grappling art?



Good question.

If was teaching someone to box. I would start them out with:

Basic stance
Basic advancing, retreating, and sidestepping footwork
Basic, jab, cross, and hook
Basic slipping, parrying, and blocking
In the space of a week I could give them enough material to keep them busy for the next six months.
Once they had a handle on the above, I'd show them a basic uppercut, overhand right, shoulder roll, bobbing and weaving, and start exploring some simple variations and combinations, feints and setups. That could keep them busy for a couple of years. After that, it's mostly a matter of delving deeper into the foundational material and exploring subtle variations rather than learning actual new techniques.

On the other hand, here's the material I would personally like to see a BJJ student have a handle on in order to be promoted to blue belt (the first belt above white - usually takes about 2 years to reach):


Note - I expect a student being promoted to blue belt to have encountered and be working on more items than are on the list below. This is just a list of what the student should know well enough to demonstrate cleanly.

Standup

Basic break falls
technical standup in base
distance management and clinching against untrained puncher
basic pummeling
basic arm drag
sprawl
duck under
basic defense against common untrained street attacks (haymaker, headlock, shove + punch, bear hug, etc)
at least two takedowns polished enough to be usable in sparring against experienced white belts

Guard bottom

Fundamentals of defending vs punches with closed and open guards
principles of distance management and controlling posture using guard (primarily closed guard and basic feet on hips open guard)
basics of disengaging and standing up from guard
basic arm bar, kimura, guillotine, cross-collar choke, and triangle performed with clean technique
familiarity with common fundamental sweeps (scissor sweep, hip bump, pendulum, butterfly, tripod, sickle, maybe more?) with at least two sweeps from closed guard and two from open guard being solid enough to regularly use during rolling

Guard top

Fundamentals of establishing and maintaining good posture and correct hand positioning
Understanding principles of breaking and passing guard
At least two guard passes solid enough to use regularly in rolling. Should be familiar with and working on polishing more
Straight foot lock

Mount bottom

Basic punch protection
safe hand positioning
solid trap and roll escape - basic variations
solid knee-elbow escape - basic variations
ability to use trap&roll and knee-elbow escapes in combination

Mount top

Principles of controlling mount and countering basic escapes, applied solidly
basic armlock, americana, cross-collar choke, and arm triangle with clean technique

Side mount bottom

Safe hand positioning
knee-elbow escape
escaping to all fours

Side mount top

Principles of controlling position from common side mount variations
basic transitions to other common top positions (mount, north-south, knee ride, kesa)
americana, kimura, arm lock, arm triangle, bread cutter choke

Back mount top

Principles of controlling position
transition to mount when opponent starts to escape
rear naked choke, at least one collar choke

Back mount bottom

basic principles of escape

Half-guard bottom

basic principles of defensive positioning
recovery to full guard
at least one solid sweep

Half-guard top

basic principles of control
at least one solid pass

In general

Solid movement for bridnging, shrimping, and turning over to all fours
Familiarity with fundamental concepts - posture control, distance control, frames, isolating limbs, using technique rather than strength, what different grips are useful for, etc
Good control - safe to work with - can be trusted to work with smaller beginners without hurting them
Has at least a basic gameplan for what to do in the common ground positions, both on top and bottom
Starting to use moves in combination rather than just individual techniques
Able to roll at a level generally expected of blue belts, i.e. able to dominate most white belts unless giving up a significant disadvantage in size or athleticism, able to start hanging in there with other blue belts, able to demonstrate clean technique rather than just athleticism


As you can see, BJJ has a lot more material that students need in order to have a solid foundation. (It doesn't stop there either. There are a _lot_ more moves to learn after what I've listed here. This is just stuff you need to learn as a beginner (and continue refining through the higher ranks at the same time as you learn new material).


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> I think counting "techniques" between two arts is difficult.





gpseymour said:


> It's much a matter of how you want to define the boundaries of a "technique".



Yeah, that's something I don't even know how to think about any more. The way some people count techniques, I know thousands of them. From another standpoint, I just know a few simple principles that I can apply in various ways depending on the situation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In wrestling, you "push your opponent's head down, sweep/hook his leg up. he will fall". There are over 1000 ways to execute this principles. There are also over 1000 ways to set it up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JR 137 said:


> You need more than that one technique, obviously.


That one technique is the root of a tree. It will branch out.


----------



## jobo

Tony Dismukes said:


> Good question.
> 
> If was teaching someone to box. I would start them out with:
> 
> Basic stance
> Basic advancing, retreating, and sidestepping footwork
> Basic, jab, cross, and hook
> Basic slipping, parrying, and blocking
> In the space of a week I could give them enough material to keep them busy for the next six months.
> Once they had a handle on the above, I'd show them a basic uppercut, overhand right, shoulder roll, bobbing and weaving, and start exploring some simple variations and combinations, feints and setups. That could keep them busy for a couple of years. After that, it's mostly a matter of delving deeper into the foundational material and exploring subtle variations rather than learning actual new techniques.
> 
> On the other hand, here's the material I would personally like to see a BJJ student have a handle on in order to be promoted to blue belt (the first belt above white - usually takes about 2 years to reach):
> 
> 
> Note - I expect a student being promoted to blue belt to have encountered and be working on more items than are on the list below. This is just a list of what the student should know well enough to demonstrate cleanly.
> 
> Standup
> 
> Basic break falls
> technical standup in base
> distance management and clinching against untrained puncher
> basic pummeling
> basic arm drag
> sprawl
> duck under
> basic defense against common untrained street attacks (haymaker, headlock, shove + punch, bear hug, etc)
> at least two takedowns polished enough to be usable in sparring against experienced white belts
> 
> Guard bottom
> 
> Fundamentals of defending vs punches with closed and open guards
> principles of distance management and controlling posture using guard (primarily closed guard and basic feet on hips open guard)
> basics of disengaging and standing up from guard
> basic arm bar, kimura, guillotine, cross-collar choke, and triangle performed with clean technique
> familiarity with common fundamental sweeps (scissor sweep, hip bump, pendulum, butterfly, tripod, sickle, maybe more?) with at least two sweeps from closed guard and two from open guard being solid enough to regularly use during rolling
> 
> Guard top
> 
> Fundamentals of establishing and maintaining good posture and correct hand positioning
> Understanding principles of breaking and passing guard
> At least two guard passes solid enough to use regularly in rolling. Should be familiar with and working on polishing more
> Straight foot lock
> 
> Mount bottom
> 
> Basic punch protection
> safe hand positioning
> solid trap and roll escape - basic variations
> solid knee-elbow escape - basic variations
> ability to use trap&roll and knee-elbow escapes in combination
> 
> Mount top
> 
> Principles of controlling mount and countering basic escapes, applied solidly
> basic armlock, americana, cross-collar choke, and arm triangle with clean technique
> 
> Side mount bottom
> 
> Safe hand positioning
> knee-elbow escape
> escaping to all fours
> 
> Side mount top
> 
> Principles of controlling position from common side mount variations
> basic transitions to other common top positions (mount, north-south, knee ride, kesa)
> americana, kimura, arm lock, arm triangle, bread cutter choke
> 
> Back mount top
> 
> Principles of controlling position
> transition to mount when opponent starts to escape
> rear naked choke, at least one collar choke
> 
> Back mount bottom
> 
> basic principles of escape
> 
> Half-guard bottom
> 
> basic principles of defensive positioning
> recovery to full guard
> at least one solid sweep
> 
> Half-guard top
> 
> basic principles of control
> at least one solid pass
> 
> In general
> 
> Solid movement for bridnging, shrimping, and turning over to all fours
> Familiarity with fundamental concepts - posture control, distance control, frames, isolating limbs, using technique rather than strength, what different grips are useful for, etc
> Good control - safe to work with - can be trusted to work with smaller beginners without hurting them
> Has at least a basic gameplan for what to do in the common ground positions, both on top and bottom
> Starting to use moves in combination rather than just individual techniques
> Able to roll at a level generally expected of blue belts, i.e. able to dominate most white belts unless giving up a significant disadvantage in size or athleticism, able to start hanging in there with other blue belts, able to demonstrate clean technique rather than just athleticism
> 
> 
> As you can see, BJJ has a lot more material that students need in order to have a solid foundation. (It doesn't stop there either. There are a _lot_ more moves to learn after what I've listed here. This is just stuff you need to learn as a beginner (and continue refining through the higher ranks at the same time as you learn new material).


I see the bjj PR band waggon has rolled in to town. It's crawling about on the floor, its not that complicated. Or you could take the boxing moves and produce a similar over complicated breakdown if you had a mind.

I  did plumbing at night school for something to do and they managed to turn soldering two pipes together in to five pages of learning objective in much the same way as you've turned a simple process into what ever that is above


----------



## Hyoho

The tree analogy is fine but most will end up as leaves and fall off.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, that's something I don't even know how to think about any more. The way some people count techniques, I know thousands of them. From another standpoint, I just know a few simple principles that I can apply in various ways depending on the situation.



Yep, I suspect that is true of most arts.

Your post above the one I quoted is interesting as well.  I wonder if grappling arts have more than say a striking art, like TKD.  I suspect so but never progressed far enough in TKD to really know.


----------

