# Teach stances or blocks first?



## skribs (Dec 31, 2018)

I was thinking conceptually about martial arts, and how the first thing you teach could be used to symbolize the training.  Two things that stand out to me about Taekwondo:

Taekwondo is for defense, not attack*
Training in anything requires a firm foundation before moving on to higher concepts
*This is not about whether your style is aggressive or defensive, but more about the mindset of the martial artist.  The last line of our student creed is "Never fight to achieve selfish ends, but to develop might for right." 

Anyway, both of these are true to me - defense, and a firm foundation.  So if the first thing I teach in the early classes is the basic blocks, for example, that would teach that we should first focus on defense.

Similarly, if the first thing I teach are the basic stances, that would teach that we should focus on the foundations and build from there.

The schools I've trained at usually go punches -> blocks / kicks -> stances.  I see why they go for strikes first - they're more fun than blocks and stances.  I just wanted to think about a few different ways of approaching it.


----------



## Rough Rider (Dec 31, 2018)

Well, you still need good stances to effectively block, so I would still start with stances. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 31, 2018)

Not specifically for TKD, but this is my general belief regardless of style: footwork is the most important aspect of martial arts training, and stances are one of the basic building blocks to footwork (they are the transition in between movements). As a result, stances and footwork should both be the priority before anything else.

How much that is true depends on the style, but IMO that concept holds true no matter what. Only exception would be ground grappling styles where there is no focus on how to get to the ground, and even then I feel that style could probably benefit from footwork and then takedowns to get to the ground...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 31, 2018)

skribs said:


> Taekwondo is for defense, not attack*
> ... the first thing I teach are the basic stances,


Defense is a bad term. The term "blocking" is too conservative. It's better to put your opponent into defense mode. If you don't want to be punched, punch your opponent.

The 1st thing that I teach is to line up my back foot with opponent's feet. This way my opponent's back hand cannot reach me. If I can move faster than my opponent, none of his strike can land on me.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 31, 2018)

I think that teaching striking the first day is good for retention. Teaching stances for 45 or 60 minutes, especially to kids, might be good symbolism but they're not going to sign up for your program lol. But basic strikes, blocks, and stances should IMO all be central parts of your beginner's curriculum.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 31, 2018)

kempodisciple said:


> Not specifically for TKD, but this is my general belief regardless of style: footwork is the most important aspect of martial arts training, and stances are one of the basic building blocks to footwork (they are the transition in between movements). As a result, stances and footwork should both be the priority before anything else.
> 
> How much that is true depends on the style, but IMO that concept holds true no matter what. Only exception would be ground grappling styles where there is no focus on how to get to the ground, and even then I feel that style could probably benefit from footwork and then takedowns to get to the ground...


Agree. Even in Kali where there are not any real stances footwork is heavily worked in the beginning. It is a big part of how you learn to react and strike with power either open handed or with a blade. The same is true for an MA I have worked with. We don't stress it enough in TKD but stances and footwork should be first or at least concurrent with kicks.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 31, 2018)

teach the foundation.  every style may be different but  most likely the foundation would be a combination of a few different things.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2018)

Punches are stances.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 31, 2018)

How do you separate the two?


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I was thinking conceptually about martial arts, and how the first thing you teach could be used to symbolize the training.  Two things that stand out to me about Taekwondo:
> 
> Taekwondo is for defense, not attack*
> Training in anything requires a firm foundation before moving on to higher concepts
> ...



That is a good question. 
The school I am going to today follows what said punches -> blocks / kicks -> stances.
My first school had me walk H forms for over a week, they told me without balance you have nothing. Next was down blocks and reverse punch from horse stance, then first form of down blocks and reverse punches. You would do something a thousand times before moving to the next thing. So performing the first form was easy to learn.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2019)

Would you really just teach one thing for ages before moving on to something else or would you teach comprehensively, I would. It's how I was taught. Teach  stances, striking and defending as a whole, emphasising the importance of each component but showing how it's all joined up to make the whole. You should practice each separately but unless you can do the techniques seamlessly and instinctively it doesn't work.
Imagine learning to ride a bike, would you just learn to peddle for weeks, then learn to steer, then learn to steer with one hand then the next or would you learn and practice them as a whole? Learning to do things in isolation isn't actually a good thing.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Would you really just teach one thing for ages before moving on to something else or would you teach comprehensively, I would. It's how I was taught. Teach  stances, striking and defending as a whole, emphasising the importance of each component but showing how it's all joined up to make the whole. You should practice each separately but unless you can do the techniques seamlessly and instinctively it doesn't work.
> Imagine learning to ride a bike, would you just learn to peddle for weeks, then learn to steer, then learn to steer with one hand then the next or would you learn and practice them as a whole? Learning to do things in isolation isn't actually a good thing.



I don't disagree with you. 
It was just the way I was taught. I am not sure way, he taught that way, it was not fun, but it was very cool how fast I learn my first form.
I did not have to think, about my stance, how to move and where to go, how to do a down block , or how to do a reverse punch. 
Show me one time and I could do it own my own. Maybe it was a trust thing, do what I say and see what happens, I don't know.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 1, 2019)

I submit the following: 
1. Just because an art is purportedly for "Self Defense" does not mean the same thing as the art being "Defensive". 
2. from 태 (tae, “to kick or destroy with the foot”) +‎ 권 (gwon, “to punch with the fist”) +‎ 도 (do, “way”). Hence, _taekwondo_ is loosely translated as "the way of kicking and punching". taekwondo - Wiktionary         Sometimes more simply defined as Foot - Fist - Way.   
So, from the most basic translation to a translation with more meaning the defensive / blocking part is noteably absent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I was thinking conceptually about martial arts, and how the first thing you teach could be used to symbolize the training.  Two things that stand out to me about Taekwondo:
> 
> Taekwondo is for defense, not attack*
> Training in anything requires a firm foundation before moving on to higher concepts
> ...


I don't see stances as a separate topic. I've seen students get really tied up in the detail of a stance, missing important concepts and principles, because they were paying too much attention to an exact foot angle. Stances are there for reasons, and those reasons are easiest to learn when actually using the stance. So most of the time students learn a new stance just in time to use it for something (or, in some cases, while learning to use it for something). That means for their first block, they learn a stance of forward stability as part of the movement into the block. A block without a good posture (stance) isn't as useful, so the stance is part of the block.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I submit the following:
> 1. Just because an art is purportedly for "Self Defense" does not mean the same thing as the art being "Defensive".
> 2. from 태 (tae, “to kick or destroy with the foot”) +‎ 권 (gwon, “to punch with the fist”) +‎ 도 (do, “way”). Hence, _taekwondo_ is loosely translated as "the way of kicking and punching". taekwondo - Wiktionary         Sometimes more simply defined as Foot - Fist - Way.
> So, from the most basic translation to a translation with more meaning the defensive / blocking part is noteably absent.


Agreed. I've been making the argument lately that even the "soft" arts (especially aiki-related stuff) doesn't have to be passive and defensive. Even those can take an aggressive approach to defense.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Would you really just teach one thing for ages before moving on to something else or would you teach comprehensively, I would. It's how I was taught. Teach  stances, striking and defending as a whole, emphasising the importance of each component but showing how it's all joined up to make the whole. You should practice each separately but unless you can do the techniques seamlessly and instinctively it doesn't work.
> Imagine learning to ride a bike, would you just learn to peddle for weeks, then learn to steer, then learn to steer with one hand then the next or would you learn and practice them as a whole? Learning to do things in isolation isn't actually a good thing.



The latest thing about riding a bike is a bike with no petals. My grandchildren that started with the no petal bike learn much much faster to ride a regular bike than my grandchildren that started with a regular bike. Learning balance is the secret to most things.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

How do you teach a punch without teaching the stance and power generation?


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> How do you teach a punch without teaching the stance and power generation?


Good question.
Teaching to punch in horse stance first I believe is best. If you over punch you can feel yourself become unbalanced.
If you are unbalanced you are punching incorrectly.
Moving from horse to front stance naturally turns the hips and generates power. 
Power without balance is not a good thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> The latest thing about riding a bike is a bike with no petals. My grandchildren that started with the no petal bike learn much much faster to ride a regular bike than my grandchildren that started with a regular bike. Learning balance is the secret to most things.


A bike without pedals?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Good question.
> Teaching to punch in horse stance first I believe is best. If you over punch you can feel yourself become unbalanced.
> If you are unbalanced you are punching incorrectly.
> Moving from horse to front stance naturally turns the hips and generates power.
> Power without balance is not a good thing.


So your teaching a stance first regardless.  Goes back to Tez's point


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> A bike without pedals?


https://www.amazon.com/Strider-Spor...ocphy=9008005&hvtargid=pla-378129616946&psc=1


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> https://www.amazon.com/Strider-Spor...ocphy=9008005&hvtargid=pla-378129616946&psc=1


What's the point?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What's the point?


I guess it lets the kids learn to balance first without thinking about the pedals.  Im not really sure my kids are all too old for them they learned on regular bikes


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Defense is a bad term. The term "blocking" is too conservative. It's better to put your opponent into defense mode. If you don't want to be punched, punch your opponent.
> 
> The 1st thing that I teach is to line up my back foot with opponent's feet. This way my opponent's back hand cannot reach me. If I can move faster than my opponent, none of his strike can land on me.


I don't think he's teaching for application use.

A lot of what he says seems to about everything else but application. For example:
1. *Taekwondo is for defense, not attack* - This is a moral value not a martial arts one.  A practitioner may study Taoism for their moral values and kung fu for their fighting values. They are two separate things.
2. *So if the first thing* *I teach in the early classes is the basic blocks*, - The decision on this is based on the moral value that Taekwondo is for defense.  The Martial Arts application perspective makes no such distinction of moral value which is why religion is often attached to fighting systems or some code of ethics is attached, but they are 2 different things. Most people don't know where one begins and the other ends so they see it as the same thing.



skribs said:


> Anyway, both of these are true to me - defense, and a firm foundation.


 This sounds as if he has made up his mind of what TKD is so everything the OP will do will flow from #1  Perception of what TKD is for comes before the training according to his listing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> I think that teaching striking the first day is good for retention. Teaching stances for 45 or 60 minutes, especially to kids, might be good symbolism but they're not going to sign up for your program lol. But basic strikes, blocks, and stances should IMO all be central parts of your beginner's curriculum.


Kids don't sign up for these programs, parents do based on what they parent wants to child to get out of it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Teach according to what the goal is.  What is the goal? Are you trying to get students to learn how to actually use what you are teaching?  Or are you just teaching without purpose or goals to students who really don't care if they can use it or not.   If there is no goal then it doesn't matter what is taught first.

If you are teaching someone how use a fishing pole to someone who isn't going to actually use it, then does it matter what is taught first?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 1, 2019)

Stance or blocks first.
I find this a bit comical.
If you teach blocks first do you teach such with the student sitting or standing?
I teach stance, blocks/covers, punches sequentially in the same session. Unless there is a physical abnormality most every person, adults, teens, and kids already know how to stand. I just have them stand in the particular manner I'm wanting them to. It only takes a few moments then we work on moving (footwork) again a few minutes checking and adjusting the stance. Then on to blocks/covers and strikes both stationary and with movement. Doesn't take long and we do it over the course of numerous classes all the while getting better on the particular stances, strikes, and blocks.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> A bike without pedals?




it's not the 'latest thing', they have been around for a century or so. It's just a way for tiny tots to learn to balance. They started off as little wooden bikes.



Bruce7 said:


> Teaching to punch in horse stance first I believe is best.




Punching in horse stance only teaches you to punch in horse stance, it's a useful exercise but if you want to actually use your punching even in sparring let alone in a fight learn to punch properly using the correct stance ( whatever that is for your style) first then go into horse stance for the benefits of strengthening legs etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> I guess it lets the kids learn to balance first without thinking about the pedals.  Im not really sure my kids are all too old for them they learned on regular bikes


Seems odd. A bike balances itself at a fairly low speed, but a speed that would be difficult to achieve (except downhill) without pedaling. It would certainly let them learn to balance a bike for things like trial (not trail) biking, but it wouldn't be the same balancing as for riding normally.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Punching in horse stance only teaches you to punch in horse stance,


I use this exercise, but not if my primary goal is to train punching.  At most it helps isolated "movement" of a punch by focusing only on the arms, but it's not actually training how to punch,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I use this exercise, but not if my primary goal is to train punching.  At most it helps isolated "movement" of a punch by focusing only on the arms, but it's not actually training how to punch,


I've long thought the primary purpose of this was to be able to work hands and legs at the same time, and the punches provide a convenient "thing" to count, which both passes the time and provides a metric for progress.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Seems odd. A bike balances itself at a fairly low speed, but a speed that would be difficult to achieve (except downhill) without pedaling. It would certainly let them learn to balance a bike for things like trial (not trail) biking, but it wouldn't be the same balancing as for riding normally.


Honest it works, learning without petal kids learn a lot faster. It worked for my grand kids, it worked for the kid down the street. I was skeptical at first, but it really works.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I use this exercise, but not if my primary goal is to train punching.  At most it helps isolated "movement" of a punch by focusing only on the arms, but it's not actually training how to punch,


You are starting to get it, but not really. Your body and mind feels comfort from your balance.
Like when I train in long fist, long periods of time in a horse stance humming achieve the by product of stronger legs, was not the main propose.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 1, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> I submit the following:
> 1. Just because an art is purportedly for "Self Defense" does not mean the same thing as the art being "Defensive".
> 2. from 태 (tae, “to kick or destroy with the foot”) +‎ 권 (gwon, “to punch with the fist”) +‎ 도 (do, “way”). Hence, _taekwondo_ is loosely translated as "the way of kicking and punching". taekwondo - Wiktionary         Sometimes more simply defined as Foot - Fist - Way.
> So, from the most basic translation to a translation with more meaning the defensive / blocking part is noteably absent.


I cannot agree with the summation. Explaining the English meaning of a Korean word(s) or giving a known definition of the word does not, in and of itself, exclude anything. Tae Kwon Do isn't a action verb so grammatically you may only know it is a Martial Art. It is one of the cool things about a MA. They all have a name with some kind of meaning. But knowing the name does not at all mean you know the Art. Tae Kwon Do, or any style for that matter, is only defensive if it is taught as such. So now we are talking about the Do, the way. It is what you make it. The common implication is there if you are familiar with TKD but a dojang could be offensive minded just as easily. Take a heavily WT TKD school for example. If they only practice Olympic style sparring they are an offensive minded school.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I've long thought the primary purpose of this was to be able to work hands and legs at the same time, and the punches provide a convenient "thing" to count, which both passes the time and provides a metric for progress.


This is accurate. A wide range of things can be done.  It doesn't have to be only punches. Blocks, grabs, breathing and kicking are things that can be done while in horse stance.  







Bruce7 said:


> You are starting to get it, but not really. Your body and mind feels comfort from your balance.


I use other exercises to address balance. The other exercises that I do are more effect in this area.  I do stationary/mobile stance training mainly for leg strengthen and to build my awareness of shifts in the weight distribution.  Unlike a lot of other martial artists out there, I actually fight in a low fighting stance, which requires an incredible amount of muscle endurance.

I'm not very zen with my martial arts.  Comfort for me is less about balance and more about my dominance.  Balance is a functional thing that allows me to better address what my opponent is trying to do to me.  Balance is also an opportunity for me to exploit. 

People just use it differently depending on the goal that they are trying to achieve.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

When I say low stance.  This is what I refer to as low.  This is an actual fighting stance, that I'm applying.   I'm not trying to pose for the camera.  I was teaching students how to use use the low fighting stance in fighting, so I asked a student to try and take me to the ground.  I dropped my stance the moment he came in and at that moment my wife took the picture.  This type of low stance provides some very good defense and allows offensive attacks as well.  But you'll pay a heavy price for it.  

If you image me keeping my legs where they are and my height where it is and asked me to turn my waist to look at the camera, then you would see that I would be in a typical horse stance.  If I were to train punching.  Then I would do it from this stance and not from the traditional horse stance. 

From this position I can do the following,

quickly retreat a few feet (the length of my stance)

quickly advance a few feet (the length of my stance)
jab
thrust punch
grab
kick low using rear leg my rear leg can reach his rear leg but his rear leg can not reach mine
reverse punch,
lead leg front kick
rear leg front kick
upper cut
elbow
defend my front leg from single leg take down
initiate a scissor take down
perform a similar technique called "ox rolls in mud" it's a lower scissor technique used to destroy opponent's knee joints.
block incoming kicks
redirect incoming kicks.
There are certain martial arts techniques that only work at this height. 
This is what I mean about the need to have that muscle endurance in my legs.  If I use the traditional horse stance to detect balance then I won't punch.  I would just focus on trying to keep the weight 50-50 an take note when that weight distribution changes in the slightest.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is accurate. A wide range of things can be done.  It doesn't have to be only punches. Blocks, grabs, breathing and kicking are things that can be done while in horse stance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks that was a cool video. Not zen like, OK. There are 3 levels to a form. 
1st level learning and practicing the form.
The second level is deep concentration that everything else is blocked. Kinda like rock climbing. 
The third and best level is when you think the form before do it,
then go into automatic pilot and just feel the movement. Trust me its cool.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I say low stance.  This is what I refer to as low.  This is an actual fighting stance, that I'm applying.   I'm not trying to pose for the camera.  I was teaching students how to use use the low fighting stance in fighting, so I asked a student to try and take me to the ground.  I dropped my stance the moment he came in and at that moment my wife took the picture.  This type of low stance provides some very good defense and allows offensive attacks as well.  But you'll pay a heavy price for it.
> 
> If you image me keeping my legs where they are and my height where it is and asked me to turn my waist to look at the camera, then you would see that I would be in a typical horse stance.  If I were to train punching.  Then I would do it from this stance and not from the traditional horse stance.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the picture, is that your little girl in front. She looks the age of my middle granddaughter.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> I think that teaching striking the first day is good for retention. Teaching stances for 45 or 60 minutes, especially to kids, might be good symbolism but they're not going to sign up for your program lol. But basic strikes, blocks, and stances should IMO all be central parts of your beginner's curriculum.



I don't mean the full 60 minutes.  I just mean the first few minutes of class the focus is on blocking and striking.



ballen0351 said:


> So your teaching a stance first regardless. Goes back to Tez's point



There's a difference between having students go into horse stance and teaching them horse stance.  My old school taught you the way the stances look from the start.  When you learned a front stance, you learned exactly what it was.  When you learned a back stance, same thing, and you also learned why you would use each stance.

The school I'm at now teaches the stances very loosely at the white and yellow belt level, and gets more detail as you get to green belt.  You learn a lot more details about the punches and kicks than you do the stances.



ballen0351 said:


> How do you teach a punch without teaching the stance and power generation?



Because half the kids if we tell them to pivot their foot while they punch, they will step forward.  Some of them step forward and then back, and others will walk forward until they're hitting the person in front of them.  So we work on the arm motion first and work on the rest of the body later.



gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I've been making the argument lately that even the "soft" arts (especially aiki-related stuff) doesn't have to be passive and defensive. Even those can take an aggressive approach to defense.



I'm not talking about being passive or defensive.  I'm talking about morally the art is for defense, and to symbolize that you could teach defense first.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I don't mean the full 60 minutes.  I just mean the first few minutes of class the focus is on blocking and striking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do you get different quotes in same reply? Do you copy and paste?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I don't mean the full 60 minutes.  I just mean the first few minutes of class the focus is on blocking and striking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was under the impression, cant remember where, that TKD was originally developed for military combat, not defense. Do you have anywhere you could point me that suggests TKD was made with the philosophy of defense in mind?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> There's a difference between having students go into horse stance and teaching them horse stance.  My old school taught you the way the stances look from the start.  When you learned a front stance, you learned exactly what it was.  When you learned a back stance, same thing, and you also learned why you would use each stance.


Well, then they are doing their students a disservice by teaching them how things "look" instead of how they should actually be done. Dont be lazy and teach then correcly from the start.  


> The school I'm at now teaches the stances very loosely at the white and yellow belt level, and gets more detail as you get to green belt.  You learn a lot more details about the punches and kicks than you do the stances.


Well since punches and kicks are far more than just moving your arms and legs it doesn't sound like your teaching much of anything to your beginners 




> Because half the kids if we tell them to pivot their foot while they punch, they will step forward.  Some of them step forward and then back, and others will walk forward until they're hitting the person in front of them.  So we work on the arm motion first and work on the rest of the body later.


So teach them how to correctly pivot.  If they are not old enough to teach a basic concept like pivot the foot then perhaps they are too young for martial arts and your nothing more then a babysitter


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think he's teaching for application use.
> 
> A lot of what he says seems to about everything else but application. For example:
> 1. *Taekwondo is for defense, not attack* - This is a moral value not a martial arts one.  A practitioner may study Taoism for their moral values and kung fu for their fighting values. They are two separate things.
> ...



Not necessarily what Taekwondo is about, but more the message I'd want the newer students to receive.  (Especially the first one about not fighting for personal gain).



JowGaWolf said:


> Kids don't sign up for these programs, parents do based on what they parent wants to child to get out of it.



Which is why I'd want it to be more of a message.



JowGaWolf said:


> Teach according to what the goal is.  What is the goal? Are you trying to get students to learn how to actually use what you are teaching?  Or are you just teaching without purpose or goals to students who really don't care if they can use it or not.   If there is no goal then it doesn't matter what is taught first.
> 
> If you are teaching someone how use a fishing pole to someone who isn't going to actually use it, then does it matter what is taught first?



One aspect is that in Taekwondo, the white and colored belts are to build a firm understanding of the art, and it really opens up at black belt.  At black belt you're supposed to have a firm grasp on the basic techniques of the art.  So it's less about the goal, and more about what comes first, the stances and blocks, or the kicks and punches?  By the time a student is a green belt they should have all of them.



Danny T said:


> Stance or blocks first.
> I find this a bit comical.
> If you teach blocks first do you teach such with the student sitting or standing?
> I teach stance, blocks/covers, punches sequentially in the same session. Unless there is a physical abnormality most every person, adults, teens, and kids already know how to stand. I just have them stand in the particular manner I'm wanting them to. It only takes a few moments then we work on moving (footwork) again a few minutes checking and adjusting the stance. Then on to blocks/covers and strikes both stationary and with movement. Doesn't take long and we do it over the course of numerous classes all the while getting better on the particular stances, strikes, and blocks.



This is why I need to write novels on this forum.  Because people take what I say to the ridiculous extreme and then ridicule me for it.  (Then of course I write a novel and half what I said is ignored and people ridicule me on the rest).

This is what I mean:
In a typical white belt class, we will spend more time demonstrating the punch than the stance.  Our primary goal at this level is to get students to understand the vocabulary for the punches, and how the punches are different.  We teach 3 punches to the white belts and expect the hand movements at least to be precise.  But we don't go too much into what a front stance or back stance is until orange belt.  The "stance" at the white belt is simply one foot forward and one foot back.

I'm talking about taking the extra minute or so early on to go over stances in more detail.  Or about instead of going punch -> block/kick -> stance, putting blocks first.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> Well, then they are doing their students a disservice by teaching them how things "look" instead of how they should actually be done. Dont be lazy and teach then correcly from the start.
> 
> Well since punches and kicks are far more than just moving your arms and legs it doesn't sound like your teaching much of anything to your beginners
> 
> ...



With a lot of our students, if we taught them everything correct from the start, they'd be overwhelmed and quit.

This applies both to older students who have not done anything physical before, and a lot of our younger students who have not had to control themselves this much before.

Some of those students are not old enough.  Others get with the program fairly fast.  By the time they're at the advanced level, they've got these details down.  We just have to break it into smaller chunks to get them started.

And tell me, how is it bad to teach kids confidence, discipline, give them exercise, and give them the building blocks that will push them towards being excellent martial artists when they get older?  Some of our students start off struggling with these concepts, but by the time they make black belt they've got it down.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> How do you get different quotes in same reply? Do you copy and paste?



Click the +quote underneath each post you want to quote.  Then go to where you would reply and click Insert Quotes.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Thank you for the picture, is that your little girl in front. She looks the age of my middle granddaughter.


 No problem.  I re-read what I had written and thought I needed to come off my "high horse" and clarify what I was referring to as a "low stance"   What is low for one person may not be low for another.  

As for the girl she's the daughter of the guy in the white (backing up).  I used to teach kid and adults at the same time.  It helped in the long run because sometimes the conversations with adults were things that kids needed to hear as well.  Because their were kids around, adults knew to be on their best behavior and that helped provide multiple role models.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> With a lot of our students, if we taught them everything correct from the start, they'd be overwhelmed and quit.
> 
> This applies both to older students who have not done anything physical before, and a lot of our younger students who have not had to control themselves this much before.


We are not talking about everything.  We are talking about a proper punch which is more than just move your arm from here too there.



> Some of those students are not old enough.  Others get with the program fairly fast.  By the time they're at the advanced level, they've got these details down.  We just have to break it into smaller chunks to get them started.
> 
> And tell me, how is it bad to teach kids confidence, discipline, give them exercise, and give them the building blocks that will push them towards being excellent martial artists when they get older?  Some of our students start off struggling with these concepts, but by the time they make black belt they've got it down.


Well I should hope they have it "down" by the time you give them a black belt.......


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I was under the impression, cant remember where, that TKD was originally developed for military combat, not defense. Do you have anywhere you could point me that suggests TKD was made with the philosophy of defense in mind?



I don't have the facts to back it up right now, but I don't necessarily believe that to be the case.  It's possible it was used by the military (actually very possible considering General Choi is considered the founder of the art), but I believe it was more about reclaiming Korean cultural heritage by bringing back a Korean martial art.  Some of the Karate videos I've watched have said that the techniques in the forms changed names from attacks to blocks in the early 1900s when Karate started being taught in schools.

Regardless of what the original purpose was I'm not teaching little kids military combat.  I'm teaching them discipline, respect, confidence, among other things.  We're teaching them to stand up for themselves and others, not to go to war.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> We are not talking about everything.  We are talking about a proper punch which is more than just move your arm from here too there.



I'm not going to argue that the proper punch is better.  I'm telling you that sometimes isolating specific motions until you can get those down, and then moving onto the other motions that are made concurrently can help.

When I started playing guitar, I'd do different exercises.  Sometimes I'd focus on my fretting hand and which notes I'm getting.  Sometimes I'd focus on my right hand and which strings I'm plucking.  Sometimes I'd focus on the metronome and just hit a single open string over and over and try to get my timing right.

If I tried to do even two at once, let alone all 3, it was impossible.  My fingers would miss the notes and I'd be way off time.  By starting off on the fretting hand, I could hit the right notes at least, even if a few extra notes rang out.  As I got more comfortable I moved onto my right hand and worked on my accuracy.  Then I worked on my timing when I had the muscle memory.

Now, I picked up the punches and kicks fairly easily.  Not all of my students do.  I did not pick up the guitar quickly.  If I was expected to do all three of those things (fret, strum, and do it on time) immediately from the get-go, I would have quit because it would have been impossible.  By breaking it down into pieces, I was able to learn it.

The same applies for a lot of my students.  Break the technique down into manageable chunks, and give them more chunks when they understand the ones we gave them before.



> Well I should hope they have it "down" by the time you give them a black belt.......



My point is that just because we don't teach them the 100% correct technique from the get-go, it doesn't mean we don't teach them the correct techniques.  It's not all-or-nothing, learn everything from day 1 or forever suffer ignorance.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> My point is that just because we don't teach them the 100% correct technique from the get-go, it doesn't mean we don't teach them the correct techniques.  It's not all-or-nothing, learn everything from day 1 or forever suffer ignorance.



So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away.  I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Honest it works, learning without petal kids learn a lot faster. It worked for my grand kids, it worked for the kid down the street. I was skeptical at first, but it really works.




As I said we've had them for at least a century, what it does is teach balance however, the children still need to learn co-ordination of using feet on pedals and hands on handlebars.




Bruce7 said:


> You are starting to get it, but not really. Your body and mind feels comfort from your balance.
> Like when I train in long fist, long periods of time in a horse stance humming achieve the by product of stronger legs, was not the main propose.



I rarely hum when in horse stance.
Learning 'balance' in horse stance is fine but you also need to learn balance in other stances (my style Wado Ryu has a lot of stances, it has 3 what you call horse stances but they should be called horse riding stances if using English, more accurate as no horse is bow legged or stands on two feet for long). 



ballen0351 said:


> So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they would do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away.  I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
> It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.




Totally agree with this. We teach correct techniques right from the start, for one thing techniques work best when done correctly and therefore encourage students to do them properly when they see the result. it's actually easier for the students to be shown and taught the whole package, yes practice strikes, stances separately but do so with the whole technique in mind, when practicing punches use the correct footwork though, makes the punch effective.



skribs said:


> In a typical white belt class, we will spend more time demonstrating the punch than the stance




How can you do the punch properly without the stance?


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away.  I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
> It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.



It's not my school, it's my masters.

And like I said, too many details at once can overwhelm students.  When I first started a lot of new students quit because I was too hard on them.  

You can say they shouldn't take classes if they can't handle it, but these are the students that really need to be there to build up their confidence.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away.  I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
> It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.



I pretty much answered this in the part of my post you didn't quote.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's not my school, it's my masters.
> 
> And like I said, too many details at once can overwhelm students.  When I first started a lot of new students quit because I was too hard on them.
> 
> You can say they shouldn't take classes if they can't handle it, but these are the students that really need to be there to build up their confidence.


You don't need to be "hard" on them to teach them properly.  I'm not sure how one relates to the other.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I rarely hum when in horse stance.


Its a Kung Fu thing probably lost by the time it got to Japan.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I pretty much answered this in the part of my post you didn't quote.


No you didn't you went on and on about playing the guitar......Which by the way goes more with my point.  You clearly know the fundamentals of playing the guitar and all that's involved.  You may practice and focus on 1 specific part at a time but you know there are other parts to it.  UNLIKE "put your feet like this and don't move while we work on punches"


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Which is why I'd want it to be more of a message


To be honest I usually try to set the goals for parents.  If they came to the school because they want their kids to have better discipline and more respect, then I quickly inform them that we teach practical martial arts and that much of what is trained in the school can really hurt others.  While I'm willing to work with kids, the child has to have a minimum understanding that what we do can hurt others. We have to be responsible for each other's safety.  At any point of during class their may be weapons around and to say sorry for hitting someone with a staff due to horse playing is not an acceptable apology.

Right off the bat I let parents know that we don't do this type of stuff.





For me as an instructor and student, fighting is serious and it demands the same respect as going to a shooting range.  If parents are fine with that, then I'm fine with teaching.  I know some schools aren't like that where respect and disciple are a main focus.  If this is where you are trying to position yourself then you are doing the right thing.




skribs said:


> At black belt you're supposed to have a firm grasp on the basic techniques of the art. So it's less about the goal, and more about what comes first, the stances and blocks, or the kicks and punches? By the time a student is a green belt they should have all of them.


I would have thought a black belt would have a firm grasp of advance techniques.

Here's how I taught based on the goal to make it possible for all of my students to be able to fight using Jow Ga kung fu techniques. 
1. Stances - because strong trees grow from the root up.  Everything  is weak without a strong stance and understanding of rooting.
1a. Footwork -  It's not good enough to be still.  Our feet must know what to doe without us having to think about how to command them.  They must work in harmony and move without thought.
1b. Punching - basic structure so student don't injure themselves while punching others or punching bags
1c. Kicking - basic kicking structure so the students don't injure themselves and cause long terms joint damage.

Blocking doesn't come until much later.   The first 4 things gives them enough skills to fight back without hurting themselves.  It doesn't mean they will win a fight, it just means they won't hurt themselves in a fight. 

For example, Kid misses target and punches truck At 1:00









another one.





There is much more to punching and kicking than hitting and kicking.  I want to students to understand this because I teach long fist techniques and a bad punch can break a hand, finger, or hyper extend an arm.  I have a video of my son hyper-extending his elbow after many lectures of me telling him not to fully extend his arm, and the dangers of it.  There are just many things in Martial Arts application that will hurt a child if they get the structure wrong.


If you aren't teaching students how to actually apply martial arts techniques then you have no worry about them using it to fight.   Most students who don't know how to use martial arts techniques will usually revert back to some basic kickboxing and punching skill set.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> too many details at once can overwhelm students.


Instead of to treat 2 arms and 2 legs as 4 parts, You can teach them to only consider 2 parts instead. You can always ask them to coordinate 1 hand with 1 foot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Honest it works, learning without petal kids learn a lot faster. It worked for my grand kids, it worked for the kid down the street. I was skeptical at first, but it really works.


It's one of those things I wonder about. Surely they do learn balance. But it's not the same as balancing a bicycle while riding, since the bicycle is self-balancing above a certain speed. The problem most kids have (and this would solve part of it) is they don't manage to balance when they slow down, and they stay slow too long out of fear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I say low stance.  This is what I refer to as low.  This is an actual fighting stance, that I'm applying.   I'm not trying to pose for the camera.  I was teaching students how to use use the low fighting stance in fighting, so I asked a student to try and take me to the ground.  I dropped my stance the moment he came in and at that moment my wife took the picture.  This type of low stance provides some very good defense and allows offensive attacks as well.  But you'll pay a heavy price for it.
> 
> If you image me keeping my legs where they are and my height where it is and asked me to turn my waist to look at the camera, then you would see that I would be in a typical horse stance.  If I were to train punching.  Then I would do it from this stance and not from the traditional horse stance.
> 
> ...


I think I'd have gotten into training that fighting stance in my 30's. It presents some interesting options and obstacles.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> You don't need to be "hard" on them to teach them properly.  I'm not sure how one relates to the other.



One kid, I gently corrected him on something simple, he broke down crying and quit 2 classes later.  My Master explained to me that sometimes when you correct someone on something too soon, or give too many corrections, it breaks their confidence and they feel like they can't do anything right.  So I've learned to back off with the lower belts and only help them with new concepts when they're ready.



ballen0351 said:


> No you didn't you went on and on about playing the guitar......Which by the way goes more with my point.  You clearly know the fundamentals of playing the guitar and all that's involved.  You may practice and focus on 1 specific part at a time but you know there are other parts to it.  UNLIKE "put your feet like this and don't move while we work on punches"



Yes, but I also have my instructor helping me along with what to work on and when.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Not necessarily what Taekwondo is about, but more the message I'd want the newer students to receive.  (Especially the first one about not fighting for personal gain).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As long as they're using the stance properly (reasonable weight distribution, balance, etc.), it's not necessary to pile more details on the white belts. It can be done, and in the context of some training approaches it can even be desirable. It wouldn't be good with the way I teach - I get better results by starting with a flexible approach and narrowing down details when they matter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> Click the +quote underneath each post you want to quote.  Then go to where you would reply and click Insert Quotes.


Or manually highlight a section of text you want to quote. After you highlight it, you should get "quote" and "reply" as options. If you "quote", it's added to the list of quotes to insert later.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> it's not necessary to pile more details on the white belts.


IMO, it's better to explain "why" first, you then explain "how" after that. If you teach your students the purpose of your teaching, they will be happy to do it.

For example.

A: Why do I need to stay in low stance?
B: If you want to use your hand to grab your opponent's leg, you have to drop low.

A: Why do I need to train horse stance?
B: If your opponent tries to pick you up. you sink down into horse stance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away.  I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
> It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.


Sometimes the student isn't ready to assimilate some details, and giving them those can distract them from other (sometimes more important) concepts. Sometimes I'll let students get away with arm-only punches until they get a reasonable approximation of what that arm should do. Then I'll correct one other part (hips, usually), then another until I get all the mechanics in place. I've known instructors who took this as their teaching approach, and it seemed to work well enough.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, it's better to explain "why" first, you then explain "how" after that.
> 
> For example.
> 
> ...



I do wish we did more of this.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I do wish we did more of this.


As a kid, those classes where my instructor showed the usefulness of the horse stance, or any stance, motivated me to work harder on the stances. The first time they showed me what they can do with a half-moon stance blew my mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> I do wish we did more of this.


This is part of my difference from my primary instructor. I spend a lot more time on "why". That leaves more leeway in deciding the how, so students aren't just copying what I do.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, it's better to explain "why" first, you then explain "how" after that. If you teach your students the purpose of your teaching, they will be happy to do it.
> 
> For example.
> 
> ...


 This works good for me as well.  I can get away with a general overview for beginner students but the intermediate and more advance students usually get 10- 30 minutes lectures on the "why."  

I used to train with a classmate that would make his fist the way that he wanted to make it.  He did this for 5 years.  He didn't understand why it was important to make his fist the way that we taught in the school until he got into sparring. That changed everything for him. He finally understood the "why."


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> One kid, I gently corrected him on something simple, he broke down crying and quit 2 classes later. My Master explained to me that sometimes when you correct someone on something too soon, or give too many corrections, it breaks their confidence and they feel like they can't do anything right. So I've learned to back off with the lower belts and only help them with new concepts when they're ready.



Perhaps you weren't as gentle as you thought you were. There is no such thing as correcting someone too early, you would tell a child not to put their hand in a fire immediately after all not wait because it was too early! 
I am a great advocate of people actually learning how to teach, doing course etc on how to instruct rather than just instruct because they're a higher grade.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, it's better to explain "why" first, you then explain "how" after that. If you teach your students the purpose of your teaching, they will be happy to do it.



This is exactly right.




gpseymour said:


> As long as they're using the stance properly (reasonable weight distribution, balance, etc.), it's not necessary to pile more details on the white belts.



This is the point though isn't it, a reasonable stance not 'no stance instruction until you've learnt to punch'. We aren't talking about piling on details but teaching a proper stance for punching along _with _the punching, it can be polished up afterwards, you cannot teach a effective punch without having a correct stance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> One kid, I gently corrected him on something simple, he broke down crying and quit 2 classes later.


One of my friends solves this problem by the following method.

He told his students that the MA uniform is also called "hero skin". When you put "hero skin" on, you will be responsible for your own injury and death. Since hero will never cry, if you cry, you cannot wear it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think I'd have gotten into training that fighting stance in my 30's. It presents some interesting options and obstacles.


I wish I would have learned the value and use of it in my 20's.  It was one of the few things I had to learn on my own.  Regretfully most instructors regardless of level know how to use the stance.   The only reason I learned is because it was something I was actually using and learning how to use during sparring.  Then I began to see what it was doing, how it was affecting my opponent, and how certain things are easier at that level. 

The other thing I noticed was that certain techniques that I was having problems with actually applying became easier to do at that level.  I've been working on higher stance techniques as well simply because I don't know when my body won't be able to do the lower stances like that.  Unfortunately everyone gets old and worn out if that person is lucky


----------



## Buka (Jan 1, 2019)

I think a lot depends on what you're teaching, whether you're in charge of the teaching, where you're teaching and who you're teaching. The "who" is big for me as I do not teach everyone the same way. People learn differently for so many reasons it could have it's own thread.

As you become experienced you learn to read people that first second they set foot on the dojo floor. Before that if you were the one who signed them up.

My beginners class was an hour. Thy were usually in the class for a month or two, then put in the back of the advanced class. Those first few months in the advanced class everyone helped and encouraged them. Beginners were allowed and encouraged to take their own breaks and go sit against the wall and stretch because the pace of the advanced class was pretty much all out. My biggest goal at this point was to make them feel at home. Seemed to work pretty well.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> One kid, I gently corrected him on something simple, he broke down crying and quit 2 classes later. My Master explained to me that sometimes when you correct someone on something too soon, or give too many corrections, it breaks their confidence and they feel like they can't do anything right.


This is when you back off on the quantity and then give the student smaller bites to digest.  I have had a student cry and that's when I spoke to the child like a father figure. Telling the child that there is no reason to cry and that she can only do her best.  As long as she did that she would improve.  Then I proved it to her.  Before she walked into the school she knew zero kung fu.  Then I rambled off the things she learned while at the school, and the things she could do well.  Then I explain that it's the same for adults.  Somethings are just difficult to learn, but not impossible.  She felt better and became stronger once she viewed her shortcomings from a different perspective.

Not everyone is going to rise.  I've seen new students quit right then on the spot because they compared what they were doing to what long time students were doing.  We tried to be supportive but the student still quit.  With people like that, martial arts isn't the problem, the teacher isn't the problem.  Their mindset is the problem and sometimes the student is the only one that can fix that.

Sometime what we see as our fault or that we caused it, simply is the fault of the student and their mindset.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Buka said:


> Beginners were allowed and encouraged to take their own breaks and go sit against the wall and stretch because the pace of the advanced class was pretty much all out.


This worked for me as well.  We always told student to go at their own pace and to take breaks if they need it.  Taking a break for us was never presented as a failure thing or not being able to hang tough thing.  Sometimes I would take breaks some real some fake, just to show that it was o.k. to do so.  Other times I pushed hard even though I knew I probably should have taken that break.

The point is, taking a break was a reality of being in shape, out of shape, returning from a cold, over training, or not getting enough sleep.   It happens. it's a part of life.  This seem to do well with keeping that personal drive fresh.  At any point in time any student's drive could inspire another student regardless of rank.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Sometimes the student isn't ready to assimilate some details, and giving them those can distract them from other (sometimes more important) concepts. Sometimes I'll let students get away with arm-only punches until they get a reasonable approximation of what that arm should do. Then I'll correct one other part (hips, usually), then another until I get all the mechanics in place. I've known instructors who took this as their teaching approach, and it seemed to work well enough.


Sure on an individual basis one or two students may not get it and you need to break it down even more.  But to teach it to everyone like that on purpose makes no sense to me.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since hero will never cry, if you cry, you cannot wear it.




Yeah that's a brilliant way to help people's mental health...not. Who said heroes don't cry? What a complete load of bollocks, of course heroes can cry and why lie to children about their suits?


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is when you back off on the quantity and then give the student smaller bites to digest.  I have had a student cry and that's when I spoke to the child like a father figure. Telling the child that there is no reason to cry and that she can only do her best.  As long as she did that she would improve.  Then I proved it to her.  Before she walked into the school she knew zero kung fu.  Then I rambled off the things she learned while at the school, and the things she could do well.  Then I explain that it's the same for adults.  Somethings are just difficult to learn, but not impossible.  She felt better and became stronger once she viewed her shortcomings from a different perspective.
> 
> Not everyone is going to rise.  I've seen new students quit right then on the spot because they compared what they were doing to what long time students were doing.  We tried to be supportive but the student still quit.  With people like that, martial arts isn't the problem, the teacher isn't the problem.  Their mindset is the problem and sometimes the student is the only one that can fix that.
> 
> Sometime what we see as our fault or that we caused it, simply is the fault of the student and their mindset.



And it's worked better for me when I've watched how they do with the bites they have and then ease them onto more solid food.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> And it's worked better for me when I've watched how they do with the bites they have and then ease them onto more solid food.




Do you have qualifications to teach or coach or just the martial arts grades?

It never fails to amaze me that so many, not just in martial arts, think they can coach just because they can do the sport. Not just at basic level either but at national and professional levels.
Coaching and teaching isn't a natural thing for most, it has to be learnt. It's a more complicated thing than most think, if it weren't would be teachers wouldn't have to go to university to learn how to do it. Whether we are paid instructors or not we really should be professional about teaching/coaching.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Do you have qualifications to teach or coach or just the martial arts grades?


When I was a teaching assistant in UT Austin computer science graduate school, one day my professor asked me to teach Knuth assemble language MIX. That was the 1st year that Knuth published his MIX. I told him that I didn't know MIX (I have learned CDC 6600 assemble language and IBM 360 assemble language). The professor said, "Nobody in our graduate school knows it. You just have to study it and teach it at the same time."

IMO, the term "qualification" is a relative term. It's not an absolute term. Even if you know something a bit earlier that others, and as long as you know how to help others, you are qualified.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

Skribs gave me a disagree on my op, so you would think I would be the last one to defend him, but we have been pretty hard on him. I think some of the things we said were a little out of line. It is hard being a young coach or teacher and we should be more supportive.
When we were 30, we were probably not very humble, some of us are still not humble.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> With a lot of our students, if we taught them everything correct from the start, they'd be overwhelmed and quit.
> 
> .



Very true. Even a thirsty man cannot drink from a fire hose.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 1, 2019)

Demonstrate, Short Explanation (at the level those in attendance can understand), Demonstrate again. Ask for questions (concerning the direct subject matter at hand), If no questions let them struggle unless someone is being dangerous. After a few minutes of struggling, Call for students attention...short explanation and demo of one or two of the mistakes (depending on the level of the class) without pointing someone out for it, Demonstrate the actions again properly a couple of times and let them struggle again. If/When the students do the actions better (does not have to be perfect just better) tell them with enthusiasm it is better. Emphasis the positive in a positive way. Don't say 'that's wrong' (even if it is) say something like "ok you are getting there, try doing this and you'll have this part of it" while making (1) correction. Expound the positive, Find something the student/s do correct and tell them. Then help them to be better.


----------



## Earl Weiss (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> So why not teach them correctly from the beginning
> It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.


Most people can process only a limited amount of information at one time.   I want them to remember / process the most important details first.  For instance if i teach a 7 year old an L stance I show them to make the feet in an "L"   Position with heels aligned. Only after they get this  will I dd the 70 / 30 weight distribution if they understand percentages and if not them I simply say more weigh on the back leg.   After this  I emphasize the knee bend with rear kneecap in line vertical with the toes.  Then keep the rear hip aligned with inner knee joint.   Then comes explanation of the length being 1.5 shoulders width from rear footsword to front foot toes.   Then assumong the understand angles add the 15 degree inward angle of the foot.    
If all those details were provided at the beginning I think there would be retention issues.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Skribs gave me a disagree on my op, so you would think I would be the last one to defend him, but we have been pretty hard on him. I think some of the things we said were a little out of line. It is hard being a young coach or teacher and we should be more supportive.
> When we were 30, we were probably not very humble, some of us are still not humble.


What's humble mean? lol.  



Bruce7 said:


> It is hard being a young coach or teacher and we should be more supportive.


 People are supportive here. But they can also be very blunt.  The problem is trying to understand how someone views martial arts.  For example, I have never taught martial arts with the goal or focus to teach discipline or respect.  To me those are by products of quality training and that it's something one gains naturally through life experiences and honest training.  It's not something that has to be taught as a lesson.  Often times it's taught by parents and mentors in the form of a teachable moment.  Most of this probably comes from me being involved with youth development as a profession for most of my life.  

To me martial arts is like the military where soldiers are trained to kill and fight as first order.  Other non-fighting aspects are gained through the training as a soldier that helps forge their will and the strength that they will need when the worst of times appears and you are called to kill.  With martial arts students are trained to harm and fight as first order. Other non-fighting aspects are gained through the training as martial artists that helps forge their will and the strength that they will need when the worst of times appears and you are called to harm another human.  

I used to think that emotion management in martial arts was so that rage wouldn't blind you and make you weak during the heat of  fight.  Then one day I thought, emotion management is what allows a martial arts practitioner to do horrible things like break a persons arm, legs, or poke the eyes.  It what allows the martial artist to do the most damaging techniques if need be.  If your emotions turn to the safety of your attacker then you won't be able to do what's needed to save yourself.  

This is my perspective but the OP does not have the same perspective and as of such does not train with the same focus in mind.   So when someone says 
"Taekwondo is for defense, not attack"  it causes people to reflect what martial arts means to them, it that will almost always clash.  

An easier approach to the OP's  question would have been.  Simply to say "My focus is to use martial arts to teach discipline.  With that in mind which is the better technique to start beginners with?"  Now the focus is different.  Which in my cause, when I taught teens of questionable behavior,  The first thing I taught was a healthier mindset.  The next thing I taught them was how to escape from danger.  I never did get around to teaching them how to fight, because that wasn't the focus.

A little clarity and explaining goes a long way here.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 1, 2019)

Earl Weiss said:


> Most people can process only a limited amount of information at one time.


This is especially true with kung fu when the hands are doing 2 things at once and the feet are doing something on their own.  The one thing that I've heard every kung fu student say is that it was mentally challenging, in just trying to get the brain to move the body the right way.  We see the form / technique but when we ask the brain to do what the eyes saw, the brain says "Whatcha talkin about Willis?"


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Kids don't sign up for these programs, parents do based on what they parent wants to child to get out of it.



Their parent signs them up, largely based on whether or not it looked like their kid was having fun during the trial lesson(s).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> This is the point though isn't it, a reasonable stance not 'no stance instruction until you've learnt to punch'. We aren't talking about piling on details but teaching a proper stance for punching along _with _the punching, it can be polished up afterwards, you cannot teach a effective punch without having a correct stance.


I think some folks use the terms differently, Tez. I don't think of "stance" when I tell someone to step into (wait for it) a fighting stance. It's clearly a stance - I even used that exact word (and do when teaching it). But when I teach "stances", it's more exact. Something about how I was taught, how the term was used over the years, makes that nonsense sentence make sense to me.

So, I don't teach stances early on. I just help them get proper balance and weight distribution for the task. Later, I teach the specific stances as I hit a topic/technique where they are particularly useful - usually where their advantages and disadvantages become easier to experience.

Clearly, what I'm teaching when I say I'm not teaching "stances" is still the basics of stances. I'm helping them get their stance right, but it's a different thing to me, somehow.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> I wish I would have learned the value and use of it in my 20's.  It was one of the few things I had to learn on my own.  Regretfully most instructors regardless of level know how to use the stance.   The only reason I learned is because it was something I was actually using and learning how to use during sparring.  Then I began to see what it was doing, how it was affecting my opponent, and how certain things are easier at that level.
> 
> The other thing I noticed was that certain techniques that I was having problems with actually applying became easier to do at that level.  I've been working on higher stance techniques as well simply because I don't know when my body won't be able to do the lower stances like that.  Unfortunately everyone gets old and worn out if that person is lucky


I used to use deeper stances in some techniques than most of my partners. I can't tell if I'm learning to use tall stances better now, or simply understand the techniques well enough to get away with the taller stances. I really miss some of the stuff I used to do, and I think I'd have had fun learning to use that fighting stance you have.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think a lot depends on what you're teaching, whether you're in charge of the teaching, where you're teaching and who you're teaching. The "who" is big for me as I do not teach everyone the same way. People learn differently for so many reasons it could have it's own thread.
> 
> As you become experienced you learn to read people that first second they set foot on the dojo floor. Before that if you were the one who signed them up.
> 
> My beginners class was an hour. Thy were usually in the class for a month or two, then put in the back of the advanced class. Those first few months in the advanced class everyone helped and encouraged them. Beginners were allowed and encouraged to take their own breaks and go sit against the wall and stretch because the pace of the advanced class was pretty much all out. My biggest goal at this point was to make them feel at home. Seemed to work pretty well.


I've used a similar approach, but without separate classes (since I only ever taught a maximum of 3 days a week). My beginner's curriculum ("foundation") takes about 10 classes to cover (longer if they are struggling with some basic bit) before they could join in the main class. I like the approach, and could see myself having a beginner's class if I had enough students and time for it. In fact, I'd pitched a beginner's class (with an entirely different concept than what I came up with later) at my instructor's school, for a day when no classes were offered.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure on an individual basis one or two students may not get it and you need to break it down even more.  But to teach it to everyone like that on purpose makes no sense to me.


It can be the starting point, simply adding on what they seem to be able to handle. It's just the other side of starting with the idea of giving them the full information, and simplifying it down if they struggle. Every student is different, and sometimes it's easier - and just as effective - to start from the lowest common denominator and work up. Sometimes it isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I was a teaching assistant in UT Austin computer science graduate school, one day my professor asked me to teach Knuth assemble language MIX. That was the 1st year that Knuth published his MIX. I told him that I didn't know MIX (I have learned CDC 6600 assemble language and IBM 360 assemble language). The professor said, "Nobody in our graduate school knows it. You just have to study it and teach it at the same time."
> 
> IMO, the term "qualification" is a relative term. It's not an absolute term. Even if you know something a bit earlier that others, and as long as you know how to help others, you are qualified.


She's talking about the difference between knowledge of the topic and skill at teaching. I can often learn something new to help a client out, and immediately teach it to some of their staff. Other folks who know the same thing much better sometimes cannot teach it as well, because they lack the skill for teaching.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

ballen0351 said:


> So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing


I missed something I wanted to say about this earlier. Teaching them to do it correctly doesn't have to mean teaching them all of the details. I can teach a good fighting stance without having to get into most of the details. I can teach a working approximation of a hanmi (half-stance or L-stance) without having to get into the details. I can also teach both of those from the beginning, providing them the details as I understand them. Often, they over-focus on something I said, rather than getting the stance right. With many students (certainly not all) I can get as good or better results by demonstrating it perfectly (because I never make a mistake! ) and letting them build a working approximation, as compared to giving them full instruction and having to correct what they've misunderstood.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 1, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> What's humble mean? lol.


It's what people are when they finally realize they aren't as good as me.


----------



## skribs (Jan 1, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Skribs gave me a disagree on my op, so you would think I would be the last one to defend him, but we have been pretty hard on him. I think some of the things we said were a little out of line. It is hard being a young coach or teacher and we should be more supportive.
> When we were 30, we were probably not very humble, some of us are still not humble.



That's because I disagreed with what you posted in that OP.  Feel free to agree or disagree with me based on the merits of my posts.  I've gotten plenty of disagrees before, and I don't care as long as the person discusses it.  That's what I'm really here for - the discussion.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's because I disagreed with what you posted in that OP.  Feel free to agree or disagree with me based on the merits of my posts.  I've gotten plenty of disagrees before, and I don't care as long as the person discusses it.  That's what I'm really here for - the discussion.



Just so we're clear, there's no obligation to discuss a disagree (or agree, or like, or whatever).  You can disagree with something even if you don't think it's worth discussing.

On topic, I still don't see how you can teach stances or blocks in isolation.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 1, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's because I disagreed with what you posted in that OP.  Feel free to agree or disagree with me based on the merits of my posts.  I've gotten plenty of disagrees before, and I don't care as long as the person discusses it.  That's what I'm really here for - the discussion.



You are right,* all TDK Black Belts don't have to know* *who Jhoon Goo Rhee and Jack Hwang (Hwang Sae Jin) was.*
I should not have been surprised and a little unhappy about it.


----------



## skribs (Jan 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Just so we're clear, there's no obligation to discuss a disagree (or agree, or like, or whatever).  You can disagree with something even if you don't think it's worth discussing.
> 
> On topic, I still don't see how you can teach stances or blocks in isolation.



That was my personal opinion on the subject.

It's easy to teach them in isolation.  However, even if teaching them together, do you look at both of them in depth?  Or do you focus on teaching the block sometimes and the stance other times?

When I first started at my school, I also went online and watched Ginger Ninja Trickster's tutorials on YouTube.  The guy could spend 8 minutes talking about a front kick - and his information is well-edited and succinctly delivered.  He goes over every detail of the kick, applications for the kick, variations of the kick, and troubleshooting if you're doing the kick wrong.  If we took that approach and went into every detail of every technique, we could get through front kick, roundhouse kick, and side kick in about 25 minutes, and that's not even giving students enough time to practice!

So how much time do you devote to stances or blocks?  Is the stance just kind of there, and you teach the block?  Or is the block just kind of putting your arm up, and you teach the stance?  Or do you spend twice the time and teach both at the same time?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> That was my personal opinion on the subject.
> 
> It's easy to teach them in isolation.  However, even if teaching them together, do you look at both of them in depth?  Or do you focus on teaching the block sometimes and the stance other times?
> 
> ...


Enitrely a deviation from the post, but if you go on youtube and search sensei ando (ando meriza), he has a lot of cool instructional videos. They may not help you with your own kicks and techniques (or they may, who knows), but they may give you some new ideas of how to help your students with them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> That was my personal opinion on the subject.
> 
> It's easy to teach them in isolation.  However, even if teaching them together, do you look at both of them in depth?  Or do you focus on teaching the block sometimes and the stance other times?
> 
> ...



You teach them all together. Let the student get things roughly right, and then refine it. 

As to the 25 minute thing... no... you can't. Because the average student isn't going to remember more than a fraction of that information. Information overload isn't helpful. Yes, some can handle more detail at a time than  others. But I've always been an advocate of individualizing training as much as possible. But, in general, you get things roughly correct, and then refine it. Especially if you're working with children.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> You teach them all together. Let the student get things roughly right, and then refine it.




Exactly.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I still don't see how you can teach stances or blocks in isolation.


You can teach them separately but I can't remember ever training them separately.  I'm not sure how other people do it, but In Jow Ga their is a form called the "Stepping Form" where the entire form is stance and foot work.
Here's a variation of it.  Typically newer students train it until the wobbles disappear.  From an instructor's point of view it gives us an opportunity to see clearly some of the issues the students have with their stances, transitions into stances, and rooting.  It's a boring form, but I think of it like medicine.  It's boring but it's good training.   The stances should be held for at least 15 seconds before transitioning into another stance.  They should rename it the "Patience Form" because instructors often have to tell students to hold the stance longer.





another version





When instructors introduce blocking, the students would have done this stepping form enough times to where the movements from the form are naturally integrated into the blocking. 

In terms training Blocking in isolation, I can't remember learning that way or teaching that way.  I might have taught the movement of a block or redirect in isolation so that the student knows what the hand should be doing, but I've always had students practice both and I learned the same way.  But stances and footwork were the first lessons I had. My biggest memory of it was wanting to learn it quickly so I could get to the "Real" forms.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can teach them separately but I can't remember ever training them separately.



I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> Just so we're clear, there's no obligation to discuss a disagree (or agree, or like, or whatever).  You can disagree with something even if you don't think it's worth discussing.
> 
> On topic, I still don't see how you can teach stances or blocks in isolation.


The traditional method I was taught for blocks starts with a "normal stance" that really isn't useful for the block, fighting, or much else. It's arguably not really a stance (though it fits the definition), but just "how you normally stand". It's just used because most people get it right without instruction. As for teaching stances in isolation, that's easy enough. I don't do it much (except where students really struggle with getting an approximation of a useful stance), but have seen it done. It was pretty common for both of my Karate instructors, and NGA instructors have a pair of "walks" they often use to let students practice stance without any actual technique (strike, block, throw, etc.) involved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> That was my personal opinion on the subject.
> 
> It's easy to teach them in isolation.  However, even if teaching them together, do you look at both of them in depth?  Or do you focus on teaching the block sometimes and the stance other times?
> 
> ...


There's a difference in video instruction - you're expecting people to go back over it again and again, so they don't have to catch everything at once. And you're not there to correct, so you want to include the things you'd normally just watch for and correct if necessary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.


I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.

That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2019)

There is a very big difference between teaching each thing separately in isolation then attempting to do it joined up at some later date and teaching as a whole while looking at separate parts to do correctly but still see the whole technique as it should be. For example a punch is more than just moving the arm to have the hand connect, we'd show the whole technique to do an effective punch and practice that but look at each component to make sure that was correct. We would spend weeks just doing the fist, then weeks doing the arm the even more weeks doing the body then the footwork. We'd also make sure the students understand the reason they are doing it the way we've shown. We don't deluge them with info but we give the whole basic movement so they can understand the parts and their place in the technique.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 2, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.
> 
> That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.



I am sorry I started talking about how I was taught, No one teaches that why anymore. So it kind of moot.
It looks like you only teach the old way, if a student has trouble, and that makes sense.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 2, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Punches are stances.


You must walk funny.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 2, 2019)

There is plenty of time in a 1 hour class to teach both stances and blocks.


----------



## skribs (Jan 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.



To isolate the movements and focus specifically on them.

Let's say you do horse stance:  well a few of the blocks don't really make sense in a horse stance, like a down block (because now you're pushing their kick into your leg).
Let's say you do back stance:  you can work one arm at a time here, because you're rear arm is going to be further away.*
Let's say you do front stance:  well unless your front stance is perfectly square, which it probably isn't unless you've taught the stance correctly instead of an approximation, then you run into the same problem as back stance.

*The obvious solution here is to have the students step forward or switch feet to practice both sides.  In some of the white belts, particularly the young ones, they can get a little confused when switching feet.  Sometimes "switch feet" means hop forward and switch feet.  Stepping provides other problems.  When we want to do a normal step, some people do a sliding step.  Some people will take tiny little steps, and some of the little kids do huge leaps or take several steps.  The adult class has less of these problems, but still sometimes don't understand what we're trying to have them do.  And a lot of them are paying more attention to which leg or which arm should go, instead of learning the block.

We don't always teach the blocks in isolation, but when people are struggling with everything, taking stances out of the equation helps them understand the blocks a lot better.


----------



## skribs (Jan 2, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.
> 
> That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.



Alternatively, when we finally get to the point where students really SHOULD know the stances, and they're behind, we can drill the stance itself.

(We did more of that at my old school and I do wish we did more of it at my school).


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can teach them separately but I can't remember ever training them separately.  I'm not sure how other people do it, but In Jow Ga their is a form called the "Stepping Form" where the entire form is stance and foot work.
> Here's a variation of it.  Typically newer students train it until the wobbles disappear.  From an instructor's point of view it gives us an opportunity to see clearly some of the issues the students have with their stances, transitions into stances, and rooting.  It's a boring form, but I think of it like medicine.  It's boring but it's good training.   The stances should be held for at least 15 seconds before transitioning into another stance.  They should rename it the "Patience Form" because instructors often have to tell students to hold the stance longer.
> 
> 
> ...



Cool video,
I remember doing that form when I studied long fist.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> In some of the white belts, particularly the young ones, they can get a little confused when switching feet. Sometimes "switch feet" means hop forward and switch feet. Stepping provides other problems. When we want to do a normal step, some people do a sliding step. Some people will take tiny little steps, and some of the little kids do huge leaps or take several steps.




How old are these children you are teaching? 
We don't use the word 'switch', we will tell and show them exactly what to do and get them to do it. While they don't do it perfectly at the beginning we don't have the complications you seem to.
this is about teaching in schools but works equally well in martial arts. The interesting bit is that learning should be hard to start with! The point about understanding, as with the maths example, is also a good match for martial arts. Effective teaching: 10 tips on what works and what doesn’t


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 2, 2019)

RTKDCMB said:


> You must walk funny.


When I step in my 

- right foot, my left hand move down and my right hand move up.
- left foot, my left hand move up and my right hand move to my left.

MA guy's daily walking is different from normal guy's daily walking. Our MA training should be integrated into our daily activity.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.


 . Stances without movement don't train the stance.  It trains other things but not the stance itself.  I've seen people who used to do static stances as a way to train their stance and they had the worst rooting and footwork in comparison to hold a stance for 30 seconds and transitioning into a different stance.


----------



## skribs (Jan 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> . Stances without movement don't train the stance.  It trains other things but not the stance itself.  I've seen people who used to do static stances as a way to train their stance and they had the worst rooting and footwork in comparison to hold a stance for 30 seconds and transitioning into a different stance.



IMO it's completely different.  If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself.  Then you train both the techniques in the stance and the transitions to other stances.  Then you combine those techniques and transitions together.

That's not to say you can't learn the stances while you're learning the techniques, but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.




Perhaps _your_ attention will be split, it doesn't mean others will. I think perhaps you shouldn't generalise about what 'people' will think or do.
People focus on the technique because the stance is part and parcel of the technique, it is a whole. To train strikes without the stances and vice versa is like learning to swim on dry land.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself.


If you can't transition into the stance correctly or out of the stance correctly, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't generate the correct power and speed as you move into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't understand movement of your body, that is generated by moving into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. Sure, you can get used to the correct position and work on strength or balance. While those are needed, they, by themselves, are not enough to claim understanding of the stance.



skribs said:


> That's not to say you can't learn the stances while you're learning the techniques, but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.


Most of the time, the technique is your stance (your transition into or out of a stance). What you do with your hands, is far less important than your footwork and transition. 

If you don't have the proper footwork and transition work, you can do the hand work perfectly and it will still be completely ineffective. If you have the footwork and transition work down, but no hands you can still accomplish a lot. You can create distance, close distance, get off line, generate power and or speed... If the hands are terrible, maybe you only deliver half of the power you generated, while moving off line. If your footwork is terrible, but your hands are perfect, you deliver 100% of the zero amount of power you develop and are probably still in line to get hit before your hands can deliver.


----------



## skribs (Jan 2, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps _your_ attention will be split, it doesn't mean others will. I think perhaps you shouldn't generalise about what 'people' will think or do.
> People focus on the technique because the stance is part and parcel of the technique, it is a whole. To train strikes without the stances and vice versa is like learning to swim on dry land.



This is not my experience from myself, but my observations from seeing probably 300+ white belts over the last 4 years.  And yes, when I see that many, I start to generalize.



wab25 said:


> If you can't transition into the stance correctly or out of the stance correctly, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't generate the correct power and speed as you move into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't understand movement of your body, that is generated by moving into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. Sure, you can get used to the correct position and work on strength or balance. While those are needed, they, by themselves, are not enough to claim understanding of the stance.
> 
> Most of the time, the technique is your stance (your transition into or out of a stance). What you do with your hands, is far less important than your footwork and transition.
> 
> If you don't have the proper footwork and transition work, you can do the hand work perfectly and it will still be completely ineffective. If you have the footwork and transition work down, but no hands you can still accomplish a lot. You can create distance, close distance, get off line, generate power and or speed... If the hands are terrible, maybe you only deliver half of the power you generated, while moving off line. If your footwork is terrible, but your hands are perfect, you deliver 100% of the zero amount of power you develop and are probably still in line to get hit before your hands can deliver.



If you don't have a proper stance, how can you transition from one to the other?  That's like trying to give directions from point A to point B without knowing where either of them are.

Your legs do not amount to 100% of the power.  Improper hand technique can hurt you more than your opponent, even if you deliver your power with it.  Improper hand technique can leave you open a lot worse than an improper stance.


----------



## skribs (Jan 2, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> How old are these children you are teaching?
> We don't use the word 'switch', we will tell and show them exactly what to do and get them to do it. While they don't do it perfectly at the beginning we don't have the complications you seem to.
> this is about teaching in schools but works equally well in martial arts. The interesting bit is that learning should be hard to start with! The point about understanding, as with the maths example, is also a good match for martial arts. Effective teaching: 10 tips on what works and what doesn’t



We start at 4, sometimes 3.5.

It's not about them being perfect.  It's about them being in such a wrong position they can't even correctly follow what we're doing, or being so far out of position they're getting hit by the person behind them.


----------



## skribs (Jan 2, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> There is a very big difference between teaching each thing separately in isolation then attempting to do it joined up at some later date and teaching as a whole while looking at separate parts to do correctly but still see the whole technique as it should be. For example a punch is more than just moving the arm to have the hand connect, we'd show the whole technique to do an effective punch and practice that but look at each component to make sure that was correct. We would spend weeks just doing the fist, then weeks doing the arm the even more weeks doing the body then the footwork. We'd also make sure the students understand the reason they are doing it the way we've shown. We don't deluge them with info but we give the whole basic movement so they can understand the parts and their place in the technique.



Sometimes that's too much.  Sometimes it's not necessary.

You're going to have to clean up the habit later on down the road.  When they're cleaning up the footwork they either need to break their old footwork habit of moving incorrectly, or start a new footwork habit of moving their feet.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> If you don't have a proper stance, how can you transition from one to the other? That's like trying to give directions from point A to point B without knowing where either of them are.


Reread what I said. I said that knowing where A and B are was necessary. 


wab25 said:


> *While those are needed*, they, by themselves, are not enough to claim understanding of the stance.


I said that knowing where A and B are was not sufficient to truly understand a stance. Just because my teacher can put my feet in the right place and I can stand there for 10 minutes without moving doesn't mean I truly understand the stance. I know a little more when I can put my own feet right. I know a little more when I can go into A from B. I know a little more when I understand how the power is generated as I step into A from B....



skribs said:


> Your legs do not amount to 100% of the power.


Go out into space and punch somebody as hard as you can... its actually not that hard at all, because you are not connected to or rooted to something immovable. In order to generate power you must root or push off something immovable. That involves footwork. (even if you are doing ground work, your connection to the ground is vital)

Yes, you can incorrectly generate enough power to break your hand. But, lots of people hit and kick people all the time without injuring themselves. Go watch a bar room brawl or soccer field riot. Most of the fights I watched in high school had very bad hand technique, people came out with busted lips and black eyes and begged for it to stop. Very few busted hands. No broken feet.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 2, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.
> 
> That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.



That's not teaching them separately. That's teaching them together, letting them get things grossly correct, and then refining things. Focusing on specific areas of weakness that need improvement.
Which is what I said in the first place.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> We start at 4, sometimes 3.5.




Oh wow, that is far, far too early to be teaching martial arts. No wonder you have to break it all down, I'm sorry but I really do disapprove of children that young in martial arts classes. At three and a half they are called toddlers for a reason, four is no better.



skribs said:


> Sometimes that's too much.  Sometimes it's not necessary.
> 
> You're going to have to clean up the habit later on down the road.  When they're cleaning up the footwork they either need to break their old footwork habit of moving incorrectly, or start a new footwork habit of moving their feet.




When your students are only four then no wonder you think that. 
When students learn correctly the first time, and they do, there is no need to 'clean up habits', you can refine yes but teaching properly in the first place is the key. You cannot do that with young children who have not long learnt to walk.
Our youngest student would be nine nearly ten, no children under that age for us and we don't have problems teaching them correct stances and techniques. Before that age they don't have the co-ordination or understanding.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> This is not my experience from myself, but my observations from seeing probably 300+ white belts over the last 4 years




and my experience is over 40 and some years. I can't even count how many white belts I've taught. I would bet those who are also disagreeing with you have probably as many years as I, perhaps more.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself.


This doesn't exist if you are someone who trains for function.  If you want a true understanding of a stance then you have to move as part of that stance training.  A stance that stays still for more than 1 minute has no function in fighting.  In fighting,  the function is that your stance transitions into other stances, sometimes quickly and sometimes with pauses.  Your stance is combined with your footwork and the understanding of weight distribution is key to know when your stance should resist completely, for a moment,  and when your stance should yield.

A stance that does not move is a stance that cannot function in a fight.  Give it a try, stand still for 1 minute in a horse stance during sparring and see how well that works for you.
Here's a complete walk down of stances:





Attacks: Stance:
0:06 1st attack  Opponent attacks with kick : Move back into horse stance transition into cat stance, transition into horse stance.
0:10 2nd attack Opponent attacks with punch: Move into golden rooster stands on leg stance. (failed to kick so opponent grabs leg)
0:19 4rd attack  Opponent attacks with low sweep: Move from horse stance transition in to horse stance, grab opponent's legs
0:37 7th attack  Opponent attacks with punches:  Stand in cat stance,  give up cat stance
0:51 8th attack  Opponent grapples: Golden rooster stands one leg, transitions into a second golden rooster stands on one leg (used to raise my opponent's foot to grab it)
0:55 9th attack  Opponent charges: Transition into cat stance, Transition into bow stance (completely resist and redirect opponent's energy).
1:03 11th attack Opponent charges: Start in low horse stance, (stance gives after initial impact)
1:09 12th attack Opponent smothers: Start in low horse stance, shuffle back into horse stance. (resists completely), transitions into bow stance to grab opponent's leg, transitions into horse to lift (take note that my lead leg does not move from the spot from horse to bow it stays there.

During each stance there was a shift in weight distribution caused by me or by my opponent.  Each transition required that I

un-root, 

balance, 

re-root.  
Which is 3 of the elements needed for a good stance. None of these can be learned or mastered by standing still in a stance.  Standing still in a stance wasn't designed to help you understand a stance more.  It's designed to help build strength while focusing on small shifts in weight distribution that you otherwise wouldn't know when there is a lot of movement.  The first thing that is taught about a horse stance is that the weight distribution is 50% on each leg. This is not as easy to do as it sounds.  True 50-50 weight distribution in a horse stance will actually make your body feel lighter as if there is no weight at all.  It's like a see-saw.  Put two heavy people of the same weight on each end and the see saw will balance. It's possible to move this balance with the lightest of touches.  Have one person weigh more than the person on the other end of the see-saw and you'll use a considerable amount of energy to keep the see-saw in the same position when it's balanced. This is only part of the stance, the complete understanding of a stance is when you use it in the context of function which adds additional elements in which a stance has to navigate.

In martial arts sometimes it's more effective training to train 2 things at once instead of training only one thing at a time.  Babies that are first learning to walk train more than one thing at a time.  Balance, stance, coordination, and grabbing.

Take note of the bridge builder, wheeler.  Hands and feet working at the same time.  When you fight, your body does and manages multiple things all at once and the sooner students can get their brains to do that the better.  





I'll have to check to see if I have a video of a 5 year old girl that I used to train.  If a child can move like this at the age of 5 then doing 2 things at once (stance and punch) in a martial arts class should be do-able


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Oh wow, that is far, far too early to be teaching martial arts. No wonder you have to break it all down, I'm sorry but I really do disapprove of children that young in martial arts classes. At three and a half they are called toddlers for a reason, four is no better.


Yes that's too young for martial arts but not for motor skills training. Motor skills training helps to develop good coordination.  Some kids are born with it, but at that age all of the stance training would be motor skill based and not martial arts based, Bones and joints are still development so I wouldn't want to do more than what would happen on a playground with free play.
Stuff like this


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> If you don't have a proper stance, how can you transition from one to the other? That's like trying to give directions from point A to point B without knowing where either of them are.


 A and B are destination and not the work that it takes to get from Point A to Point B.  You still have to train what's in between.   But if you are trying to teach 3 to 4 year old kids then drop the martial arts and help them develop motor skills.through natural activities.  The more they move around the better their coordination will be and the stronger they will get and the easier martial arts will be.

Kids naturally move in funny ways and flail all over the place, which is actually really good for motor skill development and it's natural as the flailing helps them navigate balance.


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 2, 2019)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes that's too young for martial arts but not for motor skills training. Motor skills training helps to develop good coordination.  Some kids are born with it, but at that age all of the stance training would be motor skill based and not martial arts based, Bones and joints are still development so I wouldn't want to do more than what would happen on a playground with free play.
> Stuff like this



I think a martial arts class _can _be one way to teach basic motor skills to kids that age. We have a program for kids as young as 4, and a good chunk of the class time is stuff like: walking on a low balance beam (the kind that's just a strip of mat on the floor), hop on one foot, step over hurdles, pop-ups, tumbles, etc. We don't focus a lot on stances. They do some kicks and blocks, but it's basic stuff. Edit: the big thing for kids that age is that they learn motor skills and have fun doing it. I think whether it's martial arts, dance, gymnastics, soccer etc is less important than are they having fun learning to move their bodies.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 2, 2019)

By the way Skribs. I'm not being hard on you or anything like that.  Just, I'm just sharing my perspective. In terms of teaching  beginners martial arts, everyone here has me beat.  Much of of what I understand about youth and training them comes from working in the youth development field, and teaching kids how to play a variety of sports from basketball to street hockey.   The one thing was common with all of those activities is that footwork, stance, and hand and eye coordination were critical. 

The other thing I notice about kids is that they tend to spend less time thinking about how to do something and just do it, until it feels right.  Teens and adults tend to think too much.  I used to tell the adult students, "less thinking and more doing."  or  "stop thinking about it and just do it."   Kids are the opposite.  I usually want them to think a little more about what they are doing and put purpose behind action.   It's all crazy lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 2, 2019)

skribs said:


> IMO it's completely different.  If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself.  Then you train both the techniques in the stance and the transitions to other stances.  Then you combine those techniques and transitions together.
> 
> That's not to say you can't learn the stances while you're learning the techniques, but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.


I'm not sure static stance training has much benefit to the stance, itself (though it may be useful for things like strengthening legs). When I want to train a stance, I want to move into and out of that stance, because that's how we actually use them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 2, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps _your_ attention will be split, it doesn't mean others will. I think perhaps you shouldn't generalise about what 'people' will think or do.
> People focus on the technique because the stance is part and parcel of the technique, it is a whole. To train strikes without the stances and vice versa is like learning to swim on dry land.


I have to disagree, Tez. I've seen a lot of students entirely ignore stances during techniques, because they get focused on what they think the technique is (which is the hands, unless it's a kick). It happens quite a lot unless their attention is drawn purposely to the stance/footwork.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 2, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Most of the time, the technique is your stance (your transition into or out of a stance). What you do with your hands, is far less important than your footwork and transition.


That may be true (I'm not sure I agree entirely, but I agree with the concept), but that doesn't mean students know that. They often overlook things that are actually important.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I have to disagree, Tez. I've seen a lot of students entirely ignore stances during techniques, because they get focused on what they think the technique is (which is the hands, unless it's a kick). It happens quite a lot unless their attention is drawn purposely to the stance/footwork.




The operative word here is that you have seen 'a lot of students' not all as was said in the post I replied to. Applying something one does oneself to everyone is wrong. Not all students do it so assuming that all do and teaching as if all di is incorrect. Besides we are talking about teaching toddlers here, something I find disappointing.

When we say 'students' we shouldn't be talking about teaching children who have just learnt to walk.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> I think a martial arts class _can _be one way to teach basic motor skills to kids that age. We have a program for kids as young as 4, and a good chunk of the class time is stuff like: walking on a low balance beam (the kind that's just a strip of mat on the floor), hop on one foot, step over hurdles, pop-ups, tumbles, etc. We don't focus a lot on stances. They do some kicks and blocks, but it's basic stuff. Edit: the big thing for kids that age is that they learn motor skills and have fun doing it. I think whether it's martial arts, dance, gymnastics, soccer etc is less important than are they having fun learning to move their bodies.




I agree with teaching them basic motor skills but not martial arts as such. However one has to be really experienced to take children of that age, make it fun and more importantly make it safe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> The operative word here is that you have seen 'a lot of students' not all as was said in the post I replied to. Applying something one does oneself to everyone is wrong. Not all students do it so assuming that all do and teaching as if all di is incorrect. Besides we are talking about teaching toddlers here, something I find disappointing.
> 
> When we say 'students' we shouldn't be talking about teaching children who have just learnt to walk.


Remember Skribs deals with a lot of very young kids. I know kids are weird, so maybe it's ubiquitous enough among them for it to be a fair statement.

I don't mind when folks teach toddlers (so long as they don't ask me to), if they keep the training safe for them. The kids have a lot of fun at it, and it helps build motor skills. Same goes for having them in sports, or anything else.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Remember Skribs deals with a lot of very young kids. I know kids are weird, so maybe it's ubiquitous enough among them for it to be a fair statement.



I have been teaching for children for years not just martial arts but horse riding. I've run playschools and playgroups as well. I've been a Cub Scout Leader and am currently a Guiding leader with girls aged 5-14. I've done all of that for many years. All of those things have required me to be qualified and understand children so I don't think it's ubiquitous or a fair statement at all and children aren't weird, much better actually than most adults.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I have been teaching for children for years not just martial arts but horse riding. I've run playschools and playgroups as well. I've been a Cub Scout Leader and am currently a Guiding leader with girls aged 5-14. I've done all of that for many years. All of those things have required me to be qualified and understand children so I don't think it's ubiquitous or a fair statement at all and children aren't weird, much better actually than most adults.


When I say "weird", that's comparing them to adults. It's light-hearted.

You work a lot more with kids than I do, so you're more likely to have insight on that than me. I'd still point out that he's teaching something to quite young kids that you don't teach, so he may be experiencing something you haven't. It's also possible that what he experiences as ubiquitous is somehow a product of the approach used.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> When I say "weird", that's comparing them to adults. It's light-hearted.
> 
> You work a lot more with kids than I do, so you're more likely to have insight on that than me. I'd still point out that he's teaching something to quite young kids that you don't teach, so he may be experiencing something you haven't. It's also possible that what he experiences as ubiquitous is somehow a product of the approach used.




There are very good reasons we don't teach such young children and that's why he's experiencing something that isn't good for anyone, students or instructors.
JGW posted a very good video of what children should be doing, and it's not lining them up and treating them as you would older or adult students. There should be no fretting about 'stances', or even techniques with such young ones. As JGW also pointed out though, children can easily do more than one thing when they learn. In fact they are the best learners you can get. 

Teaching adults as you would children isn't a recipe for success either I've found.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> There are very good reasons we don't teach such young children and that's why he's experiencing something that isn't good for anyone, students or instructors.
> JGW posted a very good video of what children should be doing, and it's not lining them up and treating them as you would older or adult students. There should be no fretting about 'stances', or even techniques with such young ones. As JGW also pointed out though, children can easily do more than one thing when they learn. In fact they are the best learners you can get.
> 
> Teaching adults as you would children isn't a recipe for success either I've found.


Teaching MA to kids isn't necessarily "lining them up and treating them as you would older or adult students". I've seen some MA-based programs for kids that were clearly mostly about developing the basic motor skills. They had simple tumbling, some very simple kata (balance and limb control), and the like.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Teaching MA to kids isn't necessarily "lining them up and treating them as you would older or adult students". I've seen some MA-based programs for kids that were clearly mostly about developing the basic motor skills. They had simple tumbling, some very simple kata (balance and limb control), and the like.




I didn't say it was. However in this *one* case I strongly suspect it is otherwise why all the fuss about teaching stances and techniques separately? The fact he is teaching stances and strikes suggests that they are being lined up otherwise he wouldn't be teaching rather letting them play games etc


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say it was. However in this *one* case I strongly suspect it is otherwise why all the fuss about teaching stances and techniques separately? The fact he is teaching stances and strikes suggests that they are being lined up otherwise he wouldn't be teaching rather letting them play games etc


I have seen kids lined up to play games, too. It doesn't harm kids to have some structure to activity, so long as it's not too much. That said, I've taught stances and blocks without having anyone lined up in a group. I can't say what's done where he teaches, as I've never seen it. Nor, I might point out, have you. If it's the highly regimented teaching of details to very young kids, I'd tend to agree with you, but I don't really see anything indicating that's the case. In fact, he's actually referenced NOT teaching them in high detail early, but allowing them to form an approximation that can be corrected later. If I recall correctly, in one post he referred to correcting it a belt or two later, which makes much more sense in the context of quite young children than adults.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Nor, I might point out, have you.



I didn't say I had, I said I strongly suspected. 'Correcting a couple of grades later' also indicates that they are learning more formal martial arts already and are grading already ( otherwise the sentence would be 'correcting after they had started grading'). One can learn an awful lot by examining words and sentences.  that's how I surmised these were very young children he was teaching and this was confirmed when I asked him.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 3, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say I had, I said I strongly suspected. 'Correcting a couple of grades later' also indicates that they are learning more formal martial arts already and are grading already ( otherwise the sentence would be 'correcting after they had started grading'). One can learn an awful lot by examining words and sentences.  that's how I surmised these were very young children he was teaching and this was confirmed when I asked him.


In many kids' programs, grading is not what it is for adults, especially for the wee ones. I've seen where grading was simply used to reinforce good teamwork, reasonable behavior, and hard work.


----------



## skribs (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Remember Skribs deals with a lot of very young kids. I know kids are weird, so maybe it's ubiquitous enough among them for it to be a fair statement.
> 
> I don't mind when folks teach toddlers (so long as they don't ask me to), if they keep the training safe for them. The kids have a lot of fun at it, and it helps build motor skills. Same goes for having them in sports, or anything else.



This is part of why we isolate the moves for them.  Because the less we let them move, the more likely they're in the right spot on the mat so they're not hitting/getting hit by another student.

I will say the little kids white belt class is the only class at my school that feels like a chore to teach.  The rest are a blast, but that one is quite often hard for me.  My Master has a lot more patience than I do, and I know if I were in charge I'd be a lot less patient.  He will every once in a while tell a kid to try again in 6 months, but a lot of kids that I think need that treatment, he continues to teach, and most of them do turn around in a few months.

Of course, if I were in charge, I'd probably set a higher minimum age limit.


----------



## skribs (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I have seen kids lined up to play games, too. It doesn't harm kids to have some structure to activity, so long as it's not too much. That said, I've taught stances and blocks without having anyone lined up in a group. I can't say what's done where he teaches, as I've never seen it. Nor, I might point out, have you. If it's the highly regimented teaching of details to very young kids, I'd tend to agree with you, but I don't really see anything indicating that's the case. In fact, he's actually referenced NOT teaching them in high detail early, but allowing them to form an approximation that can be corrected later. If I recall correctly, in one post he referred to correcting it a belt or two later, which makes much more sense in the context of quite young children than adults.



Our beginner kids classes are maybe 70/30 martial arts/games.  Some days it's more 60/40, some days 80/20, but there's usually a game between every other training piece.  For example, do punches, then kicks, then a ducking/jumping game.  Then drills up and down the mat, then blocks, and then rolling skills followed by an obstacle course.

The game is kind of like a mini-recess and keeps the kids focused and engaged.

Some people just do 1/2 hour classes for the kids, so if we get 35 minutes of training and 15 minutes of games and fun in a 50-minute class, they're getting about as much practice.  And for many of them, the games and obstacle courses are what keep them wanting to come back to class.


----------



## skribs (Jan 3, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> In many kids' programs, grading is not what it is for adults, especially for the wee ones. I've seen where grading was simply used to reinforce good teamwork, reasonable behavior, and hard work.



Our white belt kids class is basically "can you stand still when you need to, listen to the directions, and say 'yes, sir,'".  Some kids it takes 6-8 months to get their yellow belt.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 3, 2019)

Alright... now I am a bit confused here. The thread started:


skribs said:


> I was thinking conceptually about martial arts, and how the first thing you teach could be used to symbolize the training.





skribs said:


> So if the first thing I teach in the early classes is the basic blocks, for example, that would teach that we should first focus on defense.
> 
> Similarly, if the first thing I teach are the basic stances, that would teach that we should focus on the foundations and build from there.



But then when it comes down to who you are teaching this to, we get this:


skribs said:


> Our white belt kids class is basically "can you stand still when you need to, listen to the directions, and say 'yes, sir,'". Some kids it takes 6-8 months to get their yellow belt.


You are teaching 3-4 year olds that take a few months to learn to listen and be far enough away from the other kids so you don't accidentally hit each other.

I am not sure that at that age, they could understand this symbolism. Further, I don't think they could remember it. I certainly don't remember much about the symbolism I was taught at 3 or 4. 

What am I missing here?


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 3, 2019)

skribs said:


> Our beginner kids classes are maybe 70/30 martial arts/games.  Some days it's more 60/40, some days 80/20, but there's usually a game between every other training piece.  For example, do punches, then kicks, then a ducking/jumping game.  Then drills up and down the mat, then blocks, and then rolling skills followed by an obstacle course.
> 
> The game is kind of like a mini-recess and keeps the kids focused and engaged.
> 
> Some people just do 1/2 hour classes for the kids, so if we get 35 minutes of training and 15 minutes of games and fun in a 50-minute class, they're getting about as much practice.  And for many of them, the games and obstacle courses are what keep them wanting to come back to class.



I know that you're not in charge, and probably don't have any authority to make any changes to your program. But I've found that the more I could teach the youngest kids _through games_, the better they did and the happier they were. Don't worry about teaching them your regular TKD curriculum; come up with a different curriculum for them, with their own belt ranks. Look at what the kids have a hard time with, and develop fun games to help them learn that skill. Find fun, funny ways to explain and work on that thing. 

For example, we have our Little Dragons do some TKD sparring. But they would often just stand there and punching each other on the hogu over and over, or kick each other in the groin. So I started doing sparring games. One game we call "kick the giant", where I put on a hogu and kneel down in the middle of a sparring ring. The kids make a circle around me, and when I kiyap, they all rush in and try to kick me on the hogu and then run away. We do some different variations on this, and they think this is SO FUN. It teaches them a few things: 1) to kick in the right place, 2) to move around the ring, moving in to strike the opponent and move away, 3) to wait to go until I yell (patience/discipline).

Another game I do is "kick over the tower". I stack up some kicking shields into a tower, and they have to do a side kick and knock the tower over. This helps teach them to drive their kick into the target instead of just aiming at the surface, and encourages them to kick hard. They also think this is super fun and silly.

Teaching kids this age shouldn't be excessively stressful. It should be fun and silly.


----------



## skribs (Jan 3, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> I know that you're not in charge, and probably don't have any authority to make any changes to your program. But I've found that the more I could teach the youngest kids _through games_, the better they did and the happier they were. Don't worry about teaching them your regular TKD curriculum; come up with a different curriculum for them, with their own belt ranks. Look at what the kids have a hard time with, and develop fun games to help them learn that skill. Find fun, funny ways to explain and work on that thing.
> 
> For example, we have our Little Dragons do some TKD sparring. But they would often just stand there and punching each other on the hogu over and over, or kick each other in the groin. So I started doing sparring games. One game we call "kick the giant", where I put on a hogu and kneel down in the middle of a sparring ring. The kids make a circle around me, and when I kiyap, they all rush in and try to kick me on the hogu and then run away. We do some different variations on this, and they think this is SO FUN. It teaches them a few things: 1) to kick in the right place, 2) to move around the ring, moving in to strike the opponent and move away, 3) to wait to go until I yell (patience/discipline).
> 
> ...



We teach the curriculum but do so in a way that focuses on energy and confidence more than technique at that level.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 3, 2019)

skribs said:


> There's a difference between having students go into horse stance and teaching them horse stance. My old school taught you the way the stances look from the start. When you learned a front stance, you learned exactly what it was. When you learned a back stance, same thing, and you also learned why you would use each stance.
> 
> The school I'm at now teaches the stances very loosely at the white and yellow belt level, and gets more detail as you get to green belt. You learn a lot more details about the punches and kicks than you do the stances.


I did not want to click disagree. However, most instructors know that there a many people (not all) you can teach a front/horse/back stance to the first night and they are able to follow along for the most part. Usually following along in mechanics only. But when you take your teachings away and have them fall in with the rest of the class in cadence their "technique" falls apart. And this only a stance. So for a brief few minutes while their mind hasn't become overloaded they "have the technique". But in reality and in application it is quickly obvious there is more involved and creating the coordination and subsequent muscle memory takes time. Period. And this is just one pillar of teaching developmental skills like punches and blocks. 
It took me a while but I do see value in your latter teaching method where the new student is expected to fully know X and Y before moving forward. That white/yellow belt period is a great time of acclimation to class methodology. If the class structure is sound that white/yellow period that seem a little vague to some is full of tangent lines of training that merges well with the upcoming content. A more challenging and dynamic class for the instructor(s) but a more effective method. Hey @Hanzou , look as us we did TMA a new way. Ready to get off our backs? HaHA


----------



## skribs (Jan 3, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I did not want to click disagree. However, most instructors know that there a many people (not all) you can teach a front/horse/back stance to the first night and they are able to follow along for the most part. Usually following along in mechanics only. But when you take your teachings away and have them fall in with the rest of the class in cadence their "technique" falls apart. And this only a stance. So for a brief few minutes while their mind hasn't become overloaded they "have the technique". But in reality and in application it is quickly obvious there is more involved and creating the coordination and subsequent muscle memory takes time. Period. And this is just one pillar of teaching developmental skills like punches and blocks.
> It took me a while but I do see value in your latter teaching method where the new student is expected to fully know X and Y before moving forward. That white/yellow belt period is a great time of acclimation to class methodology. If the class structure is sound that white/yellow period that seem a little vague to some is full of tangent lines of training that merges well with the upcoming content. A more challenging and dynamic class for the instructor(s) but a more effective method. Hey @Hanzou , look as us we did TMA a new way. Ready to get off our backs? HaHA



You're right, especially with kids.  Most of them make a pretty good copy of my horse stance right away, but then as soon as they start punching they just have their legs straight and double-shoulder width.

Then there's the kids who don't quite get it.  Most kids point their toes way out to make a straight line with their feet.  A good portion do at least some of the following:

Bend their knees inward so they look like they have to pee
Bend their knees forward like they're trying to sit down
Hunch their back along with bending their leg
Tense their shoulders and keep their power contained inside
Kid is lined up on the side of the mat and is punching toward the instructor, so his punches are drifting to the left
And don't forget the kids who just want to play with the stance.  "Bend down" means bend so low you're practically sitting down (beyond the point where your muscles are working to hold you up).  Or when they punch they bend the knee their punching with (and then start speeding up because they want to dance).

But you make a very good point about being able to copy, but then losing the stance to focus on the hands.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

skribs said:


> And don't forget the kids who just want to play with the stance




Frankly, what else do you expect of toddlers? 



dvcochran said:


> It took me a while but I do see value in your latter teaching method where the new student is expected to fully know X and Y before moving forward.



He does this because he is teaching very small children. 



skribs said:


> We teach the curriculum but do so in a way that focuses on energy and confidence more than technique at that level.



then why are you posting that this is the way to teach everyone? At the beginning of your thread it was assumed you were teaching adults or at least children of an age to actually learn martial arts. The way you teach toddlers is not the way to teach people who are older.


----------



## Buka (Jan 4, 2019)

Back in the nineties I used to fly to L.A. for a week every month to train and teach at Billy Blanks' dojo in Sherman Oaks California. (maybe why I don't always agree with the "it's too far to go" stuff) Billy's was the busiest, craziest dojo I've ever seen. Literally, thousands of people a day. It was the height of the Tae-Bo popularity and there were ten classes of over a hundred people in each class doing Tae-Bo. Not to mention the fitness classes and Martial Arts classes that went on all damn day. He had about five hundred Tae-Kwon-Do students, every single day.

One day Billy grabs me and says "Go help Sandy teach upstairs". So up I go. Only to find a class of a jillion four year olds. I turn around and run down the stairs like my pants were on fire. Right where Billy was waiting for me. He said, "get back up there, that's not a request, git!"

I'm not used to little kids. I didn't accept kids until they were ten. And even that was reluctantly.

Up I went. I don't know if I've ever been that frightened in a dojo before. But Sandy, a long time stunt woman and long time black belt, showed me what to do. It was mostly playing Karate games and concentration games with the kids. It went well, Sandy had been doing it for a long time. But, man, it still scares me thinking about it. They're just so little.

It's a big responsibility teaching anyone. It's even bigger with little, tiny kids. A big tip of my hat to anyone who does. That's from the heart.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

Buka said:


> maybe why I don't always agree with the "it's too far to go" stuff




Too far often means too expensive for most of us. 



Buka said:


> It's a big responsibility teaching anyone. It's even bigger with little, tiny kids. A big tip of my hat to anyone who does. That's from the heart.




It's actually very rewarding teaching children, they keep you on your toes and young in the mind but you have to know what you are doing with them, they are really good BS detectors! They are both tougher and more fragile than you think. Teaching three and four years olds the martial arts you teach adults isn't a good idea, just playing games is but I also suspect there's plenty of dragon parents who want their child to be a black belt at 6 or who want cheap child care so there's a great many places who will take children in before they should.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Too far often means too expensive for most of us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is your primary concern about little kids learning MA? I should have asked that earlier.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> What is your primary concern about little kids learning MA? I should have asked that earlier.



Children as young as three and four are still learning how to play with and co-operate with others. They have just learned by that age they are individuals, separate from their mothers, they are figuring a lot of things out, most will be toilet trained by four but are still prone to accidents as their concentration is elsewhere. Their hand eye co-ordination as well as motor skills are still developing, their cognitive and reasoning abilities are still forming, that's enough for most children, they don't need to be thrown into a serious martial arts class.

Playing games, learning to socialise and enjoying themselves are the best types of activities for youngsters of this age. At this age they do need confidence and independence building activities but not ones where they are put into an actual class of anything. Toddler groups where a parent/care attends too are great, singing groups, 'tumbletots' etc which all bring fun into the child's life. 

In the UK children start school at four and a half mostly, they are in the reception class, increasing teachers are telling us that children are coming to school not toilet trained, some still in nappies, unable to dress themselves and unable to communicate ( we do also have the over achieving child but more later). If teachers are having this problem how can martial arts instructors teach them martial arts? the problem is the young school age as children were ready for it in past years but a change in parenting skills or lack of. However most children starting school have enough to cope with without giving them formal martial arts lessons ( or any other activity). I have Rainbows which start at five, we meet for an hour a week and do activities which are often 'learning' ones but ones that are fun so they don't realise they are learning, we sing, play games, cook, make things, earn badges, chat and have fun. We strive very hard not to be 'school'. We do have parents, as do all types of groups, who want their child to earn the most badges, to make the best crafts etc etc. I've had them in martial arts, when are they getting their next belt, why haven't they graded etc etc. We've all met _those_ parents.

We also come to the emotional aspect of martial arts, do we really want to teach three and four years olds how to punch, kick and fight? They manage it very well without been taught to do it even better, they can also wrestle, bite and scratch. They are emotional creatures who are unlikely to be able to reason and talk enough when they are frustrated so will lash out. This means that, however many times you tell them not to use martial arts they most certainly will! 

Martial arts should not to be taught until the child has a reasonable handle on the world, can control their emotions enough to be able understand in what circumstances they can use their martial skills. Most of all they shouldn't be taught until they want to learn martial arts. One of the things that most annoys me is parents who bring their child along to learn 'discipline', no, that's their job. it's their job to teach respect too not ours. Children will learn self confidence from achieving in just about every activity, martial arts isn't an exception. People don't need to learn 'discipline' as such they need to learn self discipline, the only kind that counts. Martial arts classes can teach children,_ if we aren't careful_, to only follow the majority rather than be an individual who can question and find answers for themselves.  The huge class with everyone in line following barked orders and with no chance to ask questions isn't a conducive atmosphere for growing minds but many adults see 'discipline' in it.

The question as well is why are martial arts instructors taking on such young children? Is it because it can be a lucrative market? 
If it's because an instructor has experience of early years development and wants to start young children on the path to martial arts by playing games, helping them gain motor skills and teaching them to play nicely with others that's great but I suspect its the former reason. Getting children in early and grading them hooks the parents into keeping them at that school. 

Instructors who teach very young children, though it really covers all children, should also be aware of the physical effects of training and exercise. They should understand children's physiology not just psychology, this is why I'm a great advocate for taking the appropriate training to be an instructor/coach. In the UK to be a coach or instructor in every sport and activity _apart_ from martial arts  you have to be qualified from a recognised authority such as Sport England, the FA, the RU etc. martial arts only have style self regulated organisations and in many cases instructors have no qualifications, just the belt they graded at.  

Have a read of some of these comments. https://www.mamapedia.com/article/martial-arts-for-a-3-year-old-good-idea-or-too-young


----------



## skribs (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> but not ones where they are put into an actual class of anything.



Why shouldn't they be in a class of anything?

We have some students that come in that are in that age range and are also in classes for singing, piano, and swimming.

A lot of what you say about what children should be able to do before joining martial arts...martial arts helps them with.  I have seen the kids at my school go from undisciplined to disciplined, and martial arts helps a lot with that.  It's hard to explain how it works, I just know I've seen the progress and know that it works.  The parents that bring their kids in are trying, but raising kids is hard.  (I, personally, am glad I get to hand the kids back at the end of the hour, even if I love working with them).

Kids having a structured class where they have to follow directions, take turns, share, and learn to control themselves is a very good thing for them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Children as young as three and four are still learning how to play with and co-operate with others. They have just learned by that age they are individuals, separate from their mothers, they are figuring a lot of things out, most will be toilet trained by four but are still prone to accidents as their concentration is elsewhere. Their hand eye co-ordination as well as motor skills are still developing, their cognitive and reasoning abilities are still forming, that's enough for most children, they don't need to be thrown into a serious martial arts class.
> 
> Playing games, learning to socialise and enjoying themselves are the best types of activities for youngsters of this age. At this age they do need confidence and independence building activities but not ones where they are put into an actual class of anything. Toddler groups where a parent/care attends too are great, singing groups, 'tumbletots' etc which all bring fun into the child's life.
> 
> ...


I can see your points, but I will say I've seen some very happy tiny kids in MA classes. I've seen some very healthy kids who had been doing MA since they were tiny, too. I don't think it's right for all of them (any more than anything else is), but as long as they are happy with the activity, I see no problem with it.

As for why it's offered, there are many reasons. In the commercial school, doubtless income is part of that. I don't mind if that's the primary reason, so long as the program keeps the kids happy and healthy. Some people are simply more economically motivated than I am (in fact, Spranger included "economic" as one of the 6 motivators in his model of values).

I've not seen any higher incidence of fighting among trained kids. If any thing, they hear more often that fighting isn't a good answer, and seem to be somewhat less prone to fighting when they receive early training.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

skribs said:


> Why shouldn't they be in a class of anything?




3 and 4 year olds are not much more than babies why would you subject them to formal classes the same as adults?



skribs said:


> We have some students that come in that are in that age range and are also in classes for singing, piano, and swimming.



Putting 3 and 4 year olds into classes isn't beneficial for the children it is for the parents.



skribs said:


> The parents that bring their kids in are trying, but raising kids is hard.




Actually it's not that hard we've been doing it for millennia. I've done it successfully myself. 



skribs said:


> Kids having a structured class where they have to follow directions, take turns, share, and learn to control themselves is a very good thing for them.



For 3 years olds? no, it's not, it's for the parents to save them the bother of teaching them so I'm sure they are grateful to you. Why would you do that to children who have often not even learned to control their bladder and bowels properly!



gpseymour said:


> can see your points, but I will say I've seen some very happy tiny kids in MA classes



In structured adult classes or classes designed for little ones? My point is against structured adult type classes.



gpseymour said:


> I've not seen any higher incidence of fighting among trained kids.




I didn't even hint there was so I don't know why you'd say that. Very young children act first then think so are likely to fight anyway, teaching three year olds to fight properly isn't a good idea. As I said, wait until they are able to understand martial arts and can control themselves better. Not at any point did I say children who train fight more!

Who can honestly say that putting 3 and 4 year olds in a structured class teaching them exactly the same as adults is a good thing? Not a child's play class but a full on martial arts class exactly the same as you'd teach adults.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> In structured adult classes or classes designed for little ones? My point is against structured adult type classes.


I haven't seen anyone propose kids that young should be trained the same as adults.



> I didn't even hint there was so I don't know why you'd say that. Very young children act first then think so are likely to fight anyway, teaching three year olds to fight properly isn't a good idea. As I said, wait until they are able to understand martial arts and can control themselves better. Not at any point did I say children who train fight more!


My point was that they seem to fight a bit less. I don't know if that's self-control, self-confidence, what they are taught, or just that they've blown off a bunch of energy.



> Who can honestly say that putting 3 and 4 year olds in a structured class teaching them exactly the same as adults is a good thing? Not a child's play class but a full on martial arts class exactly the same as you'd teach adults.


Again, I've not seen anyone suggest that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I haven't seen anyone propose kids that young should be trained the same as adults.



Other than the Op who is training them the same as adults, his posts right up until he stated his students are as young as three and a half led everyone to believe they were adult students.




gpseymour said:


> My point was that they seem to fight a bit less. I don't know if that's self-control, self-confidence, what they are taught, or just that they've blown off a bunch of energy.



My point wasn't about them fighting as such. I will repeat, why would you teach toddlers who aren't totally in control of their emotions ( or bodies) how to fight properly. Young children often hit each other out of frustration and anger ( they grow out of it) so why would you teach such young children to fight and allow them to hurt each other even more? Three year olds do hit each other, they also bite, fact. This has nothing to do with whether older children who do martial arts fight more or less than others. That's a different conversation. https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a539865/understanding-your-toddler





gpseymour said:


> Again, I've not seen anyone suggest that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I haven't seen anyone propose kids that young should be trained the same as adults.



Other than the Op who is training them the same as adults, his posts right up until he stated his students are as young as three and a half led everyone to believe they were adult students.




gpseymour said:


> My point was that they seem to fight a bit less. I don't know if that's self-control, self-confidence, what they are taught, or just that they've blown off a bunch of energy.



My point wasn't about them fighting as such. I will repeat, why would you teach toddlers who aren't totally in control of their emotions ( or bodies) how to fight properly. Young children often hit each other out of frustration and anger ( they grow out of it) so why would you teach such young children to fight and allow them to hurt each other even more? Three year olds do hit each other, they also bite, fact. This has nothing to do with whether older children who do martial arts fight more or less than others. That's a different conversation. https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a539865/understanding-your-toddler





gpseymour said:


> Again, I've not seen anyone suggest that.



did you read the comments on the link I put up?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

it seems the site is repeating posts again, I only posted once.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Multiple posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Multiple posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Multiple posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Multiple posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Multiple posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Multiple posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Multiple posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Other than the Op who is training them the same as adults, his posts right up until he stated his students are as young as three and a half led everyone to believe they were adult students.


I didn't think his posts were specific enough to draw that conclusion. I actually thought he was talking about kids and adults at the same time, so was having to either be very vague on points, or discuss a bit of each. But that may just me reading into it because I already knew he taught kids (though not how young).



> My point wasn't about them fighting as such. I will repeat, why would you teach toddlers who aren't totally in control of their emotions ( or bodies) how to fight properly. Young children often hit each other out of frustration and anger ( they grow out of it) so why would you teach such young children to fight and allow them to hurt each other even more? Three year olds do hit each other, they also bite, fact. This has nothing to do with whether older children who do martial arts fight more or less than others. That's a different conversation. https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a539865/understanding-your-toddler


I can't really speak to that - I've only rarely dealt with kids that young. My impression is that they're unlikely to be any better at hitting when they are frustrated, whether trained or not, but that's not a highly informed impression. Those who teach kids that age can probably speak to that better.


Tez3 said:


> did you read the comments on the link I put up?


I didn't see a link in that post - can you point me back to the one your'e referring to? The only link I remember clicking on recently was about teaching kids (in general), I think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Other than the Op who is training them the same as adults, his posts right up until he stated his students are as young as three and a half led everyone to believe they were adult students.


I didn't think his posts were specific enough to draw that conclusion. I actually thought he was talking about kids and adults at the same time, so was having to either be very vague on points, or discuss a bit of each. But that may just me reading into it because I already knew he taught kids (though not how young).



> My point wasn't about them fighting as such. I will repeat, why would you teach toddlers who aren't totally in control of their emotions ( or bodies) how to fight properly. Young children often hit each other out of frustration and anger ( they grow out of it) so why would you teach such young children to fight and allow them to hurt each other even more? Three year olds do hit each other, they also bite, fact. This has nothing to do with whether older children who do martial arts fight more or less than others. That's a different conversation. https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a539865/understanding-your-toddler


I can't really speak to that - I've only rarely dealt with kids that young. My impression is that they're unlikely to be any better at hitting when they are frustrated, whether trained or not, but that's not a highly informed impression. Those who teach kids that age can probably speak to that better.


Tez3 said:


> did you read the comments on the link I put up?


I didn't see a link in that post. The only link of yours I remember following was about teaching kids (in general), I think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Other than the Op who is training them the same as adults, his posts right up until he stated his students are as young as three and a half led everyone to believe they were adult students.


I didn't think his posts were specific enough to draw that conclusion. I actually thought he was talking about kids and adults at the same time, so was having to either be very vague on points, or discuss a bit of each. But that may just me reading into it because I already knew he taught kids (though not how young).



> My point wasn't about them fighting as such. I will repeat, why would you teach toddlers who aren't totally in control of their emotions ( or bodies) how to fight properly. Young children often hit each other out of frustration and anger ( they grow out of it) so why would you teach such young children to fight and allow them to hurt each other even more? Three year olds do hit each other, they also bite, fact. This has nothing to do with whether older children who do martial arts fight more or less than others. That's a different conversation. https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a539865/understanding-your-toddler


I can't really speak to that - I've only rarely dealt with kids that young. My impression is that they're unlikely to be any better at hitting when they are frustrated, whether trained or not, but that's not a highly informed impression. Those who teach kids that age can probably speak to that better.


Tez3 said:


> did you read the comments on the link I put up?


I didn't see a link in that post. The only link of yours I remember following was about teaching kids (in general), I think.


----------



## skribs (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Other than the Op who is training them the same as adults, his posts right up until he stated his students are as young as three and a half led everyone to believe they were adult students.



I don't know how you can draw that conclusion.


I specifically mentioned kids in my OP, so why you would think I was talking about adults is beyond me
I have not said we train them the same.  We don't train them the same.  I have mentioned that during this thread, that our kids classes are designed with games and obstacle courses in them.
To elaborate, our school has virtually the same curriculum for kids and adults, with a few exceptions:

Our white belt adults learn Form 1, we wait til Yellow Belt for kids.  (The kids catch up on forms in Orange Belt)
Our white belt adults learn the Yellow Belt punch defenses that kids learn.  There's adult-only stuff at orange belt, and at green belt they synchronize
Adults learn hand grabs, kids do not (until 2nd degree black belt).  
There's a few other things that adults will get at the colored belt level that kids won't, but the kids will learn at black belt
With that said, the classes are entirely different.  The kids classes have more games and are much more structured.  By that, I mean every minute of class and every move they take is directed at them.  When we do punch defenses, we line the kids up, we tell one half to punch and the other half to do #1 defense.  Then the ones who got it right wait while we help the ones who need help.  Then everyone does #2 together, and so on.  (With the lower belts, they line up and the black belts punch at them).

With the adults, when we do punch defenses, it's basically "find a partner, find a space on the mat, and practice.  If you need help raise your hand."  This is regardless of belt level (with the exception we're a little more hands-on the first couple classes so they can get the communication right).  

Then there's my Master's end-of-class talks.  With the kids, it's more about doing good in school, doing your chores, respecting your parents and teachers, reading books and playing outside instead of playing video games and watching TV, eating healthy, etc.  With the adults, it's more about reminding everyone that it's important to continue training and to thank everyone for their hard work.

The kids and adult classes are run pretty different.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

skribs said:


> When we do punch defenses, we line the kids up, we tell one half to punch and the other half to do #1 defense. Then the ones who got it right wait while we help the ones who need help. Then everyone does #2 together, and so on. (With the lower belts, they line up and the black belts punch at them).



Well that's fairly formal for three and a half year olds isn't it? why would you line the toddlers up and you haven't answered my question of why you'd teach the three and four year olds to strike properly? 




skribs said:


> Then there's my Master's end-of-class talks. With the kids, it's more about doing good in school, doing your chores, respecting your parents and teachers, reading books and playing outside instead of playing video games and watching TV, eating healthy, etc. .



How does that go down with the toddlers?

An aside here.... It goes against my personal beliefs to call any man 'Master' and I would not consider it my place as a martial arts instructor to lecture about anything other than martial arts nor would I have been happy at anyone lecturing my children in that way but I guess it goes down well with parents who feel they get their money's worth. But then that's me, I was taught respect was earnt and to be independent of thought. I very much dislike the cult like behaviour sometimes to be found in martial arts, _no I'm not saying that is yours, it's just an observation._




When you were talking about teaching children you didn't mention until I asked that you taught toddlers.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> My impression is that they're unlikely to be any better at hitting when they are frustrated, whether trained or not, but that's not a highly informed impression. Those who teach kids that age can probably speak to that better.




Er, you haven't got my point here at all. It's not whether they are any better at hitting when they are frustrated at all. It's that toddlers hit out quite often, teaching them to hit even better is not a good idea, wait until they understand life a bit better and can control their emotions more.

My link was at the end of post 158. 
https://www.mamapedia.com/article/martial-arts-for-a-3-year-old-good-idea-or-too-young

some quotes from parents.
"we started our daughter at 3 years old. She is tough though and was the youngest in the class. She would go up against 5 and 6 year olds and win. "

"My son started at 3...but it was only a few weeks before his 4th birthday. He stayed with that studio until he was 5. The new studio we wanted didn't take kids until 6. But after meeting him and seeing what he knew they welcomed him with open arms.

He is now 6 almost 7 in three weeks...and has earned his red belt, broken his first board (to earn the red belt)...*and just started teaching the 3 and 4 year old class. *)." My bolding.


"At my daughter's Dojo, they start kids at 5 years old. ………... they do NOT, 'baby' the kids. It is not Preschool. 
It is traditional teaching. With traditional martial arts, expectations. 
Some Dojos... are more.... loose in teaching young kids.Her Dojo does not just hand out belt color promotions... willy-nilly nor like candy. The child... HAS TO EARN IT. If not, they stay at their present belt level. 
It is hard work. "


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Er, you haven't got my point here at all. It's not whether they are any better at hitting when they are frustrated at all. It's that toddlers hit out quite often, teaching them to hit even better is not a good idea, wait until they understand life a bit better and can control their emotions more.
> 
> My link was at the end of post 158.
> https://www.mamapedia.com/article/martial-arts-for-a-3-year-old-good-idea-or-too-young
> ...


You and I are just going to have to settle for disagreeing on this one, Tez. We don’t seem to be communicating at all.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You and I are just going to have to settle for disagreeing on this one, Tez. We don’t seem to be communicating at all.




My point is quite simple, toddlers can be stroppy little buggers through no one's fault, it's just part of learning to be human but why teach them to actually fight until they have more understanding and control? As you can see from one of the quotes I put up, one mother thinks it's great that her three year old is fighting with older children. The OP is teaching the very young children in his class to strike and defend, he's also lining them up in tradition TKD/TSD one and three step to do it, I've no problem with older children learning 'properly' but toddlers no. I'm being very specific about my posts in that I'm talking about teaching toddlers not older children.


----------



## skribs (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> My point is quite simple, toddlers can be stroppy little buggers through no one's fault, it's just part of learning to be human but why teach them to actually fight until they have more understanding and control?



Because you teach them control.  Here are things we teach:

You don't fight, you get an adult
You yell "I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT"
You don't punch or kick, if you need to defend yourself against bullies you control the situation
Also, simply by learning patience and discipline, it helps to keep them from fighting.  Most kids get into fights because they don't have any other tools to deal with things.  There was a high school football coach who wanted to stop his players from getting into fights when taunted on the field.  So part of practice was for one player to taunt another, and the other player to ignore the taunt and walk away.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2019)

skribs said:


> Because you teach them control.  Here are things we teach:
> 
> You don't fight, you get an adult
> You yell "I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT"
> ...




Three olds are still babies, you do not teach them 'control' with martial arts. You quite honestly don't have much understanding of three and four year olds psychology or how they develop. 

so to answer.
1. Toddlers are unable to always reason things out like older children and adults, they don't always understand why they should share toys, so if one child has a toy and another wants it they will just take it. they may hit the child with the toy or just snatch it. When they get upset because they cannot express themselves proper because they either don't have the words or understand what the emotion is they are feeling they will lash out. If they get angry because they can't do what they want because it's too hard or an adult won't let them they can lash out. Another issue is they haven't developed impulse control, it's part of being a toddler, they learn to express themselves with words and not to lash out, it's a recognised part of growing up.

2. Three and four year olds won't understand this. This is for older children. 

3. Talk of bullies again is for older children, toddlers absolutely will not understand this.

As I said before, I am specially talking about the 3-4 year olds you are teaching not older children. 
https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2015/03/4Children_ParentsGuide_2015_WEB.pdf

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/a1040599/aggression-how-to-deal-with-hitting-and-biting
If you look at these coping strategies for when toddlers hit/bite, you will see that it's pitched to the child's understanding and on your understanding why they do it, shouting that they don't want to fight isn't there because it simply not one that is useful with toddlers. it's a common thing, it's not aggression as such nor is it bullying. it's not children getting into fights, it's toddlers learning to be human.


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Who can honestly say that putting 3 and 4 year olds in a structured class teaching them exactly the same as adults is a good thing? Not a child's play class but a full on martial arts class exactly the same as you'd teach adults.



Well, nobody on this thread is saying that, for one. I think that Skribs school is probably teaching his littles class *more* like the older kids than may be optimal, which is probably why he's having the problems he's having, but neither he nor anyone else on here has suggested putting 3 year olds in with adults and teaching them exactly the same way.


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 4, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> An aside here.... It goes against my personal beliefs to call any man 'Master' and I would not consider it my place as a martial arts instructor to lecture about anything other than martial arts nor would I have been happy at anyone lecturing my children in that way but I guess it goes down well with parents who feel they get their money's worth. But then that's me, I was taught respect was earnt and to be independent of thought. I very much dislike the cult like behaviour sometimes to be found in martial arts, _no I'm not saying that is yours, it's just an observation._



"Mat chats" are very, very common in children's martial arts programs. We all know that character development is a big reason why parents enroll their kids in martial arts classes. Doing a "mat chat" to tell the kids, you know, "don't hit your classmates, clean your room, listen to your parents" etc and so forth is one way to teach character development. 

I do a little bit of that with my Little Dragons, particularly to emphasize that they should only ever kick or punch someone when they're at the martial arts school wearing their special sparring gear so nobody gets hurt, that they should never hit their mom or dad or siblings, that it's important to take turns and help each other out, etc. I'd like to incorporate some more of that kind of thing (i.e. maybe talking to them about dealing with feelings, like if you get angry to count to ten and take deep breaths, etc), and I've been reading some preschool child development books to get some ideas, but I've been struggling a little with the best way to approach it in this context.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> Well, nobody on this thread is saying that, for one. I think that Skribs school is probably teaching his littles class *more* like the older kids than may be optimal, which is probably why he's having the problems he's having, but neither he nor anyone else on here has suggested putting 3 year olds in with adults and teaching them exactly the same way.




I didn't say they did I was referring to the link I put up and the quotes therein.



WaterGal said:


> "Mat chats" are very, very common in children's martial arts programs. We all know that character development is a big reason why parents enroll their kids in martial arts classes. Doing a "mat chat" to tell the kids, you know, "don't hit your classmates, clean your room, listen to your parents" etc and so forth is one way to teach character development.




I think this must be a cultural thing we don't find as much here I imagine because of the childcare laws we have here, martial arts and other sports are seen only as hobbies/sports/leisure activities. To extend such activities into teaching anything other than just that would encroach onto parents and schools responsibility. A martial arts instructor would tell the children not to use what they learn outside of course but the rest would be regarded as most likely as an invasion of privacy by parents. European parents are much more guarded about who informs their children, many of our parents would take their children out of class if we started doing that. Bringing up children is the remit of parents not instructors. European children are for the most part raised differently from American children.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 5, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> Putting 3 and 4 year olds into classes isn't beneficial for the children it is for the parents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about preschool? My mom teaches preschool for developmentally delayed 3 year olds. It's very specifically structured, and you can see changes in the children behaviorally, and they even seem to learn some stuff (evidenced by constant performance reports/evaluations that she has to complete, on specific motor skills, behavioral, social and intellectual abilities). It's certainly not a 'play class', but it's a class that is much more than a way to just give the parents a break.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> What about preschool? My mom teaches preschool for developmentally delayed 3 year olds. It's very specifically structured, and you can see changes in the children behaviorally, and they even seem to learn some stuff (evidenced by constant performance reports/evaluations that she has to complete, on specific motor skills, behavioral, social and intellectual abilities). It's certainly not a 'play class', but it's a class that is much more than a way to just give the parents a break.




That is very different as it will be specifically structured by experts in their field, who understand child development and psychology. I also assume it will be for more than an hour or so a week. It's vastly different from a sports class which is what I'm talking about not remedial or educational classes.


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> Well, nobody on this thread is saying that, for one. I think that Skribs school is probably teaching his littles class *more* like the older kids than may be optimal, which is probably why he's having the problems he's having, but neither he nor anyone else on here has suggested putting 3 year olds in with adults and teaching them exactly the same way.



What problems am I having?

If I followed the advice of some people in this thread I'd have problems.  But I follow my Master's advice and it works.


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> "Mat chats" are very, very common in children's martial arts programs. We all know that character development is a big reason why parents enroll their kids in martial arts classes. Doing a "mat chat" to tell the kids, you know, "don't hit your classmates, clean your room, listen to your parents" etc and so forth is one way to teach character development.
> 
> I do a little bit of that with my Little Dragons, particularly to emphasize that they should only ever kick or punch someone when they're at the martial arts school wearing their special sparring gear so nobody gets hurt, that they should never hit their mom or dad or siblings, that it's important to take turns and help each other out, etc. I'd like to incorporate some more of that kind of thing (i.e. maybe talking to them about dealing with feelings, like if you get angry to count to ten and take deep breaths, etc), and I've been reading some preschool child development books to get some ideas, but I've been struggling a little with the best way to approach it in this context.



My Master has a few different things he does:

He has a monthly chart which the kids fill out, which includes things like listening to their parents, doing their chores, taking care of their pets, not fighting with their siblings, etc.  If you do good on the monthly chart for 12 months you get a special uniform (and another one at 24 months).
He has a sheet they can get stamps on for bringing things like good report cards, notes from the teacher saying they did good, etc.  If they get enough stamps, they get special nunchucks.
He also has parents sometimes bring their kids to his office if the kid did something bad, such as lied to the parents, got in trouble at school, or something like that.  I haven't been in his office for those talks, but some of those conversations have been very long.
I think it helps that my Master has degrees in counseling and is an ordained pastor, in addition to his martial arts credentials.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 7, 2019)

skribs said:


> is an ordained pastor



That explains everything. The 'special' things sound just on the edge of being a controlling thing.  I get the impression martial arts isn't the important thing here but bringing the children into the flock is. As the Jesuits say 'Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man' hence your taking three and four years olds.


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> That explains everything. The 'special' things sound just on the edge of being a controlling thing.  I get the impression martial arts isn't the important thing here but bringing the children into the flock is. As the Jesuits say 'Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man' hence your taking three and four years olds.



He does a real good job of separating the two jobs.  I was merely pointing that out because pastors often provide counsel and advice for their parishioners, my Master is able to also provide advice for the kids.

But, I'm really glad you managed to assume we teach terrible martial arts because my Master has experience with another job.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> But, I'm really glad you managed to assume we teach terrible martial arts because my Master has experience with another job.




I have not said you 'teach horrible martial arts' at all. You are mistaken but there seems to be no separation of that teaching from the desire to interfere with the children's upbringing by their parents/carers. it's crossing a line that may be acceptable to you but would have social services visiting you here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I have not said you 'teach horrible martial arts' at all. You are mistaken but there seems to be no separation of that teaching from the desire to interfere with the children's upbringing by their parents/carers. it's crossing a line that may be acceptable to you but would have social services visiting you here.


It's only interfering if the parents don't want it. Otherwise, it's helping. Obviously, the parents who enroll their kids at that school (and don't immediately withdraw them) are happy to have someone else reinforcing these kinds of lessons.


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It's only interfering if the parents don't want it. Otherwise, it's helping. Obviously, the parents who enroll their kids at that school (and don't immediately withdraw them) are happy to have someone else reinforcing these kinds of lessons.



It's actually a big selling point.  If all we did is teach martial arts, and only martial arts, we'd probably have less than half the students that we do.

Edit to add:  in fact, my post above mentioned parents bringing kids to the office specifically to have these talks.  So that would imply the parents are okay with it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> It's actually a big selling point.  If all we did is teach martial arts, and only martial arts, we'd probably have less than half the students that we do.
> 
> Edit to add:  in fact, my post above mentioned parents bringing kids to the office specifically to have these talks.  So that would imply the parents are okay with it.




I can imagine they are happy with the arrangement, they pay and have someone else do the parenting for them. Omission of parental responsibility, this would be quite shocking to Europeans that anyone would bring their child to martial arts classes to be raised. Martial arts instructors wouldn't be very happy either if expected to bring other people's children up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> I can imagine they are happy with the arrangement, they pay and have someone else do the parenting for them. Omission of parental responsibility, this would be quite shocking to Europeans that anyone would bring their child to martial arts classes to be raised. Martial arts instructors wouldn't be very happy either if expected to bring other people's children up.


Why do you assume the parents are not also teaching these things?


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2019)




----------



## Yokozuna514 (Jan 8, 2019)

I just read the last page of this thread and found it interesting that both sides are so oppositional about something that is clearly a cultural divide (as Tez3 stated).   I’m from Canada and although we follow a lot of same concepts Skribs mentioned, I do know European outlooks are different.  

In many parts of Europe, these types of concepts are not followed or expected when enrolling a child in a MA.  They are considered in the domain of parenting.

I applaud the discussion for bringing out this difference and suggest this may be a perfect point to agree to disagree because essentially neither side wil change the others perspective as it is a cultural distinction between the two.  It would be like debating which is better to use for eating, a fork vs chopsticks.   Depends where you are and how you grew up.   

My two cents


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I just read the last page of this thread and found it interesting that both sides are so oppositional about something that is clearly a cultural divide (as Tez3 stated).   I’m from Canada and although we follow a lot of same concepts Skribs mentioned, I do know European outlooks are different.
> 
> In many parts of Europe, these types of concepts are not followed or expected when enrolling a child in a MA.  They are considered in the domain of parenting.
> 
> ...



It still is the domain of parenting.  The parents are choosing where their child enrolls and what values they want the teacher to instill on their children.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> It still is the domain of parenting.  The parents are choosing where their child enrolls and what values they want the teacher to instill on their children.


Yes, that is true.   Can you accept that Europeans parent differently?


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

Yokazuna514 said:


> Yes, that is true.   Can you accept that Europeans parent differently?



Yes.  This is merely an option available.

It seems other posters in this thread cannot accept that, though.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2019)

skribs said:


> Yes.  This is merely an option available.
> 
> It seems other posters in this thread cannot accept that, though.




I would also point out that my points aren't directed at America or Americans, I don't know why anyone would think it is.
A lot of people assume from watching television and films that our cultures are similar but in fact they are very different, our educational systems are different, views on child rearing, how children should behave etc are very different. 

https://acculturated.com/european-children/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...french-children-are-happy-eaters-7712217.html

http://time.com/3720541/how-to-parent-like-a-german/

http://time.com/4968712/parenting-advice-scandinavian/
http://thedanishway.com/5-tips-to-talking-about-sex-the-danish-way/

https://cupofjo.com/2015/07/parenting-in-the-netherlands/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/lif...n-teach-us-about-child-rearing/article534265/

And an academic study on parenthood. https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/2132-parenting-literature-reviews.pdf


----------



## wab25 (Jan 8, 2019)

I am also in the US, (and ready for more dislikes for this...) But, I always wondered about why many martial arts instructors would give counsel to people outside of the their study of martial art... especially when working with children and teens.

I understand being able to teach katas / forms, punching, kicking, throwing, the sport aspects... all that stuff. Thats what their years studying the art gave them was expertise in that area. But, doing kata well, or winning a point fighting tournament (or full contact for that matter) don't qualify a person to be a good councelor.

There are people who go to school and study to becomes councelors for kids, teens and adults. These people actually know what they are doing. I would feel more comfortable with a councelor for my kids, if they had actual training in councelling.

I do understand that many schools do councel their students, its just the way they were taught and they continue it. If a school is going to councel their students, I feel that they should hang their qualifications to do so, next to their Black belt certificate or make it known that they have no formal training to councel. If that councelleng training comes from a church, I feel that is important to let people know. Some will care some won't. But if you are going to indoctrinate kids, at least let the parents know what you are indoctrinating them with.

When people outside of the martial arts look at black belts or martial arts masters, they have a lot of misconceptions. Being a black belt, or martial arts instructor makes you an authority in the eyes of a lot of people. Many times, they think you are an authority in things you are not an authority in.

I have seen too many instances where well meaning people give the wrong councel to others. Sometimes those people receiving the councel have real issues. Giving the wrong councel can actually do a lot of harm, some of which can't be undone.

However, as long as the school is open about what they are doing, and what their qualifications are for doing it and the parents still want their kids there, thats the parents decision. I may make a different decision about my kids, but that is each parents right. My concern is about giving parents the information they need to make an informed decision.


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 8, 2019)

Americans tend to believe in the old adage that "it takes a village to raise a child". Many of us had influential non-parent adults in our own lives, who gave us advice & helped us to grow into adults and learn to navigate the world. These may have been school teachers, sports coaches, religious leaders, scout troop leaders, neighbors, babysitters, or others. So, when we're an adult in one of those positions, it seems quite natural and good to try to pay forward the help we received in our youths by helping the next generation.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 8, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I am also in the US, (and ready for more dislikes for this...) But, I always wondered about why many martial arts instructors would give counsel to people outside of the their study of martial art... especially when working with children and teens.
> 
> I understand being able to teach katas / forms, punching, kicking, throwing, the sport aspects... all that stuff. Thats what their years studying the art gave them was expertise in that area. But, doing kata well, or winning a point fighting tournament (or full contact for that matter) don't qualify a person to be a good councelor.
> 
> ...


The thing is that in this situation, skribs sensei has a masters degree in counseling. And having counseling training from a church doesnt mean you're counseling anyone. A sense is religion should have no bearing on his interaction with his students.


----------



## wab25 (Jan 8, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> The thing is that in this situation, skribs sensei has a masters degree in counseling.


Great. All I am saying is that I hope his degree is on the wall, next to his Black Belt certificate for all to see.



kempodisciple said:


> A sense is religion should have no bearing on his interaction with his students.


Agreed. Especially if the sensei is only teaching martial arts.



kempodisciple said:


> And having counseling training from a church doesnt mean you're counseling anyone.


But, if you are counseling people, *and *your training in counseling is from a religious organization, I feel you should be up front about it. Many religions get along quite well or don't bother one another. Certain religions can't stand other certain other religions, as in you can go to religion A and get anti religion B classes, literature or both. If the instructor is religion B, *and counseling the kids according to counseling training given by religion B*... the parents, who are religion A should know that from the get go. Otherwise people can get very upset when they find out later... even if the counsel was good stuff.

Just be open about who you are, what you are doing and why you are qualified to do what you do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2019)

Yokazuna514 said:


> Yes, that is true.   Can you accept that Europeans parent differently?


I don't remember reading any posts that suggested there was anything wrong with the European approach presented by Tez.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2019)

wab25 said:


> I am also in the US, (and ready for more dislikes for this...) But, I always wondered about why many martial arts instructors would give counsel to people outside of the their study of martial art... especially when working with children and teens.
> 
> I understand being able to teach katas / forms, punching, kicking, throwing, the sport aspects... all that stuff. Thats what their years studying the art gave them was expertise in that area. But, doing kata well, or winning a point fighting tournament (or full contact for that matter) don't qualify a person to be a good councelor.
> 
> ...


Most of my instructors would actually say, "I'm not the person to talk to about that." They weren't trained or equipped for giving advice outside MA except in a few areas where they had personal experience. While I know there are probably some MA instructors who simply feel part of their job is to be the wise man on the mount, I've not run into much of that. Most I've run into who did anything resembling counseling/coaching were actually equipped for it.

I do think there are a lot of MA instructors who encourage certain approaches to behavior. I think that's part of the overall model of teaching fighting ability, but working to make sure that doesn't increase violence. I'm not sure how effective some of that is, nor how necessary.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 8, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't remember reading any posts that suggested there was anything wrong with the European approach presented by Tez.




I think it was more a response to the suggestion I was 'hating' America. I wasn't, I'm just not sure that people ( not just Americans) appreciate that there are actually quite big differences in our cultures especially when it comes to children. 




WaterGal said:


> Americans tend to believe in the old adage that "it takes a village to raise a child".



We tend to take that to mean we look after all children but don't interfere with how the child is brought up. For example when we go to the south of France we sit on the beach with quite a few nationalities, children do their own thing but all the adults on the beach will keep an eye on children near the water etc, it's difficult for a stranger to approach a child and not be stopped by someone. That's how we perceive 'a village bringing up a child'.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 8, 2019)

wab25 said:


> Great. All I am saying is that I hope his degree is on the wall, next to his Black Belt certificate for all to see.
> 
> Agreed. Especially if the sensei is only teaching martial arts.
> 
> ...


I read the other post differently then you...I read it as 'he has a degree in counseling' and 'he is an ordained pastor', not that he has a degree in religious counseling. Reread it, and it still seems to me like two distinctly different things. And for what it's worth, a lot of classes in school for my masters degree in counseling centered around being aware of when your bias interferes with counseling, which includes very specifically not putting your religious ideals on your clients. People I've talked to in the field had the same training. So I would assume his sensei learned to do this as well. 

At the very least, I'm not going to assume he is forcing religion on parents/kids unknowingly or doing anything wrong without anything actually suggesting that.


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

WaterGal said:


> Americans tend to believe in the old adage that "it takes a village to raise a child". Many of us had influential non-parent adults in our own lives, who gave us advice & helped us to grow into adults and learn to navigate the world. These may have been school teachers, sports coaches, religious leaders, scout troop leaders, neighbors, babysitters, or others. So, when we're an adult in one of those positions, it seems quite natural and good to try to pay forward the help we received in our youths by helping the next generation.



Don't forget aunts, uncles, grandparents, even brothers and sisters.

Even if you don't think "it takes a village", the fact remains that kids look up to their elders.  If the parents trust the message the Master is giving, and the kids look up to him, then why not have the kids take advice from him?



gpseymour said:


> Most of my instructors would actually say, "I'm not the person to talk to about that." They weren't trained or equipped for giving advice outside MA except in a few areas where they had personal experience. While I know there are probably some MA instructors who simply feel part of their job is to be the wise man on the mount, I've not run into much of that. Most I've run into who did anything resembling counseling/coaching were actually equipped for it.



I can see that.  




kempodisciple said:


> I read the other post differently then you...I read it as 'he has a degree in counseling' and 'he is an ordained pastor', not that he has a degree in religious counseling. Reread it, and it still seems to me like two distinctly different things. And for what it's worth, a lot of classes in school for my masters degree in counseling centered around being aware of when your bias interferes with counseling, which includes very specifically not putting your religious ideals on your clients. People I've talked to in the field had the same training. So I would assume his sensei learned to do this as well.



You are correct, two separate qualifications.  

Not that it really matters for the sake of this discussion.  The discussion is about whether or not a martial arts master should talk to kids about their behavior outside the school.


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> At the very least, I'm not going to assume he is forcing religion on parents/kids unknowingly or doing anything wrong without anything actually suggesting that.



Outside of conversations he's had with people he already knows share his faith, I've only seen him bring up religion maybe 2 or 3 times in the entire time I've been there.  And it's been a comment in passing.  He definitely isn't pushing his religion on others.


----------



## WaterGal (Jan 8, 2019)

I feel like, because skribs' teacher happens to also be a counselor and pastor, maybe there's been some conflation on this thread of "mat chats"/"life skills curriculum" with actual _therapy _or _religion_.

From what I've seen, "mat chats" tends to be things like reminding the class to only use their martial arts skills in self-defense, encouraging higher rank students to model good behavior for lower rank students, talking about why it's important to pay attention to instructions, things like that. 

I'm familiar with a large martial arts organization that gives the kids in their children's program a chart to take home, with stuff like "did a chore without being asked", "read a new book", "helped a friend at school", and if the parent checks off enough of them, the kid gets an award.


----------



## Buka (Jan 8, 2019)

I interact, speak with and help thousands (literally) of Europeans, Asians etc every single day I work. I am used to and respect everyone’s cultural differences.

I could also tell you which children of which cultural backgrounds are allowed to pretty much run wild, sometimes putting themselves in danger. I could but you know I can’t.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2019)

Buka said:


> I am used to and respect everyone’s cultural differences.




But you assumed I hated America. 




Buka said:


> I could also tell you which children of which cultural backgrounds are allowed to pretty much run wild, sometimes putting themselves in danger. I could but you know I can’t.



I'm sure there are but my point was about _differences_ not whose culture is better or safer.




WaterGal said:


> I'm familiar with a large martial arts organization that gives the kids in their children's program a chart to take home, with stuff like "did a chore without being asked", "read a new book", "helped a friend at school", and if the parent checks off enough of them, the kid gets an award.




Most parents here would think that a strange thing for a sports organisation to do. Martial arts are purely sports here, not regarded in the same way as Scouting or Guiding or a religious group, they wouldn't expect to have this in athletics, gymnastics or football nor martial arts. parents would want what they paid for, martial arts training. I have a friend with two daughters, one in TKD one in karate, she said she and other parents would take them out of class if the instructors started to impinge in this way.


----------



## Buka (Jan 9, 2019)

Tez3 said:


> But you assumed I hated America.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you think that was directed at you because...?

I never said anything about better or safer. I can tell you who's is safer, though. Yours.

It's not always about you, Tez.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 9, 2019)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please return to the original topic. Please keep the conversation on topic and polite. 

Thank you,
Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 9, 2019)

Buka said:


> View attachment 22034


*Not Funny *


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2019)

(DELETED OFF-TOPIC REPLY)


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2019)

Buka said:


> And you think that was directed at you because...?
> 
> I never said anything about better or safer. I can tell you who's is safer, though. Yours.
> 
> It's not always about you, Tez.




So, in fact you are directing it at Americans? Americans hating America?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 9, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Many of the badges/patches are awarded for things outside of wilderness skills.




When Lord Baden-Powell started Scouting (his sister Agnes started Guiding, the founder of  American Girl Scouts was a Guide leader under her) the intention was to make well rounded human beings, not 'wilderness' people. There was also little 'religion' in Scouting, the priorities were spirituality, playing the game and being a decent person who had skills to cope with almost every situation you could imagine. 




gpseymour said:


> It's not all that unusual for a respected sports coach to be asked to talk with a participant when the parents find they are not getting through



That is much more of an individual thing but it can also backfire if the parents are wanting their child to achieve far too much for their age, it can also lead to situations where coaches are believed over the students/athletes as we've seen in quite a few situations recently notably the gymnasts sexually abused by the team doctor. We've just had a case here of a football coach abusing boys, he was due in court the other day but had an encounter with a tree while driving his care, tree survived, he didn't.


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 9, 2019)

Please lets end this on a positive note and go back to the original op.
As child I went to English school age 12-14, Second and third year.
There were some great teachers and coaches at both English and American schools who help me a lot.
American parents and English parents are different on the little things, not the big things.
Most parents love their children very much and do the best they can.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2019)

Bruce7 said:


> Please lets end this on a positive note and go back to the original op.
> As child I went to English school age 12-14, Second and third year.
> There were some great teachers and coaches at both English and American schools who help me a lot.
> American parents and English parents are different on the little things, not the big things.
> Most parents love their children very much and do the best they can.


Well said.


----------



## Deleted member 40306 (Jan 24, 2019)

I'm new. There is so much content Gold here at this forum. It's like church


----------



## Bruce7 (Jan 24, 2019)

Hans Larrave said:


> I'm new. There is so much content Gold here at this forum. It's like church


Welcome, like the video.


----------

