Is having a good teacher enough?

[skribs]

Also...that belt...I hate those things I think they look ridicolous. I get the need for them as kids so they look different to adults because a junior belt doesn’t know nearly as much as an adult of the same rank but I just think they look silly and unnecessary for adults. Again just my opinion

My school has the stripe as an intermediate between solid colors (for some belts). For example, Green (solid) then Green 1-Stripe (black stripe). Blue and Red also have 2-stripe (which is really just a black belt with a blue or red stripe).

My old school did a white stripe for Green 1 and black stripe for Green 2. That was, after they switched from doing 3 tape stripes around the tip between each test.

 

[dvcochran]

well its clearly the base as your feet are at the bottom, but that doesnt mean any particular stance/ foot work is optimal or there would only be one stance and one set of footwork for all MA and thats clearly not so

maybe you shouldn't try to change them, it could well be better than what your replacing it with >?

???? No stance/footwork is optimal? You just showed your ignorance to the point in spades.
I will not get sucked in to your usual arguments for the sake of arguing.

 

[jobo]

???? No stance/footwork is optimal? You just showed your ignorance to the point in spades.
I will not get sucked in to your usual arguments for the sake of arguing.

well no if there was only one optimum stance/foot work then every body would use it,, as there are multiple variations across various art, then we can only conclude they are all equal or that only one is correct and every body else is wrong

 

[skribs]

well no if there was only one optimum stance/foot work then every body would use it,, as there are multiple variations across various art, then we can only conclude they are all equal or that only one is correct and every body else is wrong

Different stances serve different purposes. Some are more optimal for some arts than others. People who come in with experience in another art (martial or not) should still learn the stances of your style.

For example, a high muay thai stance will be bad for wrestling, and the lack of a guard in many TKD stances would be bad for boxing.

 

[jobo]

Different stances serve different purposes. Some are more optimal for some arts than others. People who come in with experience in another art (martial or not) should still learn the stances of your style.

For example, a high muay thai stance will be bad for wrestling, and the lack of a guard in many TKD stances would be bad for boxing.

i though we were talking about fighting, but anyway if we exclude boxing as wrestling as being outlier, there still substantial differences in stance/footwork among arts..

there different coz they are different, not because any of them are better, if through other sport activities you developed foot position and movement that is very efficient for fast movement, then thats as good as any other dogma version associated with an art, but it will most probly work, at least as well and probably better

we were doing some silly southern crane ????type movements, i just ignored it, it was slowing me down, walking like youve pooded your pants is seldom the most efficient movement


if its not as optimal as it could be they will adept it over time with out correction and its still wont look like what you think it should, probably

 

[skribs]

i though we were talking about fighting, but anyway if we exclude boxing as wrestling as being outlier, there still substantial differences in stance/footwork among arts..

Those are styles of fighting. You're just arguing to argue at this point.

there different coz they are different, not because any of them are better, if through other sport activities you developed foot position and movement that is very efficient for fast movement, then thats as good as any other dogma version associated with an art, but it will most probly work, at least as well and probably better

Every art has different stances depending on the way you intend to use the art. It's not about being better or worse. It's about fitting your style of fighting. If you're learning to punch, and you're not using a stance that's well suited to punch, then part of teaching proper punching technique is teaching a stance that will better suit it. If you just ignore your student's bad technique, you're not a good instructor.

we were doing some silly southern crane ????type movements, i just ignored it, it was slowing me down, walking like youve pooded your pants is seldom the most efficient movement

And now you've gone past arguing and have decided to be childish about it, too. You're already making ridiculous points and fighting with everyone anyway. Why stoop this low?

 

[jobo]

Those are styles of fighting. You're just arguing to argue at this point.



Every art has different stances depending on the way you intend to use the art. It's not about being better or worse. It's about fitting your style of fighting. If you're learning to punch, and you're not using a stance that's well suited to punch, then part of teaching proper punching technique is teaching a stance that will better suit it. If you just ignore your student's bad technique, you're not a good instructor.



And now you've gone past arguing and have decided to be childish about it, too. You're already making ridiculous points and fighting with everyone anyway. Why stoop this low?

hang on, the point at issue is bad technque, not a different technuque to the one you want

if someone through playing soccer or dance etc has develop stance and foot work that allows them fast efficient movement, then its as good probably better than walking like you have had an unfortunate accident, then it isnt bad technique just different techniques. if on the other hand its not the best then they will self adapt through practice to something better... sticking to one dogma coz someone told you thats how its done isnt helping anyone, its just slowing down their development for no good reason,

if your training for kata competition or belts have a strong kata element there is at least a point to push them into something less efficient, but thats not really a very good reason for doing so

 

[skribs]

hang on, the point at issue is bad technque, not a different technuque to the one you want

Use the "right" technique in the wrong context and it's the wrong technique. Go to a boxing gym and only ever use a wrestling stance, and you're using the wrong technique.

if someone through playing soccer or dance etc has develop stance and foot work that allows them fast efficient movement, then its as good probably better than walking like you have had an unfortunate accident, then it isnt bad technique just different techniques. if on the other hand its not the best then they will self adapt through practice to something better... sticking to one dogma coz someone told you thats how its done isnt helping anyone, its just slowing down their development for no good reason,

I've re-read this paragraph several times, because it looks like you had an unfortunate accident on your keyboard while writing this. Flowery language is difficult enough to convey concrete meanings when the writing is easy to read...

First off, the footwork used in soccer or dance may be useful. It may not. What is more useful is that they know how to work on footwork. But someone with a dance background coming into a grappling martial art is going to be thrown around a lot, because in dance you want to be light on your feet, and that makes you easy to gain leverage against. Different stance and footwork fits different applications.

Second, if people would "figure it out", then we don't need teachers or instructors. Just go in the back yards with your friends and "figure it out " Saying you shouldn't teach someone something because they can just figure it out themselves is a lazy way to teach.

Third, sticking to what works in an art isn't about dogma. It's about what works for the art. In boxing, the stance is all about how to move and punch efficiently. In Taekwondo, it's all about how to kick efficiently. In Muay Thai, it's all about how to protect yourself from all sorts of strikes. In Kyokushin, it's all about how to deliver body punches. In wrestling, it's all about setting up leverage. In Hapkido, it's about creating stand-off distance.

I'll use a different stance in each art, not because of dogma or because of "that's how it's always been done". There are reasons for using those stances. If you think they're only done different because of dogma, you're sorely mistaken.

if your training for kata competition or belts have a strong kata element there is at least a point to push them into something less efficient, but thats not really a very good reason for doing so

Your ignorance on the subject is astounding. You have no understanding of why kata footwork is the way it is.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Deleted member 39746]

i though we were talking about fighting, but anyway if we exclude boxing as wrestling as being outlier, there still substantial differences in stance/footwork among arts..

So-so related, its quite intresting as a method that was used to teach some people boxing footwork was to get them to go into attention like the military, now in the peroid they used it the foot was 45degrees as opposed to straight that some now do it. (for the one particular person i have in mind) Thats just more of a semi intresting tid bit, also more related 45 degree feet works so does straight, it seems to be prefrence and how you are taught.

 

[jobo]

Use the "right" technique in the wrong context and it's the wrong technique. Go to a boxing gym and only ever use a wrestling stance, and you're using the wrong technique.



I've re-read this paragraph several times, because it looks like you had an unfortunate accident on your keyboard while writing this. Flowery language is difficult enough to convey concrete meanings when the writing is easy to read...

First off, the footwork used in soccer or dance may be useful. It may not. What is more useful is that they know how to work on footwork. But someone with a dance background coming into a grappling martial art is going to be thrown around a lot, because in dance you want to be light on your feet, and that makes you easy to gain leverage against. Different stance and footwork fits different applications.

Second, if people would "figure it out", then we don't need teachers or instructors. Just go in the back yards with your friends and "figure it out " Saying you shouldn't teach someone something because they can just figure it out themselves is a lazy way to teach.

Third, sticking to what works in an art isn't about dogma. It's about what works for the art. In boxing, the stance is all about how to move and punch efficiently. In Taekwondo, it's all about how to kick efficiently. In Muay Thai, it's all about how to protect yourself from all sorts of strikes. In Kyokushin, it's all about how to deliver body punches. In wrestling, it's all about setting up leverage. In Hapkido, it's about creating stand-off distance.

I'll use a different stance in each art, not because of dogma or because of "that's how it's always been done". There are reasons for using those stances. If you think they're only done different because of dogma, you're sorely mistaken.



Your ignorance on the subject is astounding. You have no understanding of why kata footwork is the way it is.

[/quote][/QUOTE]
people do figure things out, quite a lot all the time, give them a soccer ball and they figure it out, give them a tennis set and they figure it out, hell people learn fighting by fighting with their friends, thats rather how i learned to fight, they may figure it out sooner be better with expert coaching, but thats only so if the coaching is actually addressing the fundamental issues

Ma isnt a separate entity, all other branches of human kinetics, its not a special case, it really isnt, if a movements, is optimal in another sport it may well be optimal in lots of other sports including ma

clearly if i adopted a planted stance and a silly walk in most other sports id be at a serious disadvantage. but the fundamentals are probably the same, ie fast movement and power and accuracy. Which leaves you with the question of why and if what your doing is infact optimal.

its clear that competition MA dont general do this, whilst recognising that there is great differences between boxing and wrestling,, still no one does a silly walk as its a really bad way of getting from point a to b quickly

then someone will say '' we only do that at the beginning, then adapt''but why do it at all ? it then has to be unlearnt

a planted stance is indeed useful if your going to resist some one trying to move you, but not at all if your trying to evade them, or in fact move to attack them, thousandths of a second count, having to transition costs you valuable time

at the end of the day, your not going to accept anything i say, but thats rather coz you have bought into something with out exercising reason, and you cant use reason to convince someone they are in error when they didn't use reason to form the opinion in the first place

 

[skribs]

[/QUOTE]
people do figure things out, quite a lot all the time, give them a soccer ball and they figure it out, give them a tennis set and they figure it out, hell people learn fighting by fighting with their friends, thats rather how i learned to fight, they may figure it out sooner be better with expert coaching, but thats only so if the coaching is actually addressing the fundamental issues[/quote]

So you are (or would be) a lazy coach.

Ma isnt a separate entity, all other branches of human kinetics, its not a special case, it really isnt, if a movements, is optimal in another sport it may well be optimal in lots of other sports including ma

Every sport I've ever done has taught stance and movement.

• Soccer - how to move with the ball
• Football - there are different stances for linemen, and some are better at different stances than others are (you see this in scouting reports all the time)
• Basketball - how to move with the ball, your stance and footwork after you've grabbed hold of the ball, your stance while defending
• Baseball - batter's stance, infield stance. The pitcher's throw very much resembles a TMA front stance

clearly if i adopted a planted stance and a silly walk in most other sports id be at a serious disadvantage. but the fundamentals are probably the same, ie fast movement and power and accuracy. Which leaves you with the question of why and if what your doing is infact optimal.

What do you mean by "silly walk"? Because that type of walk is how Marshawn Lynch was such a powerhouse at bulldozing through defenders. That type of walk is what you see in ice hockey. That type of stance you see in basketball players who are defending or who are at risk of traveling.

its clear that competition MA dont general do this, whilst recognising that there is great differences between boxing and wrestling,, still no one does a silly walk as its a really bad way of getting from point a to b quickly

Getting from point A to point B isn't the point of martial arts.

then someone will say '' we only do that at the beginning, then adapt''but why do it at all ? it then has to be unlearnt

Strength training. Flexibility. Discipline. The fact that a lot of people regress under stress, and so exaggerating the motions can help counter that regression.

a planted stance is indeed useful if your going to resist some one trying to move you, but not at all if your trying to evade them, or in fact move to attack them, thousandths of a second count, having to transition costs you valuable time

So you see it has some benefit, and then immediately reject. You're arguing with yourself in this paragraph.

at the end of the day, your not going to accept anything i say, but thats rather coz you have bought into something with out exercising reason, and you cant use reason to convince someone they are in error when they didn't use reason to form the opinion in the first place

No. It's because your points make no sense. I provided reasons and examples why everything you said was wrong (except for half of the previous paragraph). You are right that I can't use reason to convince you of your errors, because you're still arguing after you've so clearly been wrong.

 

[jobo]

people do figure things out, quite a lot all the time, give them a soccer ball and they figure it out, give them a tennis set and they figure it out, hell people learn fighting by fighting with their friends, thats rather how i learned to fight, they may figure it out sooner be better with expert coaching, but thats only so if the coaching is actually addressing the fundamental issues[/quote]

So you are (or would be) a lazy coach.



Every sport I've ever done has taught stance and movement.

• Soccer - how to move with the ball
• Football - there are different stances for linemen, and some are better at different stances than others are (you see this in scouting reports all the time)
• Basketball - how to move with the ball, your stance and footwork after you've grabbed hold of the ball, your stance while defending
• Baseball - batter's stance, infield stance. The pitcher's throw very much resembles a TMA front stance

What do you mean by "silly walk"? Because that type of walk is how Marshawn Lynch was such a powerhouse at bulldozing through defenders. That type of walk is what you see in ice hockey. That type of stance you see in basketball players who are defending or who are at risk of traveling.



Getting from point A to point B isn't the point of martial arts.



Strength training. Flexibility. Discipline. The fact that a lot of people regress under stress, and so exaggerating the motions can help counter that regression.



So you see it has some benefit, and then immediately reject. You're arguing with yourself in this paragraph.



No. It's because your points make no sense. I provided reasons and examples why everything you said was wrong (except for half of the previous paragraph). You are right that I can't use reason to convince you of your errors, because you're still arguing after you've so clearly been wrong.[/QUOTE]
im saying that different sports have more in common than they do differences, sports or positions that require fast moving dont plant themselves,NEVER . or if they make a mistake the game passes them by

.ice hockey player dont walk at all, it isn't a walk, that just how you have to move to SKATE , field hockey players dont move like that and apart from the skating aspect they are much the same, thats a silly point

teaching them to walk badly only means that when they are stressed they walk badly, ( or maybe less badly)people learnt to walk very early in life and do so when they are stressed as well , generally. another daft point

and of course fast A to B movement is the very essence of fighting( even if the two points are quite close together, your still at a different point in space)if its not an important point in any MA, then its not teaching you to fight very well or possibly at all ? Standing like a statue isnt really optimal

the main difficulty in soccer isnt moving with the ball,( thats the easy part) its getting it in the first place and that commonly requires speed of movement with out the ball

 

[jobo]

people do figure things out, quite a lot all the time, give them a soccer ball and they figure it out, give them a tennis set and they figure it out, hell people learn fighting by fighting with their friends, thats rather how i learned to fight, they may figure it out sooner be better with expert coaching, but thats only so if the coaching is actually addressing the fundamental issues[/quote]

So you are (or would be) a lazy coach.



Every sport I've ever done has taught stance and movement.

• Soccer - how to move with the ball
• Football - there are different stances for linemen, and some are better at different stances than others are (you see this in scouting reports all the time)
• Basketball - how to move with the ball, your stance and footwork after you've grabbed hold of the ball, your stance while defending
• Baseball - batter's stance, infield stance. The pitcher's throw very much resembles a TMA front stance

What do you mean by "silly walk"? Because that type of walk is how Marshawn Lynch was such a powerhouse at bulldozing through defenders. That type of walk is what you see in ice hockey. That type of stance you see in basketball players who are defending or who are at risk of traveling.



Getting from point A to point B isn't the point of martial arts.



Strength training. Flexibility. Discipline. The fact that a lot of people regress under stress, and so exaggerating the motions can help counter that regression.



So you see it has some benefit, and then immediately reject. You're arguing with yourself in this paragraph.



No. It's because your points make no sense. I provided reasons and examples why everything you said was wrong (except for half of the previous paragraph). You are right that I can't use reason to convince you of your errors, because you're still arguing after you've so clearly been wrong.[/QUOTE]





im saying that different sports have more in common than they do differences, sports or positions that require fast moving dont plant themselves,NEVER . or if they make a mistake the game passes them by

.ice hockey player dont walk at all, it isn't a walk, that just how you have to move to SKATE , field hockey players dont move like that and apart from the skating aspect they are much the same, thats a silly point

teaching them to walk badly only means that when they are stressed they walk badly, ( or maybe less badly)people learnt to walk very early in life and do so when they are stressed as well , generally. another daft point

and of course fast A to B movement is the very essence of fighting( even if the two points are quite close together, your still at a different point in space)if its not an important point in any MA, then its not teaching you to fight very well or possibly at all ? Standing like a statue isnt really optimal, walking at the speed of a drunk even less so

the main difficulty in soccer isnt moving with the ball,( thats the easy part) its getting it in the first place and that commonly requires speed of movement with out the ball

 

[drop bear]

Stances are super complicated because they are always a bit of a compromise.

Stances that allows good kicking probably doesn't defend takedowns well.

And so you have to weigh up the rewards of say throwing a knock out kick to the cost of winding up on your back.

Which say if your BJJ is super solid you may not be too concerned about winding up on your back. Where if you just did striking you want to be very concerned.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Stances are super complicated because they are always a bit of a compromise.

Stances that allows good kicking probably doesn't defend takedowns well.

And so you have to weigh up the rewards of say throwing a knock out kick to the cost of winding up on your back.

Which say if your BJJ is super solid you may not be too concerned about winding up on your back. Where if you just did striking you want to be very concerned.

Good points. But the concept I've seen lacking in this discussion is that a style, or even a particular combat event, is not locked into just one stance. Stances are transitory, meant to be shifted as events flow from one situation to another.

One will have a default stance, usually based on one's style or preference, but there is no rule one must stay in that stance.. I may have a fairly upright stance for my striking, but when I close the distance and seize the opponent, I will drop into a lower type of stance for increased stability. Also, the opponent has a lot of influence on my stances: Is he fast and agile, strong and linear, a grappler, experienced? My default engagement stance may be different for each kind of guy, but, as we all know, after the first punch is thrown, it can be a whole different ballgame.

It's not a matter of having a single stance, but having 3 or 4 of them, and having the footwork down, being able to efficiently flow from one to another as the situation calls for. IMO, this is one of the most important skills in MA. When this is combined with variable angles; defense, all kicks, strikes and grabs, and just about any other MA technique will be greatly enhanced.

 

[PhotonGuy]

When I started MA I Improved much faster than the other students.
At the time I thought I was just more dedicated.
Looking back I think it was because I played football, basketball, and ran track.
5ft 8in 135 lbs could bench 200 one time, ran 440 in 50.3 and half in 2:04.

My granddaughter has studied ballet and swim since age 4,
She became better in a few months than other students who have trained for years.

My other granddaughter stayed with me for just a month and became very good in just a month.
She has done gymnastics and soccer since age 4.
The gymnastic teacher wants her to homeschool and do gymnastic full time.
I am happy her parents said NO!


I guess my point is maybe learning to be good at dance or sports before learning MA might be a better route to becoming a good Martial Artist.

I had been swimming competitively for about three years when I first took up my main martial art. Looking back I must say swimming helped but I don't see how first learning other sports will make you better in the martial arts instead of first learning martial arts.

 

[PhotonGuy]

In my opinion, it is. And it isn't. Allow me explain.....

I ran a big dojo for a long time. By the luck of circumstance, it was at the right location at the right time. The place was successful, busy, and everyone knew about it. Athletically gifted students joined all the time. And they progressed quickly. There were a lot of good instructors there, and we all had some good instructors ourselves.

The athletically gifted students took off like rocket ships. Which is to be expected. But then.....less athletically gifted students, who worked harder, came more often, worked out at home, and paid attention to details, started to catch up with them. And then surpassed them. And started to politely man handle them. Sometimes it would take a year, or two or three or five. The athletically gifted students suddenly weren't so "gifted" any more.

And I'd sit down and talk to them about that. Some of them understood, some said they did, but didn't really. Some just didn't want to admit it to themselves. Of the athletically gifted ones, a few still train and teach today. But there's far more of the ones who weren't so gifted back then. They sure seem gifted to everyone now.

Some of the most accomplished sports stats were not super gifted from the get go, take Michael Jordan for instance.