Curriculum progression

[skribs]

I was thinking today about how different techniques can be grouped together, and then how those techniques should be put into a curriculum. These are the three factors I am looking at:

• Ease of learning
• Usefulness to the curriculum
• Usefulness to fighting

For example, in Taekwondo, a roundhouse kick would score very high on all three: it's about the second easiest kick to learn (after front kick), it makes it easier to learn turning back kick and spinning hook kick if you roundhouse first, and because it combos really well it's a great kick to learn.

The twist kick is moderately difficult, has niche use, and isn't really used as a stepping off point for other techniques, unless you want to get into signature demonstration kicks like the Guyver. However, the back kick is also moderately difficult, but since it is used to teach the spinning hook kick and some of the more advanced kicks, and it is quite commonly used in sparring, it ranks much higher.

Which is what led to my thought process, how do I weigh each of these factors?

• Something which isn't that difficult, but isn't really used, is it worth putting in early, teaching later, or just removing it? (like the Twist Kick)
• Something which is difficult, but teaches a concept much better than an easier technique, should it be brought in first? (such as a back kick being more difficult than a crescent kick, but the back kick being used to teach more than the crescent kick will be)
• What about something which is difficult, but adds a new dimension that wasn't there previously? (For example, punching footwork that introduces a new range of movement instead of a punching footwork that is easier to learn, but merely gives you more options where you already are)

TL;DR
Does something being easy enough justify an earlier place in the curriculum? Can the difficulty of a new technique or concept be offset by the value of that technique or concept in a fight or as a building block to the rest of the curriculum?

Did you factor these in when you built your curriculum, or would you if you were to build your own?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I like to group my techniques into 2 categories. What "entering strategy" and what 'finish strategy" should I use when my opponent has

1. left side forward - 75% of my techniques can be applied here.
2. right side forward - 25% of my techniques can be applied here.

 

[paitingman]

Are you looking for the curriculum to progress as the students rank does?

 

[skribs]

I like to group my techniques into 2 categories. What "entering strategy" and what 'finish strategy" should I use when my opponent has

1. left side forward - 75% of my techniques can be applied here.
2. right side forward - 25% of my techniques can be applied here.

How would you apply this to when you would teach these?

Are you looking for the curriculum to progress as the students rank does?

Yes. Assuming a large enough school where I'm not doing personalized curricula.

 

[wab25]

Not sure if you will see this or not...

I would look at what your art is trying to accomplish. What is the over arching strategy? How does your art try to solve the problem? One art may go for one strike one kill, another may go for breaking them down to the legs and body first, another may opt to throw the opponent on their head, another may get them on the ground and submit the opponent.

If you look at the arts that take these different approaches, they emphasize different types of body movement, different types of power generation and even different stances. The basic principles of body movement are different, for different strategies. Same goes for principles. Different arts express principles in different ways, which require different base body movement. Timing in a striking art is very different than timing in a grappling art, even though conceptually, it is the same concept. Timing a counter punch, in between strikes is different than timing a hip throw as the opponent pushes forward, is different than timing a submission from your back. (although there are also a lot of similarities)

When trying to group techniques together, you need to consider how you are transmitting those principles and the over arching strategy of your art. So, beginning techniques would teach the most basic and fundamental pieces of those strategies and principles. As the student advances, those ideas get refined, and elaborated on. By the time a student reaches the top sets of techniques in their art, they should have a good grasp on those over arching strategies and principles. The student should then be able to respond using those strategies and principles, without regard to the particular technique they happen to use. Hopefully, they don't think but react with the correct strategy and principle in real time... without having to think about doing a correct technique... which one of my 400 techniques is best for this situation? Instead, I yield, and push when pulled, or pull when pushed seeking to off balance my opponent and throw. Or, I come in hard, fast and accurate finishing with one shot.

If the techniques are grouped appropriately, then the majority of students learning in that order, will get similar ideas about what those strategies and principles are. They may even have different variations on how those work and how they are expressed, but they will be similar.

This whole line of thought can also be turned around. Why does my art put these moves into the first form? Why am I taught this stuff first? Why do we save that other thing, which is just as easy and more effective for later? Its about sharing the strategies and principles of the art. Much of that requires us to use our bodies differently than we did before training. Many of these principles can only be understood by doing them physically. No matter how easy or effective a technique can be, by itself... truly understanding the system will always make you much more effective over time.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How would you apply this to when you would teach these?

I like to use 1 entering strategy to set up most of my finish moves. For example, a hook punch to the side of my opponent's head.

 

[dvcochran]

I was thinking today about how different techniques can be grouped together, and then how those techniques should be put into a curriculum. These are the three factors I am looking at:

• Ease of learning
• Usefulness to the curriculum
• Usefulness to fighting

For example, in Taekwondo, a roundhouse kick would score very high on all three: it's about the second easiest kick to learn (after front kick), it makes it easier to learn turning back kick and spinning hook kick if you roundhouse first, and because it combos really well it's a great kick to learn.

The twist kick is moderately difficult, has niche use, and isn't really used as a stepping off point for other techniques, unless you want to get into signature demonstration kicks like the Guyver. However, the back kick is also moderately difficult, but since it is used to teach the spinning hook kick and some of the more advanced kicks, and it is quite commonly used in sparring, it ranks much higher.

Which is what led to my thought process, how do I weigh each of these factors?

• Something which isn't that difficult, but isn't really used, is it worth putting in early, teaching later, or just removing it? (like the Twist Kick)
• Something which is difficult, but teaches a concept much better than an easier technique, should it be brought in first? (such as a back kick being more difficult than a crescent kick, but the back kick being used to teach more than the crescent kick will be)
• What about something which is difficult, but adds a new dimension that wasn't there previously? (For example, punching footwork that introduces a new range of movement instead of a punching footwork that is easier to learn, but merely gives you more options where you already are)

TL;DR
Does something being easy enough justify an earlier place in the curriculum? Can the difficulty of a new technique or concept be offset by the value of that technique or concept in a fight or as a building block to the rest of the curriculum?

Did you factor these in when you built your curriculum, or would you if you were to build your own?

At least some of your equation is specific to your dojang I feel. Crescent kicks are one of the most used set up kicks and scoring kicks in Olympic sparring. Third behind the roundhouse and spinning side and spinning wheel kick (tied). So some of what you are considering is relative to you own training experience.
For me simplicity has a place at the beginning of training. It is easier to understand for the student and easier to teach as the instructor when "stepping stones" are used. I can talk about the similarities between a spinning side kick and a back kick but would not expect a white belt to understand them as well or quickly as a red belt. Even when they are shown to both belt ranks.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was thinking today about how different techniques can be grouped together, and then how those techniques should be put into a curriculum. These are the three factors I am looking at:

• Ease of learning
• Usefulness to the curriculum
• Usefulness to fighting

For example, in Taekwondo, a roundhouse kick would score very high on all three: it's about the second easiest kick to learn (after front kick), it makes it easier to learn turning back kick and spinning hook kick if you roundhouse first, and because it combos really well it's a great kick to learn.

The twist kick is moderately difficult, has niche use, and isn't really used as a stepping off point for other techniques, unless you want to get into signature demonstration kicks like the Guyver. However, the back kick is also moderately difficult, but since it is used to teach the spinning hook kick and some of the more advanced kicks, and it is quite commonly used in sparring, it ranks much higher.

Which is what led to my thought process, how do I weigh each of these factors?

• Something which isn't that difficult, but isn't really used, is it worth putting in early, teaching later, or just removing it? (like the Twist Kick)
• Something which is difficult, but teaches a concept much better than an easier technique, should it be brought in first? (such as a back kick being more difficult than a crescent kick, but the back kick being used to teach more than the crescent kick will be)
• What about something which is difficult, but adds a new dimension that wasn't there previously? (For example, punching footwork that introduces a new range of movement instead of a punching footwork that is easier to learn, but merely gives you more options where you already are)

TL;DR
Does something being easy enough justify an earlier place in the curriculum? Can the difficulty of a new technique or concept be offset by the value of that technique or concept in a fight or as a building block to the rest of the curriculum?

Did you factor these in when you built your curriculum, or would you if you were to build your own?

I think the answer to your TL;DR questions (though I read the whole thing) is yes.

When weighing where things would be in my curriculum, those were all factors. I didn't get into anything like scoring them (though I have a quick weighting system I use in consulting that would have made that both easy and useful), but I did consider those points.

Basically, I started with whatever is: useful/versatile + easy to learn well enough to apply + important to other learning. The group of things that have strong usefulness but are hard to learn gets spread out over the first 3 ranks, so it's introduced as early as possible, without putting a bunch of hard stuff out there to inhibit early learning of other useful stuff. The few things that were easy and foundational, but not directly useful, got put early, but with low emphasis. Some things didn't even make the cut, because I didn't see them used enough, and they either were too time-consuming to learn (time better put to other uses) or were no help from a foundational perspective.

Most of that work was confirming the order of the core NGA curriculum (the 50 grappling Classical techniques). I'd considered re-ordering them, but concluded they were close enough to what I would choose to do that it wasn't worth changing them around. But all the rest of the curriculum - including the things I've added - had to go through that process when I decided on the requirements for each rank.

Part of the result was a "foundation" curriculum. This is a subset (including none of the Classical forms, and very little from the Classical techniques) that is trained in the first few weeks. Basic striking, grappling defense, and movement get put here, so there's a foundation for the rest of their training. It's all stuff that's relatively easy to learn, is important for learning other things, and is useful/versatile.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This whole line of thought can also be turned around. Why does my art put these moves into the first form? Why am I taught this stuff first? Why do we save that other thing, which is just as easy and more effective for later? Its about sharing the strategies and principles of the art. Much of that requires us to use our bodies differently than we did before training. Many of these principles can only be understood by doing them physically. No matter how easy or effective a technique can be, by itself... truly understanding the system will always make you much more effective over time.

Although it's entirely possible any conclusions drawn from this process are incorrect (we're trying to suss out someone else's motivation), it's a very useful exercise when working within an established system. Asking why things are where they are - and assuming there was a good reason for them to be there - gets us thinking differently about things. In some cases, we might not like the reasoning (there's a throw that's very late in the NGA curriculum that, IMO, is both easier to use and easier to fall from than one of the first throws), but trying to understand why it was put there might give us some thought as to how the curriculum designer intended to teach it. And that might temper some of our own preferences, where those preferences might not fit everyone else.

 

[skribs]

At least some of your equation is specific to your dojang I feel. Crescent kicks are one of the most used set up kicks and scoring kicks in Olympic sparring. Third behind the roundhouse and spinning side and spinning wheel kick (tied). So some of what you are considering is relative to you own training experience.
For me simplicity has a place at the beginning of training. It is easier to understand for the student and easier to teach as the instructor when "stepping stones" are used. I can talk about the similarities between a spinning side kick and a back kick but would not expect a white belt to understand them as well or quickly as a red belt. Even when they are shown to both belt ranks.

I wasn't comparing the usefulness of the back kick and crescent kick in a fight, but in your learning. For example, the motions of the back kick can be used to help teach the spinning hook kick and the tornado kick. The crescent kick doesn't really unlock anything new, except for combinations involving a crescent kick.

So while the crescent kick is easier than a back kick and is very useful, if you start developing the back kick early, it will have more benefits for your other kicks.

 

[skribs]

Although it's entirely possible any conclusions drawn from this process are incorrect (we're trying to suss out someone else's motivation), it's a very useful exercise when working within an established system. Asking why things are where they are - and assuming there was a good reason for them to be there - gets us thinking differently about things. In some cases, we might not like the reasoning (there's a throw that's very late in the NGA curriculum that, IMO, is both easier to use and easier to fall from than one of the first throws), but trying to understand why it was put there might give us some thought as to how the curriculum designer intended to teach it. And that might temper some of our own preferences, where those preferences might not fit everyone else.

So why IS that throw later on? Don't leave us hanging!

 

[Tony Dismukes]

My top three criteria for organizing a curriculum would probably be as follows:

General applicability of the technique
Ease of learning
Helps teach principles which apply to other parts of the curriculum

To give some concrete examples:

Rear cross - scores very high on general applicability. It can be used effectively at all levels from beginner to world champion. It can be used by young and old, big and small. It can be used in street self-defense, challenge fights, or sport competition. It can be used in a crowded room or a wide open space. Someone who knows nothing except how to throw a hard, fast, accurate cross could win a whole lot of fights with just that.

It also scores pretty well on the ease of learning. While you can spend a lifetime refining the technique, most people can make it effective very early on in their training. Many people can use it effectively without even having formal training.

It also does pretty well in terms of teaching foundational principles. The concepts which make a good rear cross carry over into most other forms of striking.

As a result, I would suggest that the basic rear cross should be taught very early in the curriculum.

Spinning hook kick - this can be very effective in the right circumstances. However those are more rare. You probably wouldn't want to throw one during a close range assault or on uneven surfaces or in a crowded room or while wearing restrictive clothing or if you doubted your ability to deal with being taken down, etc, etc.

It also takes a lot longer to become adequately skilled at the spinning hook kick. Most people will take quite a while to develop even the level of skill where they are more likely to cause problems for their opponent than themselves when throwing this kick in a real fight.

It does have some value in teaching movement principles and developing attributes of balance and coordination. However many of the techniques that learning this paves the way for are themselves specialized and esoteric.

For this reason I would put a spinning hook kick later in the curriculum.

Body lock takedown - this has a fairly broad range of general applicability. It works well in a wide range of "street" situations and it has been used at the highest levels of MMA competition. However most skilled grapplers know how to defend against it well, so it is not as reliable as (for example) a good double-leg takedown. It is also difficult to make work against someone who has a really substantial size and strength advantage.

It does score very well in ease of learning. I can get most students performing the move pretty much correctly in their first class. Not many throws or takedowns you can say that about.

It works as a good introduction to some important grappling concepts which are widely applicable, but it doesn't teach as many principles as a double leg or a hip throw.

I teach the body lock early on in my curriculum. It's not going to be as reliable a tool at advanced stages of competition, but the ease of learning outweighs that. If someone has to defend themselves from a real world attack in their first months of training, they are much more likely to pull off a body lock takedown than a double-leg or an uchimata.

 

[skribs]

General applicability of the technique
Ease of learning
Helps teach principles which apply to other parts of the curriculum

I think these are my 3 criteria, just re-worded a bit.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think these are my 3 criteria, just re-worded a bit.

Two out of three, anyway. “General applicability” is different from “usefulness in a fight”.

 

[skribs]

Two out of three, anyway. “General applicability” is different from “usefulness in a fight”.

It's what I wanted to say but you said it better.
I'm the one who said it. I know what I meant!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So why IS that throw later on? Don't leave us hanging!

It's my guess that the throw (a shoulder throw) was left for later because it scares people. It looks harder to fall from, though I'd rather take that fall than Mugger's Throw (done "right", a bit like Judo's drop Seoi Nage) almost any day.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's what I wanted to say but you said it better.
I'm the one who said it. I know what I meant!

Tony does that kind of a lot. Then I just point back at his post and say, "Yeah, that's what I meant. Pretend I wrote that."

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It's what I wanted to say but you said it better.
I'm the one who said it. I know what I meant!

My favorite example of general applicability is ukumi - learning how to fall safely. You don't even have to be in a fight or competition to get use out of that one. You just have to walk out on an icy sidewalk in winter. that's why it's typically one of the first things I teach new students.

 

[skribs]

My favorite example of general applicability is ukumi - learning how to fall safely. You don't even have to be in a fight or competition to get use out of that one. You just have to walk out on an icy sidewalk in winter. that's why it's typically one of the first things I teach new students.

It's also easy, and it's useful in the rest of the curriculum (you have to help someone practice take-downs, right?).

 

[Tony Dismukes]

It's also easy, and it's useful in the rest of the curriculum (you have to help someone practice take-downs, right?).

Bingo!