Exercises for being more light-footed?

[Gerry Seymour]

The thing is, it isn’t difficult to teach. Anyone who can describe technique and movement should be able to do it, if they understand it. It isn’t vague or mystical. I’ve done it many times here in the forums.

But it does take a methodology to build the skill, and a lot of work. I guess if there is no methodology in place, then it can be unclear how to proceed. Understanding the goal is one thing, knowing how to achieve it is another.

Agreed.

Oddly, I find some of these drills most helpful for folks who struggle with conventional drills, because deliberately trying to use their legs to power, for instance, confuses them. Giving them a drill that has a different focus (but in the end produces the same muscular movement) works better for them. I think it’s because of the way the restrictive part lets them not pay attention to something else.

The most notable example of this was a young woman with a neurological disorder. It wasn’t severe, but did affect her motor coordination. Traditional drills were much easier for her to work with, and got her to proper mechanics. I also find many of them work well for solo practice after they have some kind of grip on the actual mechanics, so I tend to use them either for helping folks who are struggling, or as add-on drills after they’ve started getting the concept.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sometimes, it's not being unwilling, but not knowing how to teach it. I've seen a lot of people reach high skill levels, with a lot finesse and subtle technique -- but not know what they are doing. If they're honest, you seem them get frustrated working with students who can't get those subtleties and the teacher just can't show them what they're doing wrong... If they're not honest, it's uglier.

In my experience, this is especially true for folks who found it easy to learn. My personal example of this is ukemi (falls and rolls). I was fantastic at them (am still pretty good, but age and lack of practice cut into the skill a good bit). As an instructor, I'm....maybe average at teaching them. I never struggled with them, so don't have a lot of personal experience figuring them out. They are probably the thing I'm worst at teaching. They only saving grace I have is that my primary instructor was the opposite. Over the years, I saw a lot of the tricks he used to help folks who were struggling.

 

[Flying Crane]

Agreed.

Oddly, I find some of these drills most helpful for folks who struggle with conventional drills, because deliberately trying to use their legs to power, for instance, confuses them. Giving them a drill that has a different focus (but in the end produces the same muscular movement) works better for them. I think it’s because of the way the restrictive part lets them not pay attention to something else.

The most notable example of this was a young woman with a neurological disorder. It wasn’t severe, but did affect her motor coordination. Traditional drills were much easier for her to work with, and got her to proper mechanics. I also find many of them work well for solo practice after they have some kind of grip on the actual mechanics, so I tend to use them either for helping folks who are struggling, or as add-on drills after they’ve started getting the concept.

My opinion is that all too often people expect students to pick up the concept and then be able to develop that skill, within the greater context of doing other things. What ends up happening is that it amounts to lip-service, with very little ground covered.

What needs to happen is that a series of drills and exercises that progressively develop the skill on its own, and then gradually applies it within the context of other things, like defensive/combative application. But if it isn’t isolated and developed first, most people will never really grasp it and internalize it. And this is something that we never graduate beyond, meaning it needs to be a constant part of training, always. We don’t reach a point where we can say, I’ve got that, and no longer need to work on it. Instead, it always needs polishing and developing. If it is given that kind of attention, then Absolutely everything that one does is improved at the same time.

 

[jks9199]

In my experience, this is especially true for folks who found it easy to learn. My personal example of this is ukemi (falls and rolls). I was fantastic at them (am still pretty good, but age and lack of practice cut into the skill a good bit). As an instructor, I'm....maybe average at teaching them. I never struggled with them, so don't have a lot of personal experience figuring them out. They are probably the thing I'm worst at teaching. They only saving grace I have is that my primary instructor was the opposite. Over the years, I saw a lot of the tricks he used to help folks who were struggling.

Oh, yeah... A natural athlete in any sport is very seldom able to explain why or how they do it... For them, they "just do it!" They don't get that they picked up on a bunch of subtle connections and kinetic links that let them do it, because they didn't have to find them -- they were "naturally" there for them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sometimes, it's not being unwilling, but not knowing how to teach it. I've seen a lot of people reach high skill levels, with a lot finesse and subtle technique -- but not know what they are doing. If they're honest, you seem them get frustrated working with students who can't get those subtleties and the teacher just can't show them what they're doing wrong... If they're not honest, it's uglier.

It difficult to teach things that are natural because we do them without thought. I'm always have this challenge and I don't realize that I left something out until I see the student struggle. The fix for me is to pay attention to the struggles of the student. Then find out what I'm leaving out. I have to take a deeper look into what I'm doing and compare it to what I'm saying. Usually I can fill the gaps and teach what's needed. But sometimes I can't.

Things that suddenly come to understanding and things that I feel my way into are the most difficult to do. The best time to ask me how that stuff work is when I'm learning it myself.

 

[jks9199]

Another, related challenge is going back to the basics if you don't do it regularly... It's sometimes really hard to either drop sublties out or do things "big" enough for a beginner to see them when you've deeply integrated and really smoothed them out.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Another, related challenge is going back to the basics if you don't do it regularly... It's sometimes really hard to either drop sublties out or do things "big" enough for a beginner to see them when you've deeply integrated and really smoothed them out.

I stay focused on the basics, that is where the real magic is for me. I drill it into students that there is no real skill without a rock solid foundation.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Oh, yeah... A natural athlete in any sport is very seldom able to explain why or how they do it... For them, they "just do it!" They don't get that they picked up on a bunch of subtle connections and kinetic links that let them do it, because they didn't have to find them -- they were "naturally" there for them.

These sorts are exceedingly rare, but I have a couple. One of my 5 year students gets it in an uncanny way.

 

[Flying Crane]

Another, related challenge is going back to the basics if you don't do it regularly... It's sometimes really hard to either drop sublties out or do things "big" enough for a beginner to see them when you've deeply integrated and really smoothed them out.

Basics and foundational material should be 80% of your training, always. I know a lot of people don’t like to hear that. People often want to do fancy stuff that they think is advanced. Advanced is simply basics done to a high level of skill. There really is no separate category of advanced. I guess I should revise my above statement. Foundational work and basics should be 80%, and 20% should be basics and foundational material worked from a more complex context.

 

[drop bear]

Another, related challenge is going back to the basics if you don't do it regularly... It's sometimes really hard to either drop sublties out or do things "big" enough for a beginner to see them when you've deeply integrated and really smoothed them out.

I do a lot of them in this incorrect way that I think helps people understand the nature of the movement a bit easier.

So say for example instead of switching I will do 2 steps

 

[J. Pickard]

Although I'm quite pleased with my progress in learning the basics, I'm still coming up against a limitation: being a bit heavy-footed. As footwork is so foundational, I wanted to tap the experts here on what exercises I could do on my own to be a little less like a human slab of lead and more nimble in footwork. I'm a bit top-heavy from weightlifting, but that is not an excuse since I've seen people with much bigger muscles than me really move. I've got the flexibility and good upper body speed, but it still feels like I've got weights tied to my darn feet!

Would others recommend jumping exercises? I'm just at a loss for how to improve upon this (I mean, apart from piping helium into my body - lol!). My thanks in advance for everyone's help!

Agility ladders are great. A quick youtube search will give you tons of great ideas on how to use it. If you don't have an agility ladder you can just mark a line on the floor using string, tape, or anything really and it works just as well.

 

[jks9199]

Basics and foundational material should be 80% of your training, always. I know a lot of people don’t like to hear that. People often want to do fancy stuff that they think is advanced. Advanced is simply basics done to a high level of skill. There really is no separate category of advanced. I guess I should revise my above statement. Foundational work and basics should be 80%, and 20% should be basics and foundational material worked from a more complex context.

I stay focused on the basics, that is where the real magic is for me. I drill it into students that there is no real skill without a rock solid foundation.

The heart of my training is basics -- but that doesn't mean it's easy to "back up" to a beginner. One problem is trying to teach too many of the pieces you know go into a given technique, which means it takes forever (especially in a brand new student's eyes!) to actually teach a single punch. Another is that there are subtleties that you've integrated and smoothed together and are no longer consciously doing them... but if you don't remember and break them out, the students don't get why things don't work...

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

The heart of my training is basics -- but that doesn't mean it's easy to "back up" to a beginner. One problem is trying to teach too many of the pieces you know go into a given technique, which means it takes forever (especially in a brand new student's eyes!) to actually teach a single punch. Another is that there are subtleties that you've integrated and smoothed together and are no longer consciously doing them... but if you don't remember and break them out, the students don't get why things don't work...

Man! That is wonderful expression in writing. It would have taken me 2 pages and 5 tangents to get that point out. I experienced this very thing while teaching last night. I realized that economy of language is as important as content. You put it in perfect perspective.

 

[Flying Crane]

The heart of my training is basics -- but that doesn't mean it's easy to "back up" to a beginner. One problem is trying to teach too many of the pieces you know go into a given technique, which means it takes forever (especially in a brand new student's eyes!) to actually teach a single punch. Another is that there are subtleties that you've integrated and smoothed together and are no longer consciously doing them... but if you don't remember and break them out, the students don't get why things don't work...

I agree with the message here.

We actually systematically break it down to teach how the body engages fully, before we ever teach any actual technique/punch. Understand some full-body mechanics first. Then, introduce how to use those mechanics to throw a powerful punch.

Then drill the hell out of it.

 

[jks9199]

I agree with the message here.

We actually systematically break it down to teach how the body engages fully, before we ever teach any actual technique/punch. Understand some full-body mechanics first. Then, introduce how to use those mechanics to throw a powerful punch.

Then drill the hell out of it.

I often use an analogy of building a road. If you try to start by making the first foot a perfect, polished road, it'll take forever to get anywhere. But if you start by marking the path, then clearing it, then laying the foundation, and so on... you'll get a usable path, that you can then improve. When I teach a new student, I try to get about 3 keys covered thoroughly first, with a few more mentioned or shown but not focused on. Then I, each class, or even a few times in the class, I add a little more. So the first keys might be body position, two hands moving, and the "shape" of the strike (vertical fist, turn fist, hook, etc.). Later I might add pieces like timing of the wrist turn, lock and release, etc.

 

[jks9199]

Man! That is wonderful expression in writing. It would have taken me 2 pages and 5 tangents to get that point out. I experienced this very thing while teaching last night. I realized that economy of language is as important as content. You put it in perfect perspective.

Thanks for the complement. I might have explained it a time or two...