From Brazilian Jiu Jitsu to Japanese Jiu Jitsu

[Deleted member 40465]

There are gray areas at times. Sometimes in protective services the need to hold someone and calm them down comes into play.

Yep, but in those cases you generally don’t apply techniques which are designed to break limbs or choke someone unconscious. Any good grappler should know ways to control someone without damaging them.

That post was just a joke, I shouldn't have posted that.

Hold them in an omoplata without applying pressure so they can't move until the police arrive.

Less likely to get sued that way.

 

[CKB]

Its not my intention to be disrespectful to anyone's training, but Hapkidos philosophies are fundamental to 3 things, live hand, movement (the 8 directions) and T stance, yes break falls are important as are the redirection of force, circular movement etc, just watch any video of a competent Hapkidoist, or watch Ji Han Jae fight scene in game of death, or the final fight scene in Young master, watch the hands, movement and foot placement, every move leads to the next, also, when I trained the training syllabus of IHF is, you work your way up to 1st Dan grading requirements, but in order to obtain 1st Dan, the grading contains all grading techniques from white belt up to 1st Dan to be performed in order to receive the 1st Dan, you then work on 2nd dan syllabus, but to pass 2nd dan grading, all grading syllabus from white belt to 2nd Dan must be performed, left and right side in order to achieve a pass, same in 3rd Dan, that is why it took 6 hours of grading to obtain my 3rd Dan (+ time for breaks), this is done to maintain quality of the techniques, and any teacher knows exactly what is required at any stage of teaching up to one belt below what they hold, so if this person did train IHF, he should remember the very 1st technique taught.

I don’t know what your issue is, and frankly, I don’t care, I have never claimed to be part of IHF, and I have been honest about my lineage from the start. I have also never stated anything that could be reasonably interpreted as «not knowing what a live hand is», or that I «don’t remember it what a live hand is». Of course I know what a live hand is. I have never said anything else.

What I HAVE said, is that I don’t remember the first thing I was ever taught in Hapkido, for the simple reason that I don’t have photographic memory, and my first exposure to Hapkido was at a seminar back in the early ninethies, when Taekwondo was my main art and the Hapkido seminar was simply something I attended in the hope of learning a new thing or two. Hell, most of the time don’t even remember what I had for dinner yesterday.

As to the order of techniques I teach, it depends on whatever I feel I want to teach there and then. Yes, we have a curriculum, and yes, it does ofcourse include live hand, but no, we are not super rigid as to the exact order things are taught, as long as people know what they need at the time of gradings. I usually prefer to teach deflection and diagonal movement first, because that is how I like to do it. If that blows some of your fuses, it is not my problem. As to wether or not you think that disqualifies me from calling what I teach Hapkido, you can look up my linage in the linage thread and have a further discussion on that matter with yourself.

Other than that, I really have no further wish to talk to you, as you come across as a very unpleasant, extremely rigid, and generally unreasonable person, with an approach to Hapkido that reminds me of religious fundamentalism, more than anything else. I am sorry for whatever happened to you that made you that way, but I don’t see why it should continue to affect my enjoyment of this board, so I’m going to ignore you now.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Its not my intention to be disrespectful to anyone's training, but Hapkidos philosophies are fundamental to 3 things, live hand, movement (the 8 directions) and T stance, yes break falls are important as are the redirection of force, circular movement etc, just watch any video of a competent Hapkidoist, or watch Ji Han Jae fight scene in game of death, or the final fight scene in Young master, watch the hands, movement and foot placement, every move leads to the next, also, when I trained the training syllabus of IHF is, you work your way up to 1st Dan grading requirements, but in order to obtain 1st Dan, the grading contains all grading techniques from white belt up to 1st Dan to be performed in order to receive the 1st Dan, you then work on 2nd dan syllabus, but to pass 2nd dan grading, all grading syllabus from white belt to 2nd Dan must be performed, left and right side in order to achieve a pass, same in 3rd Dan, that is why it took 6 hours of grading to obtain my 3rd Dan (+ time for breaks), this is done to maintain quality of the techniques, and any teacher knows exactly what is required at any stage of teaching up to one belt below what they hold, so if this person did train IHF, he should remember the very 1st technique taught.

Even with a set order like that, any given instructor could start with something other than what you think is the first thing taught. The first technique tested for rank in any NGA school I'm aware of is 1st Wrist Technique. It's about the 50th thing I teach, and about the 10th thing taught in most NGA schools. I'm passingly familiar with Hapkido, and don't see why something outside the testing curriculum couldn't be the first thing taught. I'd imagine a block, a wrist escape, a starting stance, or a basic punch could be taught before anything else, with none of those being particularly dependent upon the others.

I remember the first thing I learned in NGA, only because it had a specific impact (in how different it was from what else I'd studied). I don't remember the first thing I was taught in Karate, Judo, or FMA, though I can take a reasonable guess at what each might be (based on the principles and progression). You asked a very specific question, which wasn't about what's most basic. You asked what a specific individual was taught first, assuming it must be the same answer you'd expect from your training. I'd challenge you to re-think that the art is so inflexible that it cannot have any shifting of the order of what is taught.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Naw. If someone is running a school/teaching (in bjj at least) it's up to them to make sure the students aren't going to hard for their skill level. If you are letting your beginner students get physically demolished, you are an objectively bad instructor.

I was referring to your post replying to the idea of always honoring the tap-out.

 

[drop bear]

I was referring to your post replying to the idea of always honoring the tap-out.

Regardless if you couldn't out grapple the guy the first time. Are you going to do it the second?

 

[Martial D]

Regardless if you couldn't out grapple the guy the first time. Are you going to do it the second?

Sometimes ya. Sometimes you get em, sometimes you get got.

 

[Deleted member 40465]

Interesting. You can still leave ratings for members on your ignore list.

 

[Gweilo]

Even with a set order like that, any given instructor could start with something other than what you think is the first thing taught. The first technique tested for rank in any NGA school I'm aware of is 1st Wrist Technique. It's about the 50th thing I teach, and about the 10th thing taught in most NGA schools. I'm passingly familiar with Hapkido, and don't see why something outside the testing curriculum couldn't be the first thing taught. I'd imagine a block, a wrist escape, a starting stance, or a basic punch could be taught before anything else, with none of those being particularly dependent upon the others.

I remember the first thing I learned in NGA, only because it had a specific impact (in how different it was from what else I'd studied). I don't remember the first thing I was taught in Karate, Judo, or FMA, though I can take a reasonable guess at what each might be (based on the principles and progression). You asked a very specific question, which wasn't about what's most basic. You asked what a specific individual was taught first, assuming it must be the same answer you'd expect from your training. I'd challenge you to re-think that the art is so inflexible that it cannot have any shifting of the order of what is taught.

I will conceded the fact, that a teacher can indeed, change the basis of how basics are taught, they may feel break falls are more important, and it has been a while (11 years), since I trained in the art, however the top Hapkidoists when I trained, and in subsequent interviews all stated, the 1st thing that a student should be taught are the 3 principles non resistance to force, circular movement, and the water principle, these 3 principles are taught along with live hand, the 8 directions, and the T stance which are a reminder and an example of the 3 founding principles, if this most basic thing is not taught and understood from the outset, the essence of the art is missed and will not conform to true Hapkido, it was what I was taught, when I trained, it was how it was taught by Korean Hapkidoists in the USA and in Korea. But I will conceded things change, arts diversify, and we move on, I would like to apologise if in my posts if I have offended anyone.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Regardless if you couldn't out grapple the guy the first time. Are you going to do it the second?

Sorry, I can't make sense of that, DB. Can you reword for me?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Interesting. You can still leave ratings for members on your ignore list.

Yep. You can still read their posts, too, if you choose.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I will conceded the fact, that a teacher can indeed, change the basis of how basics are taught, they may feel break falls are more important, and it has been a while (11 years), since I trained in the art, however the top Hapkidoists when I trained, and in subsequent interviews all stated, the 1st thing that a student should be taught are the 3 principles non resistance to force, circular movement, and the water principle, these 3 principles are taught along with live hand, the 8 directions, and the T stance which are a reminder and an example of the 3 founding principles, if this most basic thing is not taught and understood from the outset, the essence of the art is missed and will not conform to true Hapkido, it was what I was taught, when I trained, it was how it was taught by Korean Hapkidoists in the USA and in Korea. But I will conceded things change, arts diversify, and we move on, I would like to apologise if in my posts if I have offended anyone.

Okay, I can see how that might be a common (if not ubiquitous) approach. But that seems conceptual. How do you teach those things first? It seems there could be several approaches, all with the aim of teaching those first.

I'll give you an analogy from my own experience. The first thing I learned in NGA was wrist escapes. Or was it? Those were used to start immediately teaching grip control, soft/strong reactions, and avoiding force-on-force. So, if you asked me the first thing I was taught, I could answer any of those things, and that might or might not match what any given instructor says should be taught first: they might say "soft/strong reactions", and I might say "grip releases." While I think one is part of the other, they seem like not the same answer.

 

[CKB]

I simply cannot let Gweilo's claims about how Hapkido is generally taught around the world stand unchallenged, and while I am sure that this post will be met with another form of the no true scotsman fallacy, I will not accept Gweilo self-appointed role as sole holder of the power of definition for how Hapkido is taught worldwide.

I have no clue as to why Gweilo seemingly goes out of his way to discredit me, and even twist my words to confirm with this attempt, simply because I didn't answer his question about the first technique I ever learned to his satisfaction, but I suspect it has something to do with a wish to present his own Hapkido style as the sole, true Hapkido, in true religious fundamentalism-style, which would make everyone else, including me, imposters and heretics.

First, let's look at his claims, and see how it confirms to the real world.

however the top Hapkidoists when I trained, and in subsequent interviews all stated, the 1st thing that a student should be taught are the 3 principles non resistance to force, circular movement, and the water principle, these 3 principles are taught along with live hand, the 8 directions, and the T stance which are a reminder and an example of the 3 founding principles, if this most basic thing is not taught and understood from the outset, the essence of the art is missed and will not conform to true Hapkido.

While this may or may not be true for Gweilo's organization (I have no clue, as I haven't trained in his org), there are a multitude of Hapkido organizations out there, and even more schools, with very diverse approaches to teaching Hapkido. Anyone can do (and should do, to put Gweilo's claims in perspective) a simple google search for "Hapkido Curriculum", and find countless examples that all doesn't just differ from each other, but also differ from Gweilo's claims of how things are supposed to be.

I have also attended seminars under grand master Bong Soo Han, Kwang Sik myung, Tae Man Kwon, and Jong Bae Rim in the US, who have similar training syllabus.

Anyhow, let's look at the curriculums of various Hapkido organisations, led by high level grandmasters with well documented linages, and see how they confirm with Gweilo's claims above.:

1. Kwan Nyom / International Hapkido Alliance, led by Geoff Booth 8th dan. Geoff also recieved a 10th dan from Ji Han Jae, but is reluctant to use that dan, as he (according to himself), feels he has not earned that high a degree yet.

The term Kwan Nyom can be translated as "School of Concepts", and its self defined style of Hapkido with a curriculum that is conceptualy based with two new concepts introduced at each level. His entire curriculum is available on video, of which I own a set. In the videos, he begins with introducing proper stances, and then goes onto strikes and kicks, before moving onto the concepts. The first concept introduced in the IHA/Kwan Nyom curriculum is, interestingly enough, Evasive Movement, and is more specifically focused on deflection and angular movement. The live hand is introduced in the second concept, called Circular Releases. In other words, Geoff Booth begins with the same concept as I do when teaching my own students.

Also, here is a link to a video of a seminar by Geoff Booth in Poland in 2016, that seems to be open to anyone (just as with my first seminar back in the day) judging by the variation of stylists present, where he begins the seminar with knife defenses, and not live hand.

Conclusion: Geoff Booth (and by Proxy Ji Han Jae, as he gave Geoff Booth his 10th dan AFTER Geoff Booth started his own style) doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido, and doesn't teach it in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.


2. Bong Soo Han, and his IHF (one of three organizations calling themselves IHF). It is well documented that Bong Soo Han trained with both Choi Yong-Sool and Ji Han Jae, before starting his own organization.

Luckily for us, Bong Soo Han also committed his entire curriculum up to 1st. dan to video (of which I own a set) before he died, and also wrote a book on the basics of his art (which I own two copies of), giving us an insight into what his emphasis is.

In both the book and the videos, he starts with Tan Jon breathing, before moving onto proper fighting stance, and angular movement. He then goes onto teaching kicks and strikes before returning to angular movement, and showing how that can be combined with deflection to defend against basic punches. Live hand doesn't show up in his yellow belt curriculum at all, and isn't present until his orange belt curriculum, when teaching wrist hold defenses. In other words, he emphasizes the same thing as I do, BEFORE moving onto live hand and wrist releases.

Conclusion: Bong Soo Han doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido, and doesn't teach it in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.


3. Yun Bee Kwan / World Hapkido General Federation, and GM Shahram Lashgari 7th dan, a student of Kim Jung Soo 9th dan, one of the original students of Choi Yong-soo. Yun Bee Kwan is one of the recognized kwans of the Korean Hapkido Federation (KHF).

This is my own instructor, who holds open seminars every other month, as well as closed seminars for his black belts. In his open seminars, he tend to focus on different things each seminar, which means that for people showing up at his seminars, their first technique depends on which seminar they first showed up at.

In 2013, his entire year of open seminar was filmed, which is great since while I was present at most of those, I have no clue as to what was taught at each, and the videos gives me an oportunity to actually see what he emphasized at each seminar. And lo and behold, only one of those actually starts with a discussion of live hand, meaning that for everyone without Hapkido-experience who showed up at any of the other seminars that year, their first technique would be something else. And many of those later became students of his, and would then also answer «wrong» according to how Gweilo thinks anyone who has trained real Hapkido ought to answer the question of what their first technique learned was.

GM Lashgari has also filmed his own curriculum up to first dan as a reference to his instructors (not available for sale), and the first thing he starts with at white belt level in this curriculum is breakfalls. Discussion on the live hand shows up in the first technique after that, but in general, his curriculum is structured differently from Gweilo's outline above, and GM Lashgari has also made it clear that it is up to the instructors under him to structure their teaching in they way they see fit, as long as their students know what they should know when it is time for grading.

Also, he was not my first Hapkido instructor, so the emphasis in his curriculum doesn't even apply to me in terms of what was the first technique I ever learned. As I said above, I have no recollection of what technique that even was, as I was one of those "outsiders" who had my first exposure to Hapkido showing up at an open seminar in the ninethies.

Conclusion: GM Shahram Lashgari, and by proxy, his instructor Kim Jung Soo, doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido, and doesn't teach it in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.


4. Jin Jung Kwan, founded by Kim Myung Yong, 9th dan, one of the original students of Ji Han Jae, who he began to train under in 1958.

This style of Hapkido was started in 1967 by an original student of Ji Han Jae, and has a general policy of open enrolment meaning that the first technique a student is exposed to varies according to when that student began training.

The curriculum of this style is also well documented in several books and a video series, all of which I own copies of. The first thing emphasized in the first book is tan jun breathing, before moving onto basic kicks and strikes.

In his video series, the first emphasis is proper stances, and he then moves onto tan jun breathing and then basic strikes as a response to wrist grabs (where the live hand shows up for the first time). He then moves onto proper break falls.

Conclusion: GM Kim Myung Yong, and by proxy, his instructor Ji Han Jae, doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido, and doesn't teach it in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.


5. World Hapkido Martial Arts Federation and GM Don Oh Choi, 9th dan.

The Korea-based WHMAF has written detailed books documenting their whole curriculum, and the order of techniques taught. Their first emphasis, is Tan Jun breathing, and then they go on to proper stances, basic movement and basic strikes. Live hand shows up after that.

Conclusion: GM Don Oh Choi doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido, and doesn't teach it in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.

6. International Daemoo Hapkido Martial Art Association, and GM Tae Man Kwon, 9th dan.

GM Tae Man Kwon has listed his whole curriculum online, as well as described how a regular session is structured in his school. It goes as following:

"Master Kwon teaches students in classes between 60 and 90 minutes. The first part of the class begins with a series of exercises to build strength and flexibility, followed by group practice covering the basic punching kicking, falling and rolling techniques. Students are then paired with other students of similar level to practice their individual techniques."

In other words, any new student to his school will first be taught basic punching and kicking, as well as rolling, before moving on to partner exercises. Instruction in live hand will, according to Tae Man Kwon himself, not be the first technique a new student learns.

Conclusion: GM Tae Man Kwon both does and doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido in the two alternative realities that is Gweilo's claims and GM Kwon's own words, and we can therefore conclude that he both does and doesn't teach Hapkido in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.

7. Combat Hapkido, and GM John Peligrini, 9th dan.

While Combat Hapkido is usually refered to as a descendant art of Hapkido, it is still interesting to see their focus. As John Peligrini has made three different video series documenting his curriculum as his art evolved over the years, as well as written multiple books, it is easy to see what he emphasises. His current curriculum begins with breakfalls, and then goes onto proper stance, and basic strikes and kicks. The previous version of his curriculum began with an emphasis on proper stance and basic strikes, before moving onto wrist hold releases, where the concept of the live hand shows up for the first time.

Conclusion: GM John Peligrini doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido, and doesn't teach it in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.

Kwang Sik Myung 10th dan, and The World Hapkido Federation.

While I don't have access to the entirety of the WHF curriculum, I have several videos of GM Kwang Sik Myung and his students presenting the basics of the art, as they see fit to do so. None of these are structured exactly the way described by Gweilo above, and that discrepancy follows the trend of all the other examples above. In the two videos on WHF Hapkido published by Budovideos.com, for example, the focus is firstly on Tan Jun breathing in both, and then on offensive armbar (kal nu ki) in one, and on basic hand strikes in the second.

One could ofcourse argue that a video doesn't present a real overview of how the art is actually taught in the real world, but isn't it strange that in EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE ABOVE, the emphasis and order of what is taught differens from Gweilo's outline? Isn't that a tad strange if, as he claims, everyone worth their salt in the Hapkido world, always introduces techniques and concepts in a certain way and order?

Conclusion: GM Kwang Sik Myung both does and doesn't have a true understanding of Hapkido in the two alternative realities that is Gweilo's claims and GM Kwang's own words, and we can therefore conclude that he both does and doesn't teach Hapkido in the correct way, according to Gweilo, the 3rd dan self-appointed sole defender of the true path of Hapkido.

I could go on and on and on, but I think I have made my point.

Overall conclusion:

The claims of a common and universal approach to how Hapkido is taught, as presented by Gweilo above, is simply not in accordance with the vast diversity of how Hapkido is taught in the real world. While I would have no problem accepting the claim that Gweilo's outline is how things are done in his own organization, his attempt at presenting this as the gold standard and only correct way to teach Hapkido, and thereby discrediting anyone who doesn't do thing exactly as he presents them, has been shown to not hold water.

While I have no hope that any of what is presented above will actually open up Gweilo's mind to the actual diversity in how Hapkido is taught out there, I presented this list in the hope that it makes it clear to anyone who has read his claims in this thread, thay they are not factual, and that his statements on how Hapkido should be taught, is probably more an expression of his own fundamentalism and rigidity of thought, than any reflection on how Hapkido is taught in the real world.

I now consider myself finished with this ordeal, and will not do any more follow ups on Gweilo's wild claims, nor un-ignore him (or her, whatever applies) for the time being, as I'm quite fed up with him and his ********. Nuff said.

 

[Deleted member 40465]

Scratch that.

Which style is best for wrist, and finger locks/holds?

Thumb locks?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Scratch that.

Which style is best for wrist, and finger locks/holds?

That’s tough to define. Several systems have them, and their applicability is arguable. Hapkido and NGA have similar approaches - both derived from Daito-ryu. Other JJJ styles have similar locks.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Scratch that.

Which style is best for wrist, and finger locks/holds?

Thumb locks?

Not saying all know or many can teach you or will, but if you know any police constables. They tend to learn that as its semi useful to their progression. (and they don't tend to care about style and just do what they do) Thats at least a real life source you can use if you have it.

Probably not relevant however.

 

[Gweilo]

@Christian Bjørnsrud , 1st I know longer train in Hapkido and have not trained in the art for 11 years, so I have no vested interest in mocking the art, on the contrary I enjoyed the art very much, and had federation and club politics been different I would still be training Hapkido.
You can claim, I claim to be a self proclaimed protector of Hapkido, I made no such claim, I spent a lot of time, effort and money, travelling throughout Europe, the US, and Korea to attend Hapkido seminars and training courses and student exchange schemes, and can only relay what I was taught, in your post you proclaimed to own a lot of material on grading syllabus, from prominent Hapkidoists, from different federations, federations that have tried to merge over the years, which failed due to arguments over training syllabus, which they still do, IHF, WHF, KHF, all have a different view as to grading and training regimes what they do have in common are the 3 main principles, which you did not mention in your who's who of Hapkido. To use teachers from different federations to back up your claim my argument is wrong, when the said federations cannot agree on training content is smoke and mirrors, as you make no mention of the training of the arts principles, HAP KI Do, the way of co-ordinated power, I have already conceded I no longer train in the art, I am old and out of touch, and can only relay on what I was taught, I will say, when I trained in South Korea for six months, we did spend hours in T stance moving up and down the dojang, moving forward backwards moving the legs in a sweeping circular motion, forwards backwards, turning, we would spend 2-3 hours placing either arm out in front of us, relaxed, and then exploding the live hand, but it would seem you and I are never to agree, you know best, with your 2 hours 3 times a week training, as I stated earlier, I no longer train in the art, I was just relaying what I knew, I have no gain from knocking the art, there are no Hapkido schools near me at present, I really enjoyed the art, but I do truely believe, m if you are going to learn an art, you need to understand the core principles of the art, as many good mixed artist say, learn the essence of the art, take away what is useful, and discard the rest, best of luck in your future training, seeing as you are ignoring me.

 

[wab25]

I don't think that any instructor, in any art, is any good... if he teaches the same first technique to every student. Or, if he teaches the same first core principle to every student. The reality is that every student is unique and different. They come with different expectations, with different abilities and different backgrounds. While you may teach the same curriculum to them all, they all start from very different places. Even as they progress through the same curriculum, they will have different challenges, different questions and different hang ups.

The good instructors are the ones that can take different people, from different starting points and bring them through the same curriculum. This means addressing different people differently... in order to teach them the same thing. A good teacher takes people from where they are to where they need to be. That means teaching each one a bit different.

If you have a bunch of people scattered around a soccer field, and you wanted them all on the midfield line... you could look at Bob, and then tell everyone to take 3 steps to the right. Then only Bob would be on the midfield line. There are some people both further and closer to the line, that would need a different number of steps. About half of the people are already to the right of the line and would need to be given the opposite instruction to the first group... move left instead of right.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think that any instructor, in any art, is any good... if he teaches the same first technique to every student. Or, if he teaches the same first core principle to every student. The reality is that every student is unique and different. They come with different expectations, with different abilities and different backgrounds. While you may teach the same curriculum to them all, they all start from very different places. Even as they progress through the same curriculum, they will have different challenges, different questions and different hang ups.

The good instructors are the ones that can take different people, from different starting points and bring them through the same curriculum. This means addressing different people differently... in order to teach them the same thing. A good teacher takes people from where they are to where they need to be. That means teaching each one a bit different.

If you have a bunch of people scattered around a soccer field, and you wanted them all on the midfield line... you could look at Bob, and then tell everyone to take 3 steps to the right. Then only Bob would be on the midfield line. There are some people both further and closer to the line, that would need a different number of steps. About half of the people are already to the right of the line and would need to be given the opposite instruction to the first group... move left instead of right.

I agree with the overall principle, but does that always apply to the very first thing taught? Now, I probably teach the same exact first thing to only about 20% of my students - but that's just because I'm easily distracted. I've seen very good instructors who apparently always start at the same place, and use the reaction to that start (speed of adoption, difficulty in learning, etc.) to determine how to proceed. If the starting point is sufficiently basic that anyone can start there, it can also be used for more advanced starters (those with complementary experience) to start assessing what they already know. For instance, if I started every student with wrist releases (the first thing I learned in NGA), I'd quickly get some useful information about range of motion, fine and gross motor control, balance, ability to follow directions, understanding of the vocabulary I use, etc. I can't see any reason that couldn't be the first thing covered with every student who walks in, unless there's something truly exceptional involved.

 

[wab25]

I agree with the overall principle, but does that always apply to the very first thing taught? Now, I probably teach the same exact first thing to only about 20% of my students - but that's just because I'm easily distracted. I've seen very good instructors who apparently always start at the same place, and use the reaction to that start (speed of adoption, difficulty in learning, etc.) to determine how to proceed. If the starting point is sufficiently basic that anyone can start there, it can also be used for more advanced starters (those with complementary experience) to start assessing what they already know. For instance, if I started every student with wrist releases (the first thing I learned in NGA), I'd quickly get some useful information about range of motion, fine and gross motor control, balance, ability to follow directions, understanding of the vocabulary I use, etc. I can't see any reason that couldn't be the first thing covered with every student who walks in, unless there's something truly exceptional involved.

So, are you really teaching that first technique or are you testing the student, with that first technique? Semantics aside, you certainly can start in the same place, to learn about your student, then very where you go from there. But, this is a case where what you are doing is not to follow the curriculum, but ascertain how to best adapt your approach to the curriculum for that student.

I also think that as good as your first technique is at telling you what you need to know about a new student, there will be times when you already know things about the student. Either you know the student, you were informed or you notice things as you meet them. If what is best for the student, is to start somewhere else, the good teacher will start somewhere else... without any thought to "I must start here." I guess its intention. Are you teaching this first because its step 1 on the curriculum? Are you teaching this first because it is what you need in order to learn about your student? Are you teaching this first because it is where your student needs to start? I guess I sort of lump those last two together.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, are you really teaching that first technique or are you testing the student, with that first technique? Semantics aside, you certainly can start in the same place, to learn about your student, then very where you go from there. But, this is a case where what you are doing is not to follow the curriculum, but ascertain how to best adapt your approach to the curriculum for that student.

I also think that as good as your first technique is at telling you what you need to know about a new student, there will be times when you already know things about the student. Either you know the student, you were informed or you notice things as you meet them. If what is best for the student, is to start somewhere else, the good teacher will start somewhere else... without any thought to "I must start here." I guess its intention. Are you teaching this first because its step 1 on the curriculum? Are you teaching this first because it is what you need in order to learn about your student? Are you teaching this first because it is where your student needs to start? I guess I sort of lump those last two together.

To give you an idea of how useful I find that as a first lesson (when I'm not distracted by something else I want to teach that day), I've even used it for a student transferring in from a nearby dojo, with 3 years of training within the same association. As one of the senior students, I was asked to run him through his paces and assess where he'd need some remediation (differences between schools, rather than actual weaknesses for the student). I still started with this, because it gives a quick baseline.

So, yeah, it might be semantics. If the student doesn't know it, I'd teach it. If they do know it (and I already know that), I'd normally start with it, anyway, to get a quick idea on some fundamental principles (how much strength do they depend on, how far have they gotten in their relaxation during technique, have they been taught unitized or linked movement, etc.). And that does get to my point - I could "teach" (again, semantics there - not always the actual correct word) the same thing to every starting student. The second thing I teach would vary dramatically between a brand-new, untrained, uncoordinated person, compared to that purple belt who changed schools.