Efficiency

[Cirdan]

One thing to concider is that it is generally easier to learn big movements and techniques and then trim off bits here and there making them smaller and more efficient. Trying to shortcut to the "perfect" will only have you banging your head against the wall and in the end fail to cut any time off learning it. Except for hard training and proper instruction, there are no shortcuts.

 

[Bigshadow]

But they would only study Sanda for a few years to become efficient as opposed to studying all the other CMA forms for multiple years to become relaxed and efficient.

Great points!

 

[Bigshadow]

One thing to concider is that it is generally easier to learn big movements and techniques and then trim off bits here and there making them smaller and more efficient.

That is true! Although I am not so sure that there are no shortcuts. I am sure there are some. But again, it still takes time, even with shortcuts, it still takes years.

Very true in that it can be more frustrating to the new student, so one has to be careful how far they take the efficiency. Efficiency can make the art look completely different to the untrained eye.

 

[Flying Crane]

Oh I agree with you! I wasn't being specific, I was using the 5 years as an example. It is very relative to how fast the student learns, no doubt! Again, I was throwing that out there as an example. It could be 5 years, 2 years, 0 years, depending on the student. But overall the class may learn faster as a whole. That was point really.

Understood.

I think that what it boils down to is that it takes time and experience to develop what we are calling efficiency. Once you as an instructor gain insights into this, by all means I think it makes sense to teach it the best that you can. But there is no guarantee the student will learn it any quicker and it will probably still take a long time to really understand and be able to develop it, and ultimately they may develop it differently than your own. And you may even find that some things need to be taught "inefficiently" for the student to really understand it, before they can even conceive of how to do it efficiently. It's just the nature of the material sometimes.

I think time, effort, and experience are really key and there is not much that can shortcut the process. The only thing I can think of is to make sure the training is of the highest quality possible, but that is difficult to measure and I am sure would create arguments and disagreement among many.

Here's an example: Lets say I train in three arts: kenpo, BJJ, and tai chi. So with these arts I have a solid striking art, good grappling skills, and internal development. I train all three arts for many years and become very good at them. I can mix elements of them together and be a very effective and efficient fighter, and it becomes almost effortless for me to defeat an opponent.

So now I decide to create a new art based on my training and knowledge and skills. I combine these three arts into one, keeping only what seems to me to be the best aspects, the things that work the best (for me). And I teach this to my students. But to my dismay, my students all suck. I am a real butt-kicker, but my students can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Why is that?

It's because my skills arose from understanding three complete arts, at a very high level. Ultimately I discovered that certain elements of each art works best for me and I don't use the rest. But the only reason that ANY elements of any of the arts work for me is because I studed the complete arts, in depth.

What I deny my students is this same experience. Techniques from an art are based on a certain approach to fighting. If you don't develop this base, the techs that should be built upon this base are no good. By mixing and matching these three arts, and not teaching them in their complete form, in depth, the student never develops the background understanding of these arts that they need to fully excell.

they need the same opportunity to learn the three arts completely. Then, you can focus on what you feel is the really "good" stuff. But they need the complete training first, or the "good stuff" will be no good for them. It is only good for you because you have the experience to understand it. If you take shortcuts, your students wont understand it they way they need to in order to make it work.

Interesting thread.

 

[Bigshadow]

If you take shortcuts, your students wont understand it they way they need to in order to make it work.

I would say if one takes shortcuts their students may not understand... That is where it speaks volumes of the instructor. Being able to get the student to understand, I think that is key for instructors to consider.


Oh and everything cannot be shortcut. Only certain things. Most things come from hard work and sweat!

I thought this subject would be a good discussion.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Understood.
So now I decide to create a new art based on my training and knowledge and skills. I combine these three arts into one, keeping only what seems to me to be the best aspects, the things that work the best (for me). And I teach this to my students. But to my dismay, my students all suck. I am a real butt-kicker, but my students can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Why is that?

Could just be your a bad teacher too. And this same thing can occur in any martial art.

It's because my skills arose from understanding three complete arts, at a very high level. Ultimately I discovered that certain elements of each art works best for me and I don't use the rest. But the only reason that ANY elements of any of the arts work for me is because I studed the complete arts, in depth.

What I deny my students is this same experience. Techniques from an art are based on a certain approach to fighting. If you don't develop this base, the techs that should be built upon this base are no good. By mixing and matching these three arts, and not teaching them in their complete form, in depth, the student never develops the background understanding of these arts that they need to fully excell.

they need the same opportunity to learn the three arts completely. Then, you can focus on what you feel is the really "good" stuff. But they need the complete training first, or the "good stuff" will be no good for them. It is only good for you because you have the experience to understand it. If you take shortcuts, your students wont understand it they way they need to in order to make it work.

Interesting thread.

But I agree with this point. It could be that denying them the base is the problem. They have no base to work form therefore they do not ever fully understand any of the arts that you trained.

 

[CoryKS]

I'm enjoying this thread a lot. It's very similar to what I've experienced in the programming field. The old coders who cut their teeth on Assembler and C have a pretty deep grasp of what is happening behind the scenes that the newer programmers, using Java and C# sometimes lack. These new languages take a lot of the work out of coding, but at the cost of understanding what the machine is doing. As a COBOL programmer who moved to C++ and ultimately to Java, I found that going back and taking Assembler helped immensely. Hope this isn't too OT, but I thought the same principle applied.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I'm enjoying this thread a lot. It's very similar to what I've experienced in the programming field. The old coders who cut their teeth on Assembler and C have a pretty deep grasp of what is happening behind the scenes that the newer programmers, using Java and C# sometimes lack. These new languages take a lot of the work out of coding, but at the cost of understanding what the machine is doing. As a COBOL programmer who moved to C++ and ultimately to Java, I found that going back and taking Assembler helped immensely. Hope this isn't too OT, but I thought the same principle applied.

Please stop, you're giving me horrible flashbacks to college and jobs early in my career

 

[Bigshadow]

I'm enjoying this thread a lot. It's very similar to what I've experienced in the programming field. The old coders who cut their teeth on Assembler and C have a pretty deep grasp of what is happening behind the scenes that the newer programmers, using Java and C# sometimes lack. These new languages take a lot of the work out of coding, but at the cost of understanding what the machine is doing. As a COBOL programmer who moved to C++ and ultimately to Java, I found that going back and taking Assembler helped immensely. Hope this isn't too OT, but I thought the same principle applied.

STOOOOPPP! (fingers in ears LALALALALALALALA) It is reminding me of all the work I have to do, instead of surf the internet! Geesh, enough already! Someone want to finish my VB.NET program for me while I chat on MT?

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Hey Dave,

This is a very interesting topic. Efficiency is something we are all striving for in the martial sciences. You first learn in this field through repetition both physically and mentally. Once you have it (whatever you are studying) then you can fine tune it to a point of doing the most with the least effort.

Transmitting to other practitioners:

Teaching can only be shortened for you students if they can grasp where you are going. Since everyone learns at a different level some people will pick it up fast and others will struggle. That is just the way it works. However as a teacher I try to find what each individual needs to learn and how they learn it best so that they will learn it quickly and efficiently. Sometimes it works and sometimes it will not. Having said that students that practice IRT generally benefit because of how the delivery system is set up. They do not need to go through all of the painful, learning and unlearning that I had to. (At least not on the same scale)

 

[Bigshadow]

Hey Dave,

This is a very interesting topic. Efficiency is something we are all striving for in the martial sciences.

Transmitting to other practitioners:

Teaching can only be shortened for you students if they can grasp where you are going.

Thanks! You broke it down nicely, it really is a two part puzzle, learning and transmitting.

 

[Flying Crane]

Oh and everything cannot be shortcut. Only certain things. Most things come from hard work and sweat!

I thought this subject would be a good discussion.

OK, I can agree here

 

[Flying Crane]

Could just be your a bad teacher too.

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!!!

I knew you couldn't stay away for long...

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!!!

I knew you couldn't stay away for long...

I think he is calling you out FlyingCrane. :rofl:

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

It is always good to have Xue Sheng posting with us!

Having said that let us get back to the topic of efficiency!

 

[Bigshadow]

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!!!

I knew you couldn't stay away for long...

I totally missed that one! :rofl:

 

[Xue Sheng]

NOT BLOODY LIKELY!!!

I knew you couldn't stay away for long...

umm well aaa....Well I didn't mean you specifically just the you that was used in the example....

I think he is calling you out FlyingCrane. :rofl:

OK I admit it..... instigator

And now back to the topic, I like this one

 

[pete]

the topic of efficiency is based on what the ultimate goal of your training is.

if you just want to be a badass fighter, learn the rules of the ring or the road (yes, the proverbial street has rules to, they are just called laws) and train hard towards victory by those rules.

if the ultimate goal of your training is to be a better human being, be careful what you strip out in the name of efficiency.

to flying crane, there is probably a middle ground where you can teach students multiple arts more efficiently, by recognizing and consolidating overlaps between those arts as traditionally taught, and still not sacrificing quality and overall effectiveness. prob'ly harder than it seems though!

 

[morph4me]

Hey Dave,

This is a very interesting topic. Efficiency is something we are all striving for in the martial sciences. You first learn in this field through repetition both physically and mentally. Once you have it (whatever you are studying) then you can fine tune it to a point of doing the most with the least effort.

Transmitting to other practitioners:

Teaching can only be shortened for you students if they can grasp where you are going. Since everyone learns at a different level some people will pick it up fast and others will struggle. That is just the way it works. However as a teacher I try to find what each individual needs to learn and how they learn it best so that they will learn it quickly and efficiently. Sometimes it works and sometimes it will not. Having said that students that practice IRT generally benefit because of how the delivery system is set up. They do not need to go through all of the painful, learning and unlearning that I had to. (At least not on the same scale)

Yeah, what he said

 

[Flying Crane]

umm well aaa....Well I didn't mean you specifically just the you that was used in the example....



OK I admit it..... instigator

And now back to the topic, I like this one

Welcome back, by the way