Instructor: "No, that's wrong!"

[skribs]

I have to ask is this more about you thinking your way is the 'right' way more than the instructor saying yours is the 'wrong' way?

Actually the opposite. I had recently joined a new school. 8th degree GM asks me (3rd degree) and one of his students (2nd degree) to do a back kick. He said the 2nd degree was "good" but that mine was "correct." If you want to get into the weeds and list every variant as it's own technique, I would say that I did a good back kick and he did a good turning side kick. Or if you want to lump them together, we both did good (but different) back kicks.

 

[MadMartigan]

Where I usually see this crop up is more in blocking angles and chamber positions. For instance:

When we chamber a down block, we bring the blocking hand to the side of the head, palm facing in, with the back of the support hand against the back of the blocking hand. Someone from a Shotokan background may bring the blocking hand from the same place, but the support hand does not join it up high... rather they cross in transit while the block is being extended and the support hand retracted to the waist (or perhaps retracted to the ribcage area).

Another example that came up recently was how I execute an up block, vs someone else. Mine starts low, then rises part of the way up with the support hand before it is pulled away back to the hip in the opposite direction of the blocking arm. This other person keeps the support hand at the hip, with a shorter retraction and a longer sweep of the blocking arm. Theirs allows for a longer range of motion of the block, while mine emphasizes the 'hikite' more.

In both of these examples, I would never suggest that 1 is right and the other wrong.. just different. To Skribs' statement that TKD instructors tend to act like their version is the only 'right' way, I have seen examples of the same arrogance. In my experience, those are generally poor instructors who limit their students' growth and progression, hiding behind over convoluted memorized sequences over teaching the principles behind their movements, however.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Cross trainers I have taught.

The last three finger punch versus the first two. I just make sure they are stress tested with me a little and that they are aligned and understand the principals that is their base that came out instinctively.

Now I do add things like do not lock you elbow when punching in the air, as that adds stress on the joints and making sure they address their long term health. Yes full power is applied in resistant training with pads and bags and sparring for extension.
.
I have also learned a system where the instructor would purse their lips, and then adjust you. They might say no. And ask why you are doing the back up and not the preferred technique for a situation at your level of timing and understanding. I have also seen two other states of 'No NO NO!' and "That is ****! What was that?'
.
He was also known for giving stories or analogies for a mistake. He told some stories while teaching the technique and timing. He told others only while correcting them. I was asked why I had not memorized all the stories once. I replied I had not given it back to the teacher, as I had learned from hearing it once maybe twice and not at all. ** It being the technique. He referred to giving it back when you just seemed to not listen. After a while he would move on. This lead many who started before me to ask why I added things, that he taught me. And I learned form him directly that they "gave it back to him" and so he was not going to force it.
.
I also applied in our play the 'bits & pieces' as he called it to new situations. I was accused of changing and adding. They would see him before I would during the week. I would see him and have my class. The last 10 -15 I would ask about their concern and demonstrate the position I was in and they were in. He responded usually they were not in the proper position and so I had adjusted using a technique applied somewhere else to that situation.
.
I also did one move that he (the GM) checked me out on and said yes I could do that because of my understanding of the body mechanics and timing. Yet not to teach it as a standard move, unless I knew others were at a similar understanding and timing.
.
I bring all this up as the technique a beginner makes might require more motion and movement and time to execute, while someone more trained and experienced might have other preferred techniques and both might be Right or Correct for those individuals.
.

 

[Fungus]

I'm not sure that's going to matter. The correction from the instructor is far less likely to be "that's wrong," and more likely to be "that's not how we do it here."

I've heard this myself, when i specifically asked about how to adjust the techniques to personal anatomical issues. Then the answer was, "perhaps that is your best way of doing that, but it is not what we teach".

It is I think not reasonably to expect to get individual training, from styles that are commonly taught in group. If there is a group of 30 people, and each of them has various issues, and want to modify things it would be impossible for one instructors to give feedback. So my conclusion has been that the fine tuning or deviation from the main style is somthing you have to do and motivate on your own for yourself. I stopped asking for such advice, as it is asking too much from "group teaching".

 

[geezer]

I've heard this myself, when i specifically asked about how to adjust the techniques to personal anatomical issues. Then the answer was, "perhaps that is your best way of doing that, but it is not what we teach".

It is I think not reasonably to expect to get individual training, from styles that are commonly taught in group. If there is a group of 30 people, and each of them has various issues, and want to modify things it would be impossible for one instructors to give feedback. So my conclusion has been that the fine tuning or deviation from the main style is somthing you have to do and motivate on your own for yourself. I stopped asking for such advice, as it is asking too much from "group teaching".

IMO a senior instructor absolutely should be prepared to consider and advise the student regarding, to use your words (bolded above) how to adjust the techniques to personal anatomical issues ....at least outside of class or in a private lesson.

Equally, the student should not only be encouraged, but be required to inform the instructor of any physical anomalies or conditions that might create problems for them during normal training. I have seen several instances where an instructor's refusal to tolerate any deviation from the traditional norms in training has led to student injuries.

On one hand, the instructor, coach, sensei, or sifu can't be expected to be an expert on physiology and solve every student's physical issues, especially in a large class. On the other hand some instructors act as though they are such experts and push students into doing movements which, for that particular student, are either physically impossible, or worse, possible but physically harmful.

 

[HighKick]

Actually the opposite. I had recently joined a new school. 8th degree GM asks me (3rd degree) and one of his students (2nd degree) to do a back kick. He said the 2nd degree was "good" but that mine was "correct." If you want to get into the weeds and list every variant as it's own technique, I would say that I did a good back kick and he did a good turning side kick. Or if you want to lump them together, we both did good (but different) back kicks.

To get out of the weeds, were both kicks effective on the same target?

 

[skribs]

To get out of the weeds, were both kicks effective on the same target?

No, they are effective on different targets. The "back kick" is more effective when square on or at short range, the "turning side kick" is more effective at an angle or at longer range.

We also didn't have a target, it was "shadow kicking" (for lack of a better phrase).

 

[Fungus]

IMO a senior instructor absolutely should be prepared to consider and advise the student regarding, to use your words (bolded above) how to adjust the techniques to personal anatomical issues ....at least outside of class or in a private lesson.

Equally, the student should not only be encouraged, but be required to inform the instructor of any physical anomalies or conditions that might create problems for them during normal training. I have seen several instances where an instructor's refusal to tolerate any deviation from the traditional norms in training has led to student injuries.

On one hand, the instructor, coach, sensei, or sifu can't be expected to be an expert on physiology and solve every student's physical issues, especially in a large class. On the other hand some instructors act as though they are such experts and push students into doing movements which, for that particular student, are either physically impossible, or worse, possible but physically harmful.

In a way I agree that you describe the ultimate instructors, however as a beginner, not having any previous experience with "MA experts", I mainly have experience with "experts in academia", and if there is something I have learn in life in general, is to not have too high expectations on others. So I accept my problems as mine to solve.

Also the complication is this: The official superficial telling is that, if you can't do this technique, then try to do it as close as possible, as good as you can, and let that be good enough. This is what I have heard in class.

BUT there is a serious problem with this that brings us to the constructing principles and foundations of the MA arts and it¨s techniques. The contextuality, where the optimal way to perform something depends on not just the context, but also the practitioner.

Lets say that constructing principles describe the best way A1=f(C1), to perform something (a block or attack or something else), given the practitioners abilities and anatomy C1.

And the optimal way A2=f(C2) to perform the task, given C2, is not necessarily "as close as A1 as possible, in a linear faishon, if C1 is different than C2. Then to encourage the student associated to C2 to still have A1=f(A1) as its "goal" could be plain wrong, and disrespect the constructing principles.

Instead PROPERLY applying, the constructing principles (and RECONSTRUCTING the optimal moves) based on C2, one is taking the "ideal picture" A1 from the style normatives.

If I put onto my seniors of the style to make this reconstruction, might be asking too much. IT would force them to question the style surface and seek the roots - not roots of TRADITION - but roots of principles of body mechanics and fighting strategy. But if we would have masters that did this, I think it would imply a unification of all styles and MA. This is why I think it is not for a beginner like me to expect this from my instructors. I accept this as my personal problem.

 

[isshinryuronin]

IMO a senior instructor absolutely should be prepared to consider and advise the student regarding, to use your words (bolded above) how to adjust the techniques to personal anatomical issues ....at least outside of class or in a private lesson.

This is one of the more obvious adjustments an instructor can make and can be done during class. A simple, "Your stance is too deep for your height, move your rear foot up a couple inches" should do it. If the instructor cannot manage this, it says a lot about his ability to teach, in or out of class. The instructor's advice example also illustrates what IMO are two of the most important teaching skills: Ability to see a problem and then pinpoint a solution. The third would be to effectively communicate the solution to the student so he can internalize it.

Lets say that constructing principles describe the best way A1=f(C1), to perform something (a block or attack or something else), given the practitioners abilities and anatomy C1.

And the optimal way A2=f(C2) to perform the task, given C2, is not necessarily "as close as A1 as possible, in a linear faishon, if C1 is different than C2. Then to encourage the student associated to C2 to still have A1=f(A1) as its "goal" could be plain wrong, and disrespect the constructing principles.

Since I never took physics or engineering (too complex for my simple brain) it took me a minute to decipher this, but it seems you're saying the standard optimum for one student may not be optimum for another. I pretty much agree. Your "C" component however entails two distinct elements: Ability and anatomy. Ability changes, anatomy cannot and so must be handled differently by the instructor. I'm not getting into a person's physical limitations (knee replacement, partial amputee, etc.) although this is a good topic for its own thread.

If I put onto my seniors of the style to make this reconstruction, might be asking too much. IT would force them to question the style surface and seek the roots - not roots of TRADITION - but roots of principles of body mechanics and fighting strategy.

Yes (assuming a decent instructor) asking too much but not for the reasons you give. I think you may be over-analyzing or being impatient with the TMA learning process. The principles of power, movement and strategic doctrine are constant within a particular system. They must be to harmonize and make the system effective as they are interconnected. Consider this simplified equation: System = Power (mechanics)+movement+fighting doctrine. Changing something on the right side requires a change on the left - a messy affair best left to the 9th or 10th dan.

Post Conclusion: The basic principles and techniques (except in cases of major physical limitation) should be taught and expected to be performed by all students. Beginners have no "right" (they're not ready) to be taught anything other than the standard (except as for very basic adjustments as in the example I gave regarding stance). This is not the time for cultivating individuality or making fine-tuned adjustments to optimize a particular student's specific traits. This comes later in one's journey. Tailoring the system for an individual is proper and even necessary, but it must be done in progressive stages when the benefits of such tailoring can be better realized. This relates to the teaching concept of shu ha ri which in the end leads the student to realize his own MA individuality, not only physically but spiritually as well.

 

[Fungus]

This is one of the more obvious adjustments an instructor can make and can be done during class. A simple, "Your stance is too deep for your height, move your rear foot up a couple inches" should do it. If the instructor cannot manage this, it says a lot about his ability to teach, in or out of class. The instructor's advice example also illustrates what IMO are two of the most important teaching skills: Ability to see a problem and then pinpoint a solution. The third would be to effectively communicate the solution to the student so he can internalize it.

Since I never took physics or engineering (too complex for my simple brain) it took me a minute to decipher this, but it seems you're saying the standard optimum for one student may not be optimum for another. I pretty much agree. Your "C" component however entails two distinct elements: Ability and anatomy. Ability changes, anatomy cannot and so must be handled differently by the instructor. I'm not getting into a person's physical limitations (knee replacement, partial amputee, etc.) although this is a good topic for its own thread.

Perhaps I was unclear, I meant to say that A=f(C) is not necessarily a continous function. Meaning that a small change in C, may result in a large change in A, because of tresholds where the orignal execution is no longer optimal. In these cases, it would be I think wrong to tell students to still try to train as close to the original exectuion as possible. And the new optimal execution may very well be a deviation that is simply in contradiction with the kihon forms.

A continous change would mean in your examply that due to the height you adapt your stance "a little bit", to make up for having "a little different height".

By discontinous, I mean, for example, due to slight inability or damage to rotate on the ball of your foot as good as others, it may be a better option to rotate on your heel. This would be a discontinous change. If the inability is simply due to poor training, then of course, the answer is to train. But if the inability is more ore less permanent, then "right way" according to style, may be "wrong" for ME. There are of course usually plenty of arguments for WHY you do things in certain ways, but these are implicitly assuming "some average abilities". When these conditions aren't met, the conclusions must change. but the actual generating principles here within each system, to my knowledge rarely define this generalisation.

Yes (assuming a decent instructor) asking too much but not for the reasons you give. I think you may be over-analyzing or being impatient with the TMA learning process. The principles of power, movement and strategic doctrine are constant within a particular system. They must be to harmonize and make the system effective as they are interconnected. Consider this simplified equation: System = Power (mechanics)+movement+fighting doctrine. Changing something on the right side requires a change on the left - a messy affair best left to the 9th or 10th dan.

I understand. This is similar to how students in physics still think and ponder about unsolved open problems. They may not always be able to solving them, but noone can or should discourage them from trying. These constructing principles is what is a large motivator for me in both physics and martial arts. Sometimes "tradition" is an answer, but IMO a bad one, not the answer I seek.

 

[isshinryuronin]

But if the inability is more ore less permanent, then "right way" according to style, may be "wrong" for ME. There are of course usually plenty of arguments for WHY you do things in certain ways, but these are implicitly assuming "some average abilities". When these conditions aren't met, the conclusions must change. but the actual generating principles here within each system, to my knowledge rarely define this generalisation.

I fully agree with this. It is reasonable that a system of MA is designed for the "average" student with normal physical capabilities. When you have a student without normal physical abilities (non-correctable) there may be cases this prevents the student from properly doing one or more techniques according to the system's "right way" of form, execution or even in accordance with the system's guiding principles.

This does NOT mean the system is faulty or that the student doesn't need to learn the right way or understand the underlying concepts, even though he can't actually do it. The "right way" should still be part of his MA knowledge if not his ability.

In this event, we don't need to change the system but figure out the best way to accommodate that particular student and get him as close to the optimal standard as possible given his limitations. We all have to play the cards we're dealt. This may require some extra work from an experienced sensei and likely a measure of creativity. IMO, these limitations should not affect his advancement as long as the same effort is given, and he has absorbed the same knowledge as everyone else.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

As an instructor, when a student in my class is doing a different variation of a technique from what I prefer or am teaching at the moment, I have a few different approaches ...

If the variation doesn't affect the functionality of the lesson or exercise we are working on at the moment, I ignore it. I don't expect everyone to do every technique the same way.

If the variation does affect the lesson, because I am focusing on a particular concept or details for the version I am teaching, then I will often make a teaching moment of it. I'll quickly show the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different variations and why you might use one or another in different situations. I'll then encourage the student to work on the variation that I'm showing for the time being, so that they can explore a new option. If they continue to work on the variation that they already know and it's a group class, then I'll generally leave them to it, since I have other students to provide coaching for.

If it's a very small class or a private lesson, and a student really wants to work with the skills they already have rather than learn a new approach, then I might take the opportunity to craft a lesson tailored for the individual. For example, a little while back I ended up giving a spontaneous private lesson to a young man who had been taking Muay Thai with an ultimate goal of competing in MMA. However he had a strong Tae Kwon Do background and wanted to be able to spar using his TKD structure and techniques rather than having to operate out of a Muay Thai stance using Muay Thai tactics. So I showed him how he could apply his TKD skills, focusing on the necessary adjustments and supplemental skills to make them work in an MMA setting, rather than forcing him into a Muay Thai mold.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If the variation does affect the lesson, because I am focusing on a particular concept or details for the version I am teaching, then I will often make a teaching moment of it. I'll quickly show the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different variations and why you might use one or another in different situations. I'll then encourage the student to work on the variation that I'm showing for the time being, so that they can explore a new option. If they continue to work on the variation that they already know and it's a group class, then I'll generally leave them to it, since I have other students to provide coaching for.

This is my approach as well. I don't make a big stink of it simply because I know it will eventually circle back to that point after they gain more understanding. They will most likely have that "light bulb moment" when they say "Oh that's why he was teaching it that way." I've experienced this as an instructor and student. This is also why I'm not too keen on changing techniques for the sake of "To make them work."

I also find this to be a bigger issue in Kung Fu than anything else where so many things are abstract until people actually try to use the techniques. It's usually not until someone understands how to use a kung fu technique that students begin to understand why things are taught the way they are taught.

 

[Buka]

To me, teaching a Martial Art is akin to owning a large clothing store. The size, color and style of the suits are different. But they’re still suits. Just might need some tailoring.

 

[drop bear]

As an instructor, when a student in my class is doing a different variation of a technique from what I prefer or am teaching at the moment, I have a few different approaches ...

If the variation doesn't affect the functionality of the lesson or exercise we are working on at the moment, I ignore it. I don't expect everyone to do every technique the same way.

If the variation does affect the lesson, because I am focusing on a particular concept or details for the version I am teaching, then I will often make a teaching moment of it. I'll quickly show the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different variations and why you might use one or another in different situations. I'll then encourage the student to work on the variation that I'm showing for the time being, so that they can explore a new option. If they continue to work on the variation that they already know and it's a group class, then I'll generally leave them to it, since I have other students to provide coaching for.

If it's a very small class or a private lesson, and a student really wants to work with the skills they already have rather than learn a new approach, then I might take the opportunity to craft a lesson tailored for the individual. For example, a little while back I ended up giving a spontaneous private lesson to a young man who had been taking Muay Thai with an ultimate goal of competing in MMA. However he had a strong Tae Kwon Do background and wanted to be able to spar using his TKD structure and techniques rather than having to operate out of a Muay Thai stance using Muay Thai tactics. So I showed him how he could apply his TKD skills, focusing on the necessary adjustments and supplemental skills to make them work in an MMA setting, rather than forcing him into a Muay Thai mold.

There is a Shotokan guy, which is similar in MMA terms I have trained with who makes that method work.

And for example although he is a lot better than me. I can't do his style because I constantly have to watch out for my cardio.

 

[HighKick]

As an instructor, when a student in my class is doing a different variation of a technique from what I prefer or am teaching at the moment, I have a few different approaches ...

If the variation doesn't affect the functionality of the lesson or exercise we are working on at the moment, I ignore it. I don't expect everyone to do every technique the same way.

If the variation does affect the lesson, because I am focusing on a particular concept or details for the version I am teaching, then I will often make a teaching moment of it. I'll quickly show the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different variations and why you might use one or another in different situations. I'll then encourage the student to work on the variation that I'm showing for the time being, so that they can explore a new option. If they continue to work on the variation that they already know and it's a group class, then I'll generally leave them to it, since I have other students to provide coaching for.

If it's a very small class or a private lesson, and a student really wants to work with the skills they already have rather than learn a new approach, then I might take the opportunity to craft a lesson tailored for the individual. For example, a little while back I ended up giving a spontaneous private lesson to a young man who had been taking Muay Thai with an ultimate goal of competing in MMA. However he had a strong Tae Kwon Do background and wanted to be able to spar using his TKD structure and techniques rather than having to operate out of a Muay Thai stance using Muay Thai tactics. So I showed him how he could apply his TKD skills, focusing on the necessary adjustments and supplemental skills to make them work in an MMA setting, rather than forcing him into a Muay Thai mold.

I agree and follow this approach for the most part. I always do my best to vet new people, so if they have prior experience and sign up for classes, we go into it both knowing there will be some adjustments to be made. If they are insignificant, I don't sweat it much, but even that can be a problem if others in class 'watch and learn' from the new person.

 

[Fungus]

I fully agree with this. It is reasonable that a system of MA is designed for the "average" student with normal physical capabilities. When you have a student without normal physical abilities (non-correctable) there may be cases this prevents the student from properly doing one or more techniques according to the system's "right way" of form, execution or even in accordance with the system's guiding principles.

This does NOT mean the system is faulty or that the student doesn't need to learn the right way or understand the underlying concepts, even though he can't actually do it. The "right way" should still be part of his MA knowledge if not his ability.

I have some issue with this.

From the perspective of MA tradition, and purity of various styles/arts, then I fully agree. I mean, if I goto a kung fu class, but keeps insisting on doing everything the muy thai way - then why I am there? So learning the curriculum in an art, including it's "standards" is of course a required part if your goal is the rank or progress withing the style.

But from the broader perspective, of getting into MA, for self-development, were You are in focus, rather than one particular style, and where you want to understand and learng the reasons for things, and find the "right ways" for you, then I do not agree with that.

There difference is the philosophical attitude towards what is right and wrong. I advocated that these things are always relative. Relative to a particular style, which is "designed" to be good for perhaps the founders and the bulk of the typical practicitioner, there is a right and wrong. But this should not feel the practitioner that feels that this does not fit my, feel suboptimal or inferior for not matching the assumptions of the style.

My view of a proper "understanding the underlying concepts" is that it MUST account for the relativity of the context and practitioners abilities, otherwise the logic is likely flawed in the sense that is lacks generality.

In this event, we don't need to change the system but figure out the best way to accommodate that particular student and get him as close to the optimal standard as possible given his limitations.

This makes within the class yes (first perspective).

But in the second perspective I described, the idea of superficially getting "as close to optimal standard" as possible, may even lead you to a suboptimal method, if not analyzed properly if you expect that small continous adjustments will do it.

 

[isshinryuronin]

But from the broader perspective, of getting into MA, for self-development, were You are in focus, rather than one particular style, and where you want to understand and learng the reasons for things, and find the "right ways" for you, then I do not agree with that.

As you said:

if I goto a kung fu class, but keeps insisting on doing everything the muy thai way - then why I am there?

But even if your main focus is on self-development the same concept applies. In the above quote, substitute "muy thai" with "self-defense" and my point becomes a little clearer. The student has chosen that MA style to be the vehicle for his self-development. If the MA style is the vehicle, then drive the vehicle the way it was designed. Don't buy a corvette if you want to drive offroad.

One should find his self-development WITHIN the style. If one can't, then perhaps it's the wrong style for him, or MA altogether is wrong for him. Perhaps a gym, Buddhist temple, or other venue of self-improvement is better.

 

[Fungus]

As you said:

But even if your main focus is on self-development the same concept applies. In the above quote, substitute "muy thai" with "self-defense" and my point becomes a little clearer. The student has chosen that MA style to be the vehicle for his self-development. If the MA style is the vehicle, then drive the vehicle the way it was designed. Don't buy a corvette if you want to drive offroad.

Or I buy a corvette if I like it and rebuild it so i can get the best of bot worlds. But it's not something the manufacturer will endorse, it is your own project. This is fine if you like to tweak things. If you do not, like most don't, then you find a compromise - and get a modern sports SUV.

One should find his self-development WITHIN the style.

I am not see any good reasons for limiting yourself to this?

If one can't, then perhaps it's the wrong style for him,

Yes, agreed.

But becauase that question may be wrong. Instead of asking, which style from a list, is best for me - ask what your goal is, and try to find your own way. But this "journey" may be your own, and guidance can't be expected in a normal class, which is what I meant in post#24. But that does not mean you should follow a path where the guidance is easier, unless you want to of course.

or MA altogether is wrong for him. Perhaps a gym, Buddhist temple, or other venue of self-improvement is better.

No need to choose not to drive a car, because non in stock suits you. You can still customized one, but you don't have to build it from scratch.

I enjoy my style and my club, but my journey and goal is not tied to style. Yet I learn ALOT from instructors and fighting. Especially the fighting class is more creative, as there is not really much right or wrong. I think this is the reason why I enjoy the kumite sessions a bit more than kata. What I like best about kata, are the bunkai sessions. I also learn alot from exchanging experience with club members. Fortunately I am not bothered too much about the lack of guidance in my personal journey, as I get enough bits and pieces in classes. But I am also inspired by bites and pieces of other styles, and perhaps a mixture of them all is ideal for me.

 

[Badhabits]

My current instructor likes to say that any given style can be thought of as a doorway into the wider world of martial arts. Not a bad way of looking at things.