If you teach a group of students, do your students just mimic you?
No, because there are follow up corrections and instruction relevant to individual students which is the vital element missing from videos.
Learning Tai Chi online
- Thread starter Robert Agar-Hutton
- Start date
No, because there are follow up corrections and instruction relevant to individual students which is the vital element missing from videos.
I think the issue is with how feedback works. If you use guitar videos to learn (which I have and do), and you manage to play something on the guitar (which I have), then you've learned to play the guitar using that video content. If it sounds good, it's working.
But with martial arts - particularly something like Tai Chi - the feedback needs more levels. Firstly, there's a difference between something that works, and something that works properly. Someone can work out a punch or kick that actually delivers power, but are they missing anything important in it? Are they putting a joint at risk because of poor form (which I might be doing with those guitar videos)? Are they getting decent power by putting everything they have into it, when they should be able to get that power with half that effort? Are they leaving themselves horribly exposed to counters? Some of that will show up with a sparring partner, but they may not recognize it (and a beginning-level partner may be less than useful). All of those concerns - with different factors - come up at least as much with grappling, trapping, etc.
Then we get to the question of whether they're learning the art in question. If I put up a bunch of NGA videos, and someone uses those to learn to fight against their new sparring partner, but they miss key principles (because beginners ALWAYS miss those), have they actually learned NGA? I'd say not.
So, is it possible to learn something from videos? Absolutely. If you have any kind of base at all, you'll likely be able to learn something quite useful quite quickly (@Tony Dismukes probably can get 1000% more out of a guitar video in 1/10 of the time). I do that all the time with BJJ videos. But - especially with beginners - there's some risk of mis-learning, possibly even in ways that create risk for them or their partner. And they may learn useful skill, but not the art they're wanting to learn. (That latter doesn't happen with guitar videos - I won't accidentally learn to play ukulele instead).
For someone with a base to start from, I'd agree. I cringe at what I'm certain most beginners would do when trying to replicate such a move. No amount of explanation seems to stop that from happening.If one can slow down the video and make it into repeatable GIF file, it's possible to learn from it.
Here is an example.
Ground technique seems to be the partial exception, when it's style-agnostic (as I consider BJJ to be), because most movement is very low-risk, can be done realistically at a low speed, and can be kept technical (meaning leaving the strength out of it) for beginners. Obviously, the same issues apply to ground grappling, but to a lesser degree than elsewhere.
When they start, they do. Or, rather, they try to. Most do a very bad job of it, and need correction. The range of errors they can manifest - even when seeing themselves in a mirror - is quite impressive.If you teach a group of students, do your students just mimic you?
There are some mistakes you let pass, because they cannot readily be corrected yet. When a student gets the basic movement and principles down a bit, then other corrections can be made.
Used properly, I think a bit more can be learned from good video. At least you're unlikely to be taught something improperly, which is more likely with the bad instructor. So, perhaps the good video is the lesser of two evils.
I disagree. No matter how good your 1 kick, 3 punches are, you still have to be able to stop the other guy from knocking you out first. Amazing offense only holds up until the other guy gets one shot in.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
It still comes down to self-correction which is unrealistic unless the person already has a lot of experience, and even then may be unrealistic depending on how similar or dissimilar the video material and method is to what the person has experience with.
I hold that they are both poor options.
I agree it's down to self-correction. I think the student stands a marginally better chance of making some of the corrections with a better example and better explanation. If the instructor is really bad, they're either not making those corrections...or possibly even making some that are wrong.
But yeah, for starting from scratch, both are poor options.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Just as a note... I have been trained in the Yang Long form by my Shifu. However If I go off and decide to go to videos and learn the Yang Long form of the current Yang family, it is different in places. If I watch videos of Tung Hu Ling (same lineage as I am and learned from the same teacher my shifu learned from) it is also different. Not as different as the Yang families form is from mine, but it is still a little different in places. If I then decide to go and learn the Tung Long form, from videos from Alex Dong (source is my shigong and he is the grandson of my shigong) it is ver different again. I have also watched others, that will remain nameless, that are absolutely horrible and yet people by them to teach themselves. And to be honest, if that is what they want to do, I really have no issue with it My issue comes in when they do this, then turn around and start teaching ti to others. Then things go down hill from there.
I also know someone and have trained with him, he is very skilled, however he is also into the distance learning business, as well as having his own school, and he is highly qualified to teach. But I have seen some of what comes out of his distance learning program and there are some that are good, but they go train with him a few times a year and for a week every summer. But there are those that go pretty much full on video training and they are questionable at best.
Now I know, based on my background, which ones appear better (this would be my opinion of course, but a trained opinion) as it applies to martial applications, health benefits, proper "safe" form. However no one, just starting out, would have a clue, nor would they even know what to look for, and for the most part, with styles like Yang you end up with something similar to taijiquan, or bad taijiquan, but not good. However in styles like Southern Wu you can easily end up with injuries, especially to the knees, seen a lot of folks in bad Southern Wu Posture that I know will lead to knee issues if they continue, and Chen, well its low stance and especially the fajin, that can hurt too. You need a teacher for these styles, or a lot of background in them prior to looking to videos.
Of course I am only talking taijiquan here, there are multiple other styles from a variety of cultures out there that can be good, or equally as bad to dangerous. If you have no background in a style, you need a teacher.And in many cases even if you have background in a style, you need a teacher. I would never recommend attempting to learn any of the fast forms from Tung Ying Chieh by video, even if you have years of long form behind you.
For me, if this is what someone wants to do, I have no problem with it. They are responsible for their own actions. It is when the call themselves a teacher and start teaching, I have an issue.
I also know someone and have trained with him, he is very skilled, however he is also into the distance learning business, as well as having his own school, and he is highly qualified to teach. But I have seen some of what comes out of his distance learning program and there are some that are good, but they go train with him a few times a year and for a week every summer. But there are those that go pretty much full on video training and they are questionable at best.
Now I know, based on my background, which ones appear better (this would be my opinion of course, but a trained opinion) as it applies to martial applications, health benefits, proper "safe" form. However no one, just starting out, would have a clue, nor would they even know what to look for, and for the most part, with styles like Yang you end up with something similar to taijiquan, or bad taijiquan, but not good. However in styles like Southern Wu you can easily end up with injuries, especially to the knees, seen a lot of folks in bad Southern Wu Posture that I know will lead to knee issues if they continue, and Chen, well its low stance and especially the fajin, that can hurt too. You need a teacher for these styles, or a lot of background in them prior to looking to videos.
Of course I am only talking taijiquan here, there are multiple other styles from a variety of cultures out there that can be good, or equally as bad to dangerous. If you have no background in a style, you need a teacher.And in many cases even if you have background in a style, you need a teacher. I would never recommend attempting to learn any of the fast forms from Tung Ying Chieh by video, even if you have years of long form behind you.
For me, if this is what someone wants to do, I have no problem with it. They are responsible for their own actions. It is when the call themselves a teacher and start teaching, I have an issue.
This is a good write-up, Xue. It got me thinking. While I can - and often do - pick up useful techniques from Judo, BJJ, and wrestling videos, I don't get much from most (Ueshiba-origin) Aikido videos. The principles as they apply them are just different enough that I don't find them as useful to me. Their approach to "aiki" is different enough from my own that some of their techniques don't even translate. And that's a closely related art. I think "soft" principles are the hardest to convey via video, and the hardest to correct remotely. That would apply even to the relaxation used in BJJ. It often takes an instructor's eyes (someone who understands the principle of relaxation) to help a student understand how NOT relaxed they are.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I will simply add to this by saying that yes, people can do whatever they want to do. But if they come here asking if it is a good idea, or asking for video recommendations, or looking to offer their own video instruction to others, then I am going to speak up and point out the many problems inherent in the approach and i will not encourage it.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Exactly.
You need a teacher, especially for the softer (internal) side of things. And sometimes it takes more than one instructors eyes. I never realized I had good upper and lower unity in my forms until I was told by 2 teachers (one Xingyiquan) that were not my Yang shifu (he never tells you anything, he corrects you and if he stops correcting, well, you got it right). Never new my push hands was any good, until 2 other teachers told me so (one of those was a Dachengquan Shifu) Again, my shifu corrects, that is about it. In almost 25 years of training with him, I believe he only said I was good about half a dozen times. His style of teaching even though he is a Southern Chinese Shifu (they generally talk more) is like his shifu, who is Northern Chinese (they generally talk less) My shifu actually told me this one day about his Shifu and that is when I caught on to what was going on.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Also don't start belittling the style when their video only learning fails to do what they want it to do. I have seen, and used a Jerry Poteet video when I was looking at going back to JKD. But I was looking at it for the foot work, which I had been shown before. But if someone just gets that video to learn JKD and learn how to fight. My guess is they will get their butt kicked sooner or later. And if that is what happens, then don't start downing JKD, they should start downing their own training
If you want to create instruction video, voice or text is important. The 1st clip has no audio. The 2nd clip says, "The most important ...".
Agreed. I'll even go a step further on that, John, and say voice-over is nearly imperative. Being able to time the instruction to motion on the video adds a lot of clarity. When we teach, we sometimes demonstrate slowly, so we can say "and right here, you should...."If you want to create instruction video, voice or text is important. The 1st clip has no audio. The 2nd clip says, "The most important ...".
I will add audio such as:
- The 1st clip shows uniform stance (same side) entering. The 2nd clip shows mirror stance (different side) entering. The 2nd clip can generate more momentum (the 1st step is farther).
- The 2nd clip entering is safer. He pushes his opponent's leading arm away from his entering path.
- It's important to control your opponent's back leg.
- ...
IMO, sometimes even a teacher still doesn't give enough detail during teaching. If you include this level detail with your video, the result will be better.
Of course the "self-correction" can be another issue. If students can send his video back to the teacher, the teacher can correct it through E-mail.
- The 1st clip shows uniform stance (same side) entering. The 2nd clip shows mirror stance (different side) entering. The 2nd clip can generate more momentum (the 1st step is farther).
- The 2nd clip entering is safer. He pushes his opponent's leading arm away from his entering path.
- It's important to control your opponent's back leg.
- ...
IMO, sometimes even a teacher still doesn't give enough detail during teaching. If you include this level detail with your video, the result will be better.
Of course the "self-correction" can be another issue. If students can send his video back to the teacher, the teacher can correct it through E-mail.
Last edited:
MetalBoar
Black Belt
Wow! Go away for a week or so and this thread blew up!
So, I had a long response written to @Flying Crane and then my cat stepped on my computer's power button and I lost motivation to continue this discussion but I see that a lot of people have been inspired to write so I guess I'll wade back in a little. As a side note, a genuine thank you to @Flying Crane and everyone else who's given this a thoughtful reply.
First off, I think there's a big distinction between training from video, that's been available since the VCR got cheap, whether it be online or from DVD's or whatever and the sort of online training that I envision. I don't know what is being done online at present but I think that to be done well there would need to be interaction between the student and instructor, ideally some real time, video conferencing style interaction plus some exchange of asynchronous recorded video and feedback along with more conventional training videos. Done that way I think a student could learn a lot of (though maybe not all) martial arts to a reasonable level of competence, assuming they had a partner, and preferably multiple partners, to train with.
This is where @gpseymour and I disagree, with a guitar you can hear what you're doing and get feedback that way, you can also play for an audience and see what they think. I'd say if you can try techniques on your training partner(s) you're getting good feedback. If you can find people from other martial arts schools to try them out on you're getting better feedback than many students in brick and mortar schools. The more you can try these techniques against resistance the more sure you can be of the feedback. If we're just talking about watching non-interactive videos online, then I agree that it's going to be much harder to progress without any background in MA, though I'm still not sure it's impossible, merely hard, slow and potentially more dangerous.
The next thing is, we may disagree about what learning a martial art means. We see this in a lot of MMA vs. TMA threads. How do you determine when someone has learned a martial art? Is it when they've learned a form well enough to win a forms competition? What level of forms competition, in their school, regional, international? When they do it the way well respected instructor A thinks they should, but not the way well respected (by other people, who think instructor A is an imbecile) instructor B thinks they should? Or do forms have nothing to do with it? Is it when the student can regularly do well in tournaments? If that's the standard, then that raises some more questions; what level of contact is required? How big a tournament, again, their school, regional, international, professional? What does their record need to look like, and is it valid if it wasn't in the UFC, or K1 or Rajadamnern stadium? My definition would be that it's an acceptable martial arts school if the student is getting what they want out of it, and if we need a little more clarity than that, I'd say one objective test (though not the only one necessarily and it doesn't meet everyone's needs) is if the student can effectively apply it against a resisting opponent with a similar level of brick and mortar training from an average school (preferably) in their area.
What's your definition? What percentage of brick and mortar schools meet it? If it requires that the instructor has produced successful professional fighters as someone suggested above, tell me how many instructors in the US (and the nation in which you reside) meet that standard and are any of them teaching in Seattle, or maybe more to the point, Bismark, North Dakota or Cheyenne, Wyoming?
I agree that tai chi seems like one of the more challenging arts to learn through remote instruction, I'm on my 4th attempt (all in brick and mortar schools, no video training) right now. The thing is, the middle two instructors were very little better than watching a video and I think a really good interactive online experience would have been far superior. They were pretty hands off and did not give much feedback and mostly just demonstrated the form and talked about the principles of the art. Some of their students seemed good and they seemed to be skilled themselves (which is why I trained with them rather than the double handful of instructors I talked to that seemed terrible) but I don't think they really started paying attention to their students until they'd been there for over a year. It would not have been hard to get better instruction from an engaged online instructor.
My primary objection to the idea that one can't possibly learn from a remote instructor is from my own experience. I'll state it once again, I effectively learned sport foil fencing from a book. Oh sure, we had an "instructor", but they were a PE instructor from the college that got roped into teaching fencing. They read the same book that was assigned to the class before the session started and then taught directly out of it. I learned more from reading the book than I did from the instructor because they didn't go into the same level of depth. I can say that I have two measures of success; one, I had a complete blast with the class and two I beat my first A rated fencer with no other instruction than books and an instructor regurgitating the first book I read. Yeah, I got a whole lot better when I started taking private lessons from a retired Hungarian Olympic coach, but if that's your requirement for a qualified instructor good luck finding one in the art of your choice even in a big city, I drove over 300 miles round trip 1-2 times/week to train with the gentleman I found. I got good before that because I read and practiced. I practiced a lot against resisting opponents and then I analyzed what went well and what went poorly and then I drilled to correct the problems that I saw and refined my style to maximize my strengths. And it wasn't just me, there were about 10 other people in the area that were at a similar skill level that had no other training.
I find it really funny that I see people who are normally part of the MMA crowd who claim that pressure testing and results in the ring are the sole measures of an art's effectiveness that don't get this, or maybe they think I'm lying. So, maybe some martial arts would be difficult of impossible to learn without a physically present instructor, and some arts would be hard to test because there's no appropriate venue and to some degree the practitioners just choose to trust that what they're learning works, brick and mortar or online, either one. Sport arts though shouldn't have this problem. I've done enough boxing to feel confident that if I was 20 again and had 30-40 training partners like I did for fencing and a stack of good books on the subject I could get to be pretty good at it if I put in the same kind of work that I did with fencing. That's probably true of judo, BJJ and other sport arts too, though I think there might be more risk or broken bones and dislocations. I think the same holds true for FMA, take your sticks (or whatever practice weapon) and drill based on books and/or video and then spar a lot and I think you'd get to where you were pretty good. If you sparred as much as I fenced and you had a similar number of training partners I can't imagine that you wouldn't get pretty good. Going back to tai chi, if you learned it strictly online I really believe that if you practiced fixed step or moving step push hands regularly with a resisting partner, using competition rules, that you'd get a lot better at competitive push hands than students at the vast majority of tai chi schools. Of course I've read that competition push hands isn't really tai chi, and I'm fine with that as I'm not personally all that interested in push hands competition at this time, but then we still need a definition of what tai chi is.
Now, I fully admit that I've got some prejudice against online training at present and those offering online training. There's an instructor locally that has come very highly recommended from both TMA and MMA people that I know and when I saw on his website that he was offering online training my reflex reaction was to assume he must be some sort of money grubbing fraud. I still haven't tried his classes (online or local) so I don't know what he's actually doing with either of them, but the online thing did turn me off. My point isn't that I know of anyone doing good training in that format now, I just think that from my own experience learning from a book that a good instructor who was really conversant with the current technology for online instruction could do a better job than all the mediocre and poor instructors do face to face and if you live in someplace other than a large city good online training (if it is offered) would be light years ahead of doing nothing.
So, I had a long response written to @Flying Crane and then my cat stepped on my computer's power button and I lost motivation to continue this discussion but I see that a lot of people have been inspired to write so I guess I'll wade back in a little. As a side note, a genuine thank you to @Flying Crane and everyone else who's given this a thoughtful reply.
First off, I think there's a big distinction between training from video, that's been available since the VCR got cheap, whether it be online or from DVD's or whatever and the sort of online training that I envision. I don't know what is being done online at present but I think that to be done well there would need to be interaction between the student and instructor, ideally some real time, video conferencing style interaction plus some exchange of asynchronous recorded video and feedback along with more conventional training videos. Done that way I think a student could learn a lot of (though maybe not all) martial arts to a reasonable level of competence, assuming they had a partner, and preferably multiple partners, to train with.
This is where @gpseymour and I disagree, with a guitar you can hear what you're doing and get feedback that way, you can also play for an audience and see what they think. I'd say if you can try techniques on your training partner(s) you're getting good feedback. If you can find people from other martial arts schools to try them out on you're getting better feedback than many students in brick and mortar schools. The more you can try these techniques against resistance the more sure you can be of the feedback. If we're just talking about watching non-interactive videos online, then I agree that it's going to be much harder to progress without any background in MA, though I'm still not sure it's impossible, merely hard, slow and potentially more dangerous.
The next thing is, we may disagree about what learning a martial art means. We see this in a lot of MMA vs. TMA threads. How do you determine when someone has learned a martial art? Is it when they've learned a form well enough to win a forms competition? What level of forms competition, in their school, regional, international? When they do it the way well respected instructor A thinks they should, but not the way well respected (by other people, who think instructor A is an imbecile) instructor B thinks they should? Or do forms have nothing to do with it? Is it when the student can regularly do well in tournaments? If that's the standard, then that raises some more questions; what level of contact is required? How big a tournament, again, their school, regional, international, professional? What does their record need to look like, and is it valid if it wasn't in the UFC, or K1 or Rajadamnern stadium? My definition would be that it's an acceptable martial arts school if the student is getting what they want out of it, and if we need a little more clarity than that, I'd say one objective test (though not the only one necessarily and it doesn't meet everyone's needs) is if the student can effectively apply it against a resisting opponent with a similar level of brick and mortar training from an average school (preferably) in their area.
What's your definition? What percentage of brick and mortar schools meet it? If it requires that the instructor has produced successful professional fighters as someone suggested above, tell me how many instructors in the US (and the nation in which you reside) meet that standard and are any of them teaching in Seattle, or maybe more to the point, Bismark, North Dakota or Cheyenne, Wyoming?
I agree that tai chi seems like one of the more challenging arts to learn through remote instruction, I'm on my 4th attempt (all in brick and mortar schools, no video training) right now. The thing is, the middle two instructors were very little better than watching a video and I think a really good interactive online experience would have been far superior. They were pretty hands off and did not give much feedback and mostly just demonstrated the form and talked about the principles of the art. Some of their students seemed good and they seemed to be skilled themselves (which is why I trained with them rather than the double handful of instructors I talked to that seemed terrible) but I don't think they really started paying attention to their students until they'd been there for over a year. It would not have been hard to get better instruction from an engaged online instructor.
My primary objection to the idea that one can't possibly learn from a remote instructor is from my own experience. I'll state it once again, I effectively learned sport foil fencing from a book. Oh sure, we had an "instructor", but they were a PE instructor from the college that got roped into teaching fencing. They read the same book that was assigned to the class before the session started and then taught directly out of it. I learned more from reading the book than I did from the instructor because they didn't go into the same level of depth. I can say that I have two measures of success; one, I had a complete blast with the class and two I beat my first A rated fencer with no other instruction than books and an instructor regurgitating the first book I read. Yeah, I got a whole lot better when I started taking private lessons from a retired Hungarian Olympic coach, but if that's your requirement for a qualified instructor good luck finding one in the art of your choice even in a big city, I drove over 300 miles round trip 1-2 times/week to train with the gentleman I found. I got good before that because I read and practiced. I practiced a lot against resisting opponents and then I analyzed what went well and what went poorly and then I drilled to correct the problems that I saw and refined my style to maximize my strengths. And it wasn't just me, there were about 10 other people in the area that were at a similar skill level that had no other training.
I find it really funny that I see people who are normally part of the MMA crowd who claim that pressure testing and results in the ring are the sole measures of an art's effectiveness that don't get this, or maybe they think I'm lying. So, maybe some martial arts would be difficult of impossible to learn without a physically present instructor, and some arts would be hard to test because there's no appropriate venue and to some degree the practitioners just choose to trust that what they're learning works, brick and mortar or online, either one. Sport arts though shouldn't have this problem. I've done enough boxing to feel confident that if I was 20 again and had 30-40 training partners like I did for fencing and a stack of good books on the subject I could get to be pretty good at it if I put in the same kind of work that I did with fencing. That's probably true of judo, BJJ and other sport arts too, though I think there might be more risk or broken bones and dislocations. I think the same holds true for FMA, take your sticks (or whatever practice weapon) and drill based on books and/or video and then spar a lot and I think you'd get to where you were pretty good. If you sparred as much as I fenced and you had a similar number of training partners I can't imagine that you wouldn't get pretty good. Going back to tai chi, if you learned it strictly online I really believe that if you practiced fixed step or moving step push hands regularly with a resisting partner, using competition rules, that you'd get a lot better at competitive push hands than students at the vast majority of tai chi schools. Of course I've read that competition push hands isn't really tai chi, and I'm fine with that as I'm not personally all that interested in push hands competition at this time, but then we still need a definition of what tai chi is.
Now, I fully admit that I've got some prejudice against online training at present and those offering online training. There's an instructor locally that has come very highly recommended from both TMA and MMA people that I know and when I saw on his website that he was offering online training my reflex reaction was to assume he must be some sort of money grubbing fraud. I still haven't tried his classes (online or local) so I don't know what he's actually doing with either of them, but the online thing did turn me off. My point isn't that I know of anyone doing good training in that format now, I just think that from my own experience learning from a book that a good instructor who was really conversant with the current technology for online instruction could do a better job than all the mediocre and poor instructors do face to face and if you live in someplace other than a large city good online training (if it is offered) would be light years ahead of doing nothing.
Last edited:
This is why video has a higher value for folks with a base to work from. We can get a lot more detail in a short time than we would likely get in a class.I will add audio such as:
- The 1st clip shows uniform stance (same side) entering. The 2nd clip shows mirror stance (different side) entering. The 2nd clip can generate more momentum (the 1st step is farther).
- The 2nd clip entering is safer. He pushes his opponent's leading arm away from his entering path.
- It's important to control your opponent's back leg.
- ...
IMO, sometimes even a teacher still doesn't give enough detail during teaching. If you include this level detail with your video, the result will be better.
Of course the "self-correction" can be another issue. If students can send his video back to the teacher, the teacher can correct it through E-mail.
You've introducing something that's not distinctive here, though. The brick-and-mortar student could also seek people from other arts. But that's more nit-picking on my part, so back to a salient point....
With a partner, you can't tell if what you're doing works because the partner lets it, or because it actually works. You also can't tell (as with my example of a punch's power) whether what you're doing kinda works in spite of the flaws, or works because you're doing it well. With the guitar, if it sounds right, then it's working, and not much else matters.
But you make some good points. There are some things I'd expect most people could probably manage to learn from video of some sort. But from raw beginner? With the mistakes I see beginners make - mistakes they are often entirely unaware they are making - that's a VERY long learning curve, and is likely to include learning some things quite "wrongly".
Similar threads
