There are no advanced techniques.
I taught a kihon class (fundamentals… basics, in many translations, although I'm with Hyoho in his preference of terminology) last week, and it was more complex, more detailed, and more in depth than my regular classes… in fact, it was more so than my senior classes. And the simple reason is that the fundamentals are the advanced methods… without them, there is nothing at all.
I think this comes down to what sort of definition you are putting on "advanced." I'm totally with you on teaching in-depth fundamentals classes. Those are my favorite classes, both as a student and a teacher.
That said, I don't use "advanced" to mean complex, detailed, or in depth. I'm with Steve in thinking that it is more useful to save the term for topics which require the student to have certain foundational skills as a pre-requisite to learn effectively.
Yes, there is a progression of skills… but not in the sense of necessarily increasing complexity. Instead, it's more a matter of building on the principles… which, in many cases, can be stripping back (mechanically) of what you do. Probably the best way to look at it is that everything you do, complex, "advanced", or "basic", are simply different expressions and applications of those same "basics".
Totally agreed. The "advanced" variation of a given technique
might be more complex. Alternately, it might be a simpler movement that requires greater timing or greater coordination than the "basic" version.
Hmm… no, honestly, "deep guard" and "DLR guard" aren't particularly clear to me… as, really, I don't know what they are.
For the record, De La Riva guard is a specialized variation on the standard open guard, while deep half guard is a specialized variation on half-guard. They aren't the first examples I would choose for "advanced" topics, but you could make a plausible case for regarding them as such. They require you to understand the standard principles of open guard, while adding specialized considerations on top. In addition, they would probably be trickier for a novice to learn than the usual basic guard material. (I say
probably, because I don't think I've ever tried teaching those topics to a novice.)
Its all very well keep using these words basic and advanced but they are English words. To examine Japanese Kanji of specific terms taken from confucianism and buddhism there is a far more deeper meaning to all these things. Any Western words used are purely from a Western point of view. For example the Japanese word 'keiko' is translated as 'training' but it really is not so simplistic. The Japanese deeper meaning is to "store a seed of learning". Therefore we do 'keiko' and also we do training expressed as 'toraining' for say using weight, running, rope climbing.
One needs to look for the deeper meaning of what we do. All part and parcel of learning "arts".
I think you missed my point. English words are being used to dissect something that is not English anyway. Japanese don't even have word for basic. It's written as ベーシック. Advanced translated does have kanji 進んだ; 上級の. This means to progress or move forward. Its not symbolism. It's the deeper meaning of what we practice every day. At least for some of us it seems.
As I already posted it's easier to identify by using the word fundamental and not basic.
I'm not sure what Japanese kanji have to do with my study of BJJ, Muay Thai, Kali, or wrestling. Can you clarify? Also, what is being dissected that is not English?
If you think there are subtleties contained within the Japanese terms ベーシック and 進んだ; 上級の that are generally relevant to the process of teaching/learning martial arts, then please translate as well as you can and explain why those concepts might be more useful than "basic/advanced".
If you think these are concepts that only apply to Japanese arts, that would be interesting too. If that is the case, could you explain why?
Getting back to the original question, I generally think of "basic" or "fundamental" techniques as those which a) underlie everything else in the art and b) are practically learnable by beginners. If a technique is more specialized and requires previous training as a foundation in order to learn effectively, then I would call it advanced. This raises the question of what you might call a technique which is easy for a beginner to learn but is only useful in a specialized circumstance. This is the weakness of trying to shoehorn everything into a one-dimensional rating system.
The basic/advanced dichotomy can be interesting from a teaching perspective. My greatest joy in training is probably those moments when I discover new details and nuances in the fundamental techniques that I learned in my first year of training. There's a certain thrill when I can say "Wow, I've been doing this wrong for years!" I try to then turn around and pass those lessons on to my students. Sometimes, however, I discover that the new way of doing things requires a degree of body control and coordination that my beginning students don't yet have. For example, I've started performing my triangle chokes according to the way Ryan Hall teaches it. I find it more effective, more bio-mechanically sound, and more in keeping with the fundamental principles of jiu-jitsu. Unfortunately, I'm finding that a significant percentage of my beginning students have a hard time executing the choke that way. The next time I teach the triangle in a fundamentals class, I'll probably go back to the classic Gracie approach, because the beginners pick that version up a lot easier.
