How do you tell a beginner not to resist techniques?

[skribs]

The issue is probably in drills, not sparring. Essentially, it's folks not doing the drill by offering a resistance that would cause you to choose not use to the technique in question, but that's the technique you're supposed to work on in the drill.

In sparring and dynamic drills, it can also happen with folks who are being stubborn about a lock "working" and trying to muscle out of it. Some locks (especially small joints) have a really short area of pain, so if someone tries to muscle out of them, it can quickly result in injury if you continue the lock.

Exactly this, but even more so. This is at the stage where they're first learning the techniques. This is the stage before resistance should really be applied, and definitely before sparring. I have lots of options available if I were sparring them and they resisted the technique. I have a lot less options when I'm trying to teach a specific technique, because most of my options are other techniques.

 

[skribs]

Now I want to address how to deal with students that resist techniques in general. There are a few different ways that I use. Different people respond to different ways. I would like to say I can tell which way to use with each student... but I would be lying. I just keep trying different ways of explaining until one works. Here is the general order that I use.

1. Explain that we are training to learn to do the technique correctly now... we will resist later. Your partner needs you to comply for now, so that he can learn to do it properly.

2. You need to learn to receive this technique safely. There is someone out there that can do this to you, and there is nothing you can do to stop them... they are that good. So, we need to learn to receive the technique.

3. There are 3 places to counter a technique: before, during and after. You are really good at countering before. But, you need to learn to counter during and after. Countering during and after, mean you have to learn to receive the technique safely.

4. By receiving the technique, you are actually learning 75-80% of the reversal. Once you can receive the technique correctly... when we teach you the reversal, it will be very easy to learn, as you already learned the hard part.

5. Explain that countering this technique, is actually a set up for 3 other techniques. If that student can safely receive any of those others, then do them to him. If not, demonstrate with another uke who can.

6. Demonstration. I have the luxury of having a few uke who love to be thrown high and hard. I have them give the same resistance, and I really whip through and show the technique at full speed and power. "If you want to resist like that, then you are asking to be thrown like this... if you are not ready to take that fall, you may want to turn down your resistance, to a fall you can take."

Usually, one of those will get them in the right space to train. If I get someone that is really determined to resist everything and basically just being a jerk about it, having something to prove... I switch the class up to lot of rolling and falling and then to whatever that student likes doing the least. Then the student finds someplace else to train or just leaves. But, to keep that student, means someone is going to get hurt... either him or the person he is working with. So we weed them out. Its not worth risking my other students for. (this has only very rarely happened...)

I think #1 and #2 are the most important here. The others start to get into rabbit trails, which might be a bit much information for a beginner. That's a good way of describing it.

 

[dvcochran]

Being able to assess the class makeup helps but, of course, is not always possible. If you know who may fall into your description, putting them with someone who is bigger/stronger often lessens the occurrence.
One thing I seldom to is break down a drill from the very beginning. I will show it at speed with an experienced person, then usually have a few other experienced pairs show it as well. All the while, I am teaching the how/why and When the technique can be dangerous. This helps sets the environment and helps people take the right frame of mind. Only then will I break down the drill.
If someone is still intentionally resisting to much, I would have their partner step up the force and talk through the risks and why being a good partner is important for both people. It they still do not cooperate, I just set them down and explain why to them and the class. As I understand it, you have a big class so losing a lot of time trying to get one person to practice correctly is not a practical option.

You have to set the tone. Especially when you are in a room full of 'cocky' teenagers. Instead of starting with non-physically exerting drills, get them a little gassed and sparred up so they are aware, maybe even a little leery of contact. Find a way for them to have the presence and effect of contact/pain in the forefront, not some distant unreal construct. Not afraid of class at all but realizing they need to come prepared and mentally ready. That they have a responsibility to help the class run smoothly.

I would never do it in a way that may run a student off but let's be real. Mental/physical stress and pressure is at the heart of what we do. It is necessary to successfully learn and advance. Trying to teach something that carries risk without them also learning And understanding the inherent risk is the worst, most dangerous kind of teaching out there.
If we are not careful it can be at the heart of what some people call 'faith based' MA.

 

[wab25]

Most of those injuries happen at the beginner level (i.e. a beginner injuring a beginner). My fear is that if I exercise that control, the other person will view it as the technique doesn't work.

If you are the teacher for these beginners, you need to take control, and slow them down. They should not be injuring each other.

In my opinion, if you are going to teach wrist locks, you should be able to apply them effectively, and with control of both the lock and the other person, without risk of injury. Most of the locks you teach, you should be able to do well enough that you can control the other person, without them feeling pain or being close to injury. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be teaching them. Again, this is only my opinion here.

One thing you have to keep in mind is that I'm teaching. In this case, I'm teaching specifically the wristlock part of the technique.

Then you should teach the most important parts of the lock... the structure break and off balancing. Otherwise, you are just asking them to go force on force until something gives. The technique is about putting yourself into a position of advantage... so that you can overcome a bigger stronger opponent.

Another part of it is that slow, deliberate movements don't often work as well against resistance. It's a lot easier for my partner to step out of a throw if I'm doing it at 1/2 speed. It's easier for them to regain that structure so they can outmuscle the technique.

Work on breaking their structure and taking their balance. Going slow against a person resisting, is excellent training. Whether it is a throw or lock, you should be getting their balance on initial contact... that is followed by breaking their structure. Going slow makes you have to maintain the balance break and the structure break as you move. I am more impressed when I see a person do a lock or throw very slowly... because they have to have more control... anyone can whip through at full speed, and cover technical deficiency with more power.... until they can't.

It sounds like a lot of work should be put into breaking balance and breaking structure. Those should really be the first parts of wrist locks and throws. Both happen simultaneously at first contact. If you as the teacher can get that part down... you will be able to demonstrate the control to not make the dumb ones tap, but still make it very apparent that you are in control of the situation. You will also be able to make slow and deliberate movements work.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Wrist locks are tricky because they are defeated by good structure. And if you don't break the structure you mostly don't have the lock. Most drills for wrist locks are from them having good structure.

This is key, not only for wristlocks but for grappling techniques in general.

I don't often encounter a situation where students try to inappropriately resist the technique being drilled once their structure is properly broken for the technique. Generally at that point they can feel that something is likely to break if they fight against it. (The exception might be certain leglocks, such as heel hooks, where the damage can hit about the same time it starts hurting. However I warn students about that beforehand and so far I haven't had anyone try to muscle out of a heel hook.)

The issue usually comes when the student presents their training partner with an energy and structure which prevents the technique we're drilling from being properly setup in the first place. In that case I usually step in and explain the situation and demonstrate an alternative technique that I would use against someone using that energy and structure, then reassure them that we will be covering that scenario later, but we're covering this technique now and show the students the correct energy that the partner should be feeding for the current drill. So far that's worked pretty well.

 

[paitingman]

That's what happened in my class. I just worry that they'll get the wrong idea.

I get that. It's really a tough situation.
For SOME types of students, it's a slippery slope from being a bad training partner during these drills to posting on MT that no one on this planet can put them in a wrist lock.

Though I think that YOU could be the x factor here. If they don't fully understand the concept, but respect your general martial arts knowledge and teaching they may take your word for it and understand in time.
Not to say that students should just be taking their teacher's word for something, but have faith that with the guidance of you and your colleagues they will get it in time.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

However, one thing I see periodically in beginners is they try to resist a technique simply by out-muscling it or being "tougher" than their opponent, and that's how they end up getting hurt.

If your opponent has the correct angle, when he

- raises his elbow, and
- sinks down his hand,

no matter how strong that you may resist, you will go down.

To counter a wrist lock is not to resist against it but to change angle (such as to raise your elbow horizontally).

 

[skribs]

If they don't fully understand the concept, but respect your general martial arts knowledge and teaching they may take your word for it and understand in time.
Not to say that students should just be taking their teacher's word for something, but have faith that with the guidance of you and your colleagues they will get it in time.

This is a big reason why it's hard to advise people online whether their school is legit or not. It could be that your instructor doesn't know or doesn't care, or it could be he's holding back because you're a beginner.

 

[Headhunter]

There's also the fact that simply wrist locks don't work on everyone. I know this because they don't often work on me. I'm not saying that to sound big headed but it's kind of an inside joke at my karate place that wrist locks don't work much. They do sometimes but a lot of times I just don't feel them.

It's the same in bjj I've had positions where I've been in a full arm bar and not felt it, I've had kimuras up to my shoulder with no pain. I'm not saying they never work on me because they do sometimes but it's a thing to consider

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am getting to the point where I think the most valuable part of a wrist lock is not the wrist break, the pain compliance or any part of the lock on the wrist at all... the most valuable part is the structure break and balance taking.

This is actually how I teach wrist and arm locks now. The entry and control are the important part. The specific finish is far less important.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Most of those injuries happen at the beginner level (i.e. a beginner injuring a beginner). My fear is that if I exercise that control, the other person will view it as the technique doesn't work.

This is where surprising them with something else (whatever they've opened themselves up for with that resistance, but isn't likely to injure them). It makes the point that the system works, which usually takes them away from trying to prove a specific technique "doesn't work", once they understand it's situational.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exactly this, but even more so. This is at the stage where they're first learning the techniques. This is the stage before resistance should really be applied, and definitely before sparring. I have lots of options available if I were sparring them and they resisted the technique. I have a lot less options when I'm trying to teach a specific technique, because most of my options are other techniques.

As the teacher, you always have other options. If someone isn't working the drill, show that they are simply setting up for a different drill. Now it's time to get back to the drill at hand. Be sure to make it clear this is a learning moment for the class, not you humiliating someone who dares to question your emminence, if you know what I mean. How you do that depends on your personality and teaching style. I usually use humor.

 

[skribs]

This is actually how I teach wrist and arm locks now. The entry and control are the important part. The specific finish is far less important.

The way I'm designing my future curriculum, this would probably work. The first thing I want to teach is escapes instead of reversals. Then I want to focus on the control, submissions will come later.

The way my Master teaches, it's mostly rote memorized. The Taekwondo class (which we were in) leans heavier on memorization than the Hapkido, although it's still important there. This is one major area where I disagree with the way we teach. (Of course, the fact hat I've learned it well might prove myself wrong on that).

And for now, I do have to teach my Master's curriculum his way. Or at least, mostly his way.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The way I'm designing my future curriculum, this would probably work. The first thing I want to teach is escapes instead of reversals. Then I want to focus on the control, submissions will come later.

The way my Master teaches, it's mostly rote memorized. The Taekwondo class (which we were in) leans heavier on memorization than the Hapkido, although it's still important there. This is one major area where I disagree with the way we teach. (Of course, the fact hat I've learned it well might prove myself wrong on that).

And for now, I do have to teach my Master's curriculum his way. Or at least, mostly his way.

I assume some of the "rote memorization" is similar to what I call "classical training" in NGA (and I see it in other JMA). I still use the simplified, slightly stylized classical 2-man forms to teach the core techniques. I just explain them differently, and put a lot more emphasis on the entry and structure breaking aspects. So students still have to memorize pretty much the same sets I had to - they are just being evaluated differently.

To me, the finishes are sometimes immaterial. They're worth practicing so you can recognize an opening for them, but if you just broke someone's structure really well, you could probably figure out something useful to do with them. So that's where students are expected to spend their time. If they're good enough at controlling structure (breaking the other guy's, and protecting their own), they'll be able to win the grappling portion of a fight. There are similar principles for the striking portion that are also more important than any specific punch.

For the most part, I didn't even have to change the order in which things were taught. I did change a few of the classical 2-man forms (I think similar to what you'd call "one steps") to better emphasize those principles.

 

[skribs]

I assume some of the "rote memorization" is similar to what I call "classical training" in NGA (and I see it in other JMA). I still use the simplified, slightly stylized classical 2-man forms to teach the core techniques. I just explain them differently, and put a lot more emphasis on the entry and structure breaking aspects. So students still have to memorize pretty much the same sets I had to - they are just being evaluated differently.

To me, the finishes are sometimes immaterial. They're worth practicing so you can recognize an opening for them, but if you just broke someone's structure really well, you could probably figure out something useful to do with them. So that's where students are expected to spend their time. If they're good enough at controlling structure (breaking the other guy's, and protecting their own), they'll be able to win the grappling portion of a fight. There are similar principles for the striking portion that are also more important than any specific punch.

For the most part, I didn't even have to change the order in which things were taught. I did change a few of the classical 2-man forms (I think similar to what you'd call "one steps") to better emphasize those principles.

In Taekwondo, it's more about the memorization than the Hapkido.

In the Hapkido, we do go over the entry. But for the most part, the entire sequence of entry-control-take down-submission is one rote piece. Resistance increases, and you're expected to react appropriately as it does. But it's still an entire technique.

I'm thinking more along the lines of having different entries, different methods of control, and different submissions. Instead of having students memorize #1 is Entry 1, Control 1, and Submission 1, just simply teach the techniques. Some days just teach a specific technique. Some days a class of techniques (i.e. entries). Some days go through a couple of sequences (but not memorize them, just get used to chaining the sequence together).

Of course, this may mean some specific techniques don't get practiced as much (especially by the students), and it may mean the entire sequence doesn't get drilled as much. The one thing I'm doing as I design my curriculum, I'm also keeping meticulous notes of my Master's curriculum. If my ideas don't work out, I can always go back to what he taught me, the way he taught me, like the prodigal son returning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In Taekwondo, it's more about the memorization than the Hapkido.

In the Hapkido, we do go over the entry. But for the most part, the entire sequence of entry-control-take down-submission is one rote piece. Resistance increases, and you're expected to react appropriately as it does. But it's still an entire technique.

I'm thinking more along the lines of having different entries, different methods of control, and different submissions. Instead of having students memorize #1 is Entry 1, Control 1, and Submission 1, just simply teach the techniques. Some days just teach a specific technique. Some days a class of techniques (i.e. entries). Some days go through a couple of sequences (but not memorize them, just get used to chaining the sequence together).

Of course, this may mean some specific techniques don't get practiced as much (especially by the students), and it may mean the entire sequence doesn't get drilled as much. The one thing I'm doing as I design my curriculum, I'm also keeping meticulous notes of my Master's curriculum. If my ideas don't work out, I can always go back to what he taught me, the way he taught me, like the prodigal son returning.

Yes, what you're describing is very much the same as the classical method in NGA, as well. Most likely, it's the method both arts derived from Daito-ryu.

In case it helps you planning your approach, I'll share both the traditional NGA approach and some adjustments I've made.

Traditionally, there are 50 "classical techniques". Each has what I refer to as a "classical form" and "applications". The classical form is the precise method you describe using in Hapkido. The applications are variations (different attacks) using the same (or similar) finish. Some classical techniques have a few applications, some have literally scores of them (arm bar is a good example). I suspect you have more of what I'd call classical techniques, with more discrete segmentation (maybe the arm bar separated into several classical techniques), but that's just an impression. The applications allow students to explore all the ways to get to that finish, as well as other ways to apply the finish (think of all the different variants of arm bar finishes).

I still teach using that general approach. But I have made some significant, but subtle (in description) shifts. I don't teach as many applications as I used to. Some techniques, in my opinion, don't have direct application to fighting; they teach principles that can be used. For those techniques, I don't grasp for applications that look similar to the classical form. I let the form stand alone, and from time to time point out where we can apply some of the principles as a recovery or to set something else up. And a couple of the classical forms (again, in my opinion) are really just teaching aiki flow and feel, rather than a usable finish. I share these thoughts with students (all of these techniques are things they'd get after at least a year or two, so the information is something they can digest).

And when I teach the classical forms, I point out the entry, control (structure-taking), and finish in them. I encourage students to explore intermixing those. I emphasize what principles are being taught in the classical forms. And where I didn't think the classical forms were working well for students (learning bad habits, entry not useful, etc.), I adjusted the form.

Just some food for thought as you work toward your own approach.

 

[wab25]

The way I'm designing my future curriculum, this would probably work. The first thing I want to teach is escapes instead of reversals. Then I want to focus on the control, submissions will come later.

The way my Master teaches, it's mostly rote memorized. The Taekwondo class (which we were in) leans heavier on memorization than the Hapkido, although it's still important there. This is one major area where I disagree with the way we teach. (Of course, the fact hat I've learned it well might prove myself wrong on that).

And for now, I do have to teach my Master's curriculum his way. Or at least, mostly his way.

Its not a binary decision... teaching the entry, control, structure breaking, off balancing or teaching the rote memorized pattern focusing on the specific finish.

As an example, lets talk about kote gaeshi, katate tori or as you call it v-lock (if I remember your explanations right) Youtube will show you kote gaeshi or if you look up danzan ryu you will find it as katate tori. Anyway, a common kata / form / drill for this would be to have the other guy reach for you, with his right hand. You get off line, parry and blend with your left hand, catching his hand - your thumb on the back of his hand, your fingers wrapped around his thumb. You then rotate and bend the wrist into the lock. You would not have to change anything in that drill, to focus on the structure break, off balancing or maintaining control. Only what you emphasize.

As you parry and blend with the reach, you add some force to his reach, continuing it a little further than he intended. This off balances him a little and starts to break his structure. From this point on, the goal is to never let him regain that structure or balance. As you catch the hand and establish your grip, his balance should further break and his structure weaken more. One key here is to never let his hand return to his structure... it should always be just a little further out than he wants. His hand should be separated from his body and connected to your body, and you should have proper structure and balance. A slight bend in your knees to lower your center, should also lower his hand, off balancing him more, further weakening his structure. The rotation of the wrist into the V-position, should happen because your center is rotating. When you initially blended with the reach, you extended that reach beyond where he wanted it. This put a little tension in the arm. This tension needs to be maintained through out the technique. Humans can only resist in one direction at a time. The tension is a pull that keeps him off balance and his structure broken. Your body rotation is a second direction for him to deal with. He can't resist both at the same time. You then add an extension, in the right direction with your thumb... this is a third direction. In addition, when he reached and you blended with the reach, you should have moved his hand off his center line, thus making it weaker. Throughout the rest of the technique, his hand should be moving further away from that center line. If all this is done correctly, you can apply one of many finishes. Sure, do the one you were supposed to memorize.... but at this point you should have control of the other guy so much that you could do any number of finishes. If he was supposed to tap and he doesn't, it should not take much to help him realize how vulnerable a position he is in... without adding force to the wrist. The best part is that you did not have to change the drill, the order or the memorization. Also, if you emphasize and work on the off balancing, structure breaking and control parts... the finish you are trying to get will be much easier.

I would be interested to see your drill for this lock. What is the set up and entry, what is the finish you are looking for? I would bet that we can find off balancing, structure breaking and control in your drill for this technique.

 

[Yokozuna514]

Interesting topic and I was recently treated to a story from one of the Sensei that teaches at our school that is relevant to this discussion. He was recounting a tale of when he was a white belt sparring with a black belt in our school. It was a spirited session and he admits that he may have been going harder than he probably should have. During the sparring match the black belt punched him in the face. He wasn't trying to knock him out but it was hard enough to get his attention. After the session was over and they were in the changing room, the white belt says to the black belt: Why did you punch me in the face ? I didn't think there was any punches to the face in Kyokushin ? The response was: Punches to the face happen all the time when sparring. They can be due to punches glancing off a shoulder, one person dipping their head at the wrong moment, or someone deliberately breaking the rules. You have to learn to block those .

The take away that has remained with him to this day is sometimes the best way to teach a white belt a lesson is to do something unexpected that will open the door to a discussion that can be used get a particular point across. The student has to be open to hearing the explanation and that sometimes only happens when they are faced with a situation they are not able to rationalize themselves. In other words, a punch to the face was a quick and efficient way to get the student to think about what was going on and to reflect.

I'm certainly not advocating you break anyone's wrist to make a point of not to resist the technique but as others have said perhaps breaking their structure to take them down may result in conveying that there is more to learn by following instructions than to implementing their own ideas and working against the flow of the lessons being taught especially when they are learning something new.

 

[drop bear]

Exactly this, but even more so. This is at the stage where they're first learning the techniques. This is the stage before resistance should really be applied, and definitely before sparring. I have lots of options available if I were sparring them and they resisted the technique. I have a lot less options when I'm trying to teach a specific technique, because most of my options are other techniques.

Yeah but you are demonstrating half the technique. Which is why you are getting in to trouble.

Especially with wrist locks because they are pretty easy to counter.

If you are both just standing there and you say something like grab my wrist. There is no guarantee he will do that in a way that makes a wrist lock viable because you have started the guy in a position in which he can fight that wrist lock.

You haven't set the technique up properly.

I know this because I have spent thousands of hours wristlocking people who wanted to fight me. And their defense is generally elbow in and hand close to their body.

And guess what?

It works. If they are strong you can't reasonably get a wristlock on them.

So in the demonstration all you do is say. Student has done this and this and now the wristlock may not work and you need to create a situation where the arm goes out and posture is broken and wristlocks will be more manageable.

And then explain that you might have to fight for a position in a fight that you get given on a plate in a drill.

And this is why training half of martial arts bugs me.

Theoretically you are basically trying to do something like this. But because there are about 10 steps involved before you can create that position. It is very hard to do in a drill.

 

[drop bear]

Interesting topic and I was recently treated to a story from one of the Sensei that teaches at our school that is relevant to this discussion. He was recounting a tale of when he was a white belt sparring with a black belt in our school. It was a spirited session and he admits that he may have been going harder than he probably should have. During the sparring match the black belt punched him in the face. He wasn't trying to knock him out but it was hard enough to get his attention. After the session was over and they were in the changing room, the white belt says to the black belt: Why did you punch me in the face ? I didn't think there was any punches to the face in Kyokushin ? The response was: Punches to the face happen all the time when sparring. They can be due to punches glancing off a shoulder, one person dipping their head at the wrong moment, or someone deliberately breaking the rules. You have to learn to block those .

The take away that has remained with him to this day is sometimes the best way to teach a white belt a lesson is to do something unexpected that will open the door to a discussion that can be used get a particular point across. The student has to be open to hearing the explanation and that sometimes only happens when they are faced with a situation they are not able to rationalize themselves. In other words, a punch to the face was a quick and efficient way to get the student to think about what was going on and to reflect.

I'm certainly not advocating you break anyone's wrist to make a point of not to resist the technique but as others have said perhaps breaking their structure to take them down may result in conveying that there is more to learn by following instructions than to implementing their own ideas and working against the flow of the lessons being taught especially when they are learning something new.

My guys tell me you get to throw one face punch.