I have a love/hate relationship with the I-shape forms

[Earl Weiss]

Which is part of why I want to get away from teaching the "correct" way and instead teach what's right for the situation.

I do not understand how doing one excludes the other. Perhaps our different views are colored by our different experience.

 

[HighKick]

I've coached multiple martial arts for over a decade and you think I don't know how different people learn martial arts?

This is such a wild baseless accusation. I can't understand how you even made it. Do you you actually believe that I think this?

Every single TKD school I've been to has done things different. They've taken what they've learned from their TKD Master(s) and from other martial arts and combined them together into their own curriculum. I'm doing the same.

This criticism that I'm somehow breaking some unwritten law by coming up with my own curriculum ignores the fact that every other school comes up with their own curriculum.

This would be like if someone were to try and publish a book and you were to get mad it wasn't a word-for-word copy of The Hobbit. Because that was a good book, why do we need a new one?

To your question of me Yes, I do believe that.

From one negative reply, you went on the offensive. From one elegant reply, you went on a rant trying to prove your strong foundation of experience and knowledge. But from most of what we hear from you on this forum and others, is built on sticks.
You will be TEACHING people. It takes a patience like no other. I believe you have the want-to, but I am not sure it is your passion. Instead, you are one of the many, many people who thought "it would really cool to be a martial arts school owner/instructor" but never actually pulled it off or at least pulled it off well.

I imagine you have been in the 'planning stages' of opening a school since day one of you first training. More than enough time to acquire knowledge.

If you are going to do this, it is past time to do it. I know these are harsh words, but whether you understand it or not, they are what you need to hear.

 

[skribs]

I do not understand how doing one excludes the other. Perhaps our different views are colored by our different experience.

If you're told not to do a piercing side kick because a thrusting side kick is "correct", then you are more likely to think there's something wrong with the piercing side kick.

If I teach one way, and another instructor with a different background and set of experiences teaches a different way, then we could:

• Explain the pros and cons of each version of the technique.
• Describe the situations you would use one version over another.
• Throw the other instructor under the bus as being inferior.

Two of those allow the students to gain understanding of the technique. The third causes the students to lose trust in the material being taught.

 

[Earl Weiss]

If you're told not to do a piercing side kick because a thrusting side kick is "correct", then you are more likely to think there's something wrong with the piercing side kick.

I am sorry but that is not at all how it happens or how it works for the system. They first learn a technique, in this case side piercing kick, and technical parameters of execution and application are explained. They later learn, and in this case at later ranks, the Side Thrusting kick or a side piercing kick and the different technical parameters of execution and application are explained.

 

[skribs]

I am sorry but that is not at all how it happens or how it works for the system. They first learn a technique, in this case side piercing kick, and technical parameters of execution and application are explained. They later learn, and in this case at later ranks, the Side Thrusting kick or a side piercing kick and the different technical parameters of execution and application are explained.

If the way they're doing the kick at the first stage is more like a side thrusting kick, what do you tell them?

 

[HighKick]

If you're told not to do a piercing side kick because a thrusting side kick is "correct", then you are more likely to think there's something wrong with the piercing side kick.

If I teach one way, and another instructor with a different background and set of experiences teaches a different way, then we could:

• Explain the pros and cons of each version of the technique.
• Describe the situations you would use one version over another.
• Throw the other instructor under the bus as being inferior.

Two of those allow the students to gain understanding of the technique. The third causes the students to lose trust in the material being taught.

1. How could he do bullet #1 if he has never done your style?
2. I suppose an experienced teacher could navigate this, with rules bound situations being an exception.
3. Yes, this does happen. I would say unfortunately more than we know.

 

[skribs]

1. How could he do bullet #1 if he has never done your style?
2. I suppose an experienced teacher could navigate this, with rules bound situations being an exception.
3. Yes, this does happen. I would say unfortunately more than we know.

Someone who understands how the techniques work instead of just memorizing the steps can usually figure it out. People who just know what's "correct" and what's "incorrect" might not be able to.

 

[Earl Weiss]

If the way they're doing the kick at the first stage is more like a side thrusting kick, what do you tell them?

The system teaches the Side piercing kick first Beginners have no clue as to parameters for other types of kicks and how they would be used. So, if they are trying to do what has been taught and accidentally do something else - it's simply wrong. Later, the side Pushing and Side Thrusting variations are taught.

To an extant the system is highly cumulative / progressive. So that it in many cases it is much easier to build on what is taught - simple things taught first and build on that by changing / adapting. For instance the first fundamental exercises have a quarter turn in one (Forward) direction. The next ads half turns and turns in rearward direction etc.

 

[skribs]

The system teaches the Side piercing kick first Beginners have no clue as to parameters for other types of kicks and how they would be used. So, if they are trying to do what has been taught and accidentally do something else - it's simply wrong. Later, the side Pushing and Side Thrusting variations are taught.

I fundamentally disagree with this approach of teaching that correct things are "wrong" because students haven't unlocked them yet.

 

[Earl Weiss]

I fundamentally disagree with this approach of teaching that correct things are "wrong" because students haven't unlocked them yet.

Once again, that is not how the system works. Teaching the correct thing is not "Wrong" Teaching the correct thing and having the student perform it incorrectly is wrong. It s not made "Right" simply because the performance accidentally and unknowingly happens to be correct for something else. That would be like telling the student to do a "Back fist " Strike and instead does a decent "Side Fist" Strike.

 

[Haruhiko]

I fundamentally disagree with this approach of teaching that correct things are "wrong" because students haven't unlocked them yet.

So what if a student, ungraded, does what looks like a turning hook-kick after your instruction was to attempt a back-kick?

Do you then teach them the hook-kick despite your initial instruction? Consider the implications of this: it would abandon your learning intention of the student as well as the success criteria, encourage overconfident and experimental training culture, confuse the student by introducing advanced kicks outside the scope of the curriculum, invite criticism about the integrity of your instructional methodology, and after all this... they still won't have mastered the back-kick.

Your intentions are sincere and enthusiastic, that much is clear. But it is pedagogically unsound.

 

[skribs]

Once again, that is not how the system works. Teaching the correct thing is not "Wrong" Teaching the correct thing and having the student perform it incorrectly is wrong. It s not made "Right" simply because the performance accidentally and unknowingly happens to be correct for something else. That would be like telling the student to do a "Back fist " Strike and instead does a decent "Side Fist" Strike.

Then you say, "That's a side fist, that's not what we're doing right now." If you just say it's wrong, they're going to be hesitant to do the side fist strike properly when you teach it.

There are reasons to do a back kick vs. a spinning side kick. Yet both of the Masters I've trained under as a black belt will tell you that the back kick is the "black belt way" or the "correct way" but the spinning side kick is the "colored belt way" or is "good, but not correct". Which means the black belts are going to hear that they should never do the spinning side kick.

I fundamentally disagree with telling people that something that is good is not "correct" just because it's not exactly what the instructor wanted in that moment. "That's not what we're doing right now" is much better than "that's wrong".

 

[isshinryuronin]

I fundamentally disagree with telling people that something that is good is not "correct" just because it's not exactly what the instructor wanted in that moment.

"Good" and "correct" are two different things. The instructor dictates the lesson and defines the parameters for these terms. Structure/process of the lesson is important in TMA for many reasons.

"That's not what we're doing right now" is much better than "that's wrong".

This is a good way to accomplish what I wrote above. The main point is that the student executes the teacher's instructions with minimum questioning. That comes at a later stage. Years after this, the student starts to answer their own questions.

 

[skribs]

"Good" and "correct" are two different things. The instructor dictates the lesson and defines the parameters for these terms. Structure/process of the lesson is important in TMA for many reasons.

They are. And when both things are situationally correct, but you say one isn't correct, that's where I have an issue.

This is a good way to accomplish what I wrote above. The main point is that the student executes the teacher's instructions with minimum questioning. That comes at a later stage. Years after this, the student starts to answer their own questions.

I think black belts should be at that stage.

 

[skribs]

So what if a student, ungraded, does what looks like a turning hook-kick after your instruction was to attempt a back-kick?

Do you then teach them the hook-kick despite your initial instruction?

"That's a different kick, we'll cover that in the advanced class."

Consider the implications of this: it would abandon your learning intention of the student as well as the success criteria, encourage overconfident and experimental training culture, confuse the student by introducing advanced kicks outside the scope of the curriculum, invite criticism about the integrity of your instructional methodology, and after all this... they still won't have mastered the back-kick.

This is what happens in BJJ class all the time. Some questions get answered, some questions create rabbit trails that the instructor needs to stop to get back on task for the lesson.

It's also something I've had to apply in TKD when teaching grappling techniques such as hand grab defenses. Some students practice at home and struggle to make the techniques work, because the person helping them is giving the wrong read for the technique. I'd simply explain we have different techniques at a different level that make use of that read.

Your intentions are sincere and enthusiastic, that much is clear. But it is pedagogically unsound.

I don't understand this idea that I'm arrogant for creating a new system that's stupid and won't work.

Because it's not a new system. It's what's worked for me in the past. And so I don't see the arrogance in reusing what I've learned and what's worked in the past.