Picking up a new art in a new school?

[drop bear]

The approach to a new martial art is the same as the one you are doing.

I mean generally you are working on stuff you wouldn't normally be good at or are used to anyway.

The different rule sets just make it easier to focus on those things.

Same as when you hurt yourself and are forced to train other pathways.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The approach to a new martial art is the same as the one you are doing.

I mean generally you are working on stuff you wouldn't normally be good at or are used to anyway.

The different rule sets just make it easier to focus on those things.

Same as when you hurt yourself and are forced to train other pathways.

I need to think on that a bit, DB. I think I like the way you said it quite a lot.

 

[Flying Crane]

It was private lessons, so no conflict with teaching others. In fact, he wanted me to join a small group class he taught for only folks who held rank (BB+) in some art already. (I couldn't join that because I was teaching at the same time.)

I was impatient - that's a character trait of mine. But what brings my impatience to the fore is when there doesn't seem to be a reason for not moving ahead. In this case, the instructor didn't have anything to correct, except that I should be doing the beginner's movement. What I mean by that is he didn't say, "You're not using proper technique - let's stick to the beginner movement and get that fixed." He said something like, "I know you're used to using smaller movements, but we have to practice the beginner movement for a long time before we can move to the advanced movement. The masters use small movements like you're working with, but that's because they're the masters and spent many years doing the beginner movements."

To me, that lacks any explanation of a reason to use that bigger movement, other than that it's supposed to be necessary. If he'd shown me some fundamental mistake I was making, I'd have happily done the beginner movement until that mistake was cured. There were places I didn't really understand the principles, and those places I gladly stuck to the beginner movement (or the closest approximation I could manage - like any beginner). And there were things my habits made difficult to do "properly" (using the technique as he was showing it), so I was happy to do those in beginner mode. But when there's no error pointed out, just an expectation of an amount of time that should be spent doing it exaggerated, my mind rebels.

well, i come from a system that definitely uses exaggerated movement to instill the full-body connection into habit. When we are practicing our basics, we always use that exaggeration. Even the guys who have been doing it for 4-5 decades. It's because we feel that the exercise is always beneficial. The exaggeration continues to reinforce those fundamental principles, even after so many years. So really, we never stop doing them.

that does not mean that we do them in every thing we do. the goal, after all, is to be able to engage that full-body connection with small movement, when the **** hits the fan. It just means that it is always a part of what we do, and how we practice. It remains useful, even after 4-5 decades.

so perhaps a better way to look at it is, learning to properly use the exaggerated movements so that you can continue to benefit from them into the future.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well, i come from a system that definitely uses exaggerated movement to instill the full-body connection into habit. When we are practicing our basics, we always use that exaggeration. Even the guys who have been doing it for 4-5 decades. It's because we feel that the exercise is always beneficial. The exaggeration continues to reinforce those fundamental principles, even after so many years. So really, we never stop doing them.

that does not mean that we do them in every thing we do. the goal, after all, is to be able to engage that full-body connection with small movement, when the **** hits the fan. It just means that it is always a part of what we do, and how we practice. It remains useful, even after 4-5 decades.

so perhaps a better way to look at it is, learning to properly use the exaggerated movements so that you can continue to benefit from them into the future.

Had I received an explanation like that, I'd have been quite happy.

I honestly think he just didn't know how to progress someone who is a beginner in one area and does another area well already. Or he didn't know how to explain why he thought something should be done a certain way.

 

[Flying Crane]

Had I received an explanation like that, I'd have been quite happy.

I honestly think he just didn't know how to progress someone who is a beginner in one area and does another area well already. Or he didn't know how to explain why he thought something should be done a certain way.

That could be. It is my opinion that a lot of the people who practice my system really do not understand why we do the exaggerated movement. It shows in how they do it, it is just not connected.

 

[skribs]

Don't agree with that. Blind faith is never a good thing. Everyone on this earth is equal so we have our to question things and if I think an instructors telling me something I don't agree with I will certainly question it not in a rude way but just out of curiousity. Any decent instructor should have 0 problem answering questions on what they say

Yes and no. Sometimes you don't know enough to know what does and doesn't work. Going back to wax-on, wax-off as a parable, Daniel thought that learning Karate would be about learning how to fight. Even though he was frustrated with Mr. Miyagi, he still trusted him and did as he was told.

Now, that's a movie. But I've seen posters on this forum who refuse to take classes because they don't like a certain training method...a method that many people have seen to be effective. People tend to assume that because there isn't an immediate connection between what they learn and how to fight.

I've got another example. When I started teaching at my school, I disagreed with my Master's philosophy. I prefer the do-it-right-from-the-start approach, he prefers to let students figure it out over time. While I still prefer the other approach, I have seen that his approach works. But it took a few years of teaching before I saw the effect it had on students. During that time, I've seen some students in which that's the only way they could have learned. And there are others who prefer the style I'd like to use.

So I say there's definitely something to be said for blind faith. Part of the problem is that when you just start, you don't have the experience to know what you do and don't know.

 

[drop bear]

Yes and no. Sometimes you don't know enough to know what does and doesn't work. Going back to wax-on, wax-off as a parable, Daniel thought that learning Karate would be about learning how to fight. Even though he was frustrated with Mr. Miyagi, he still trusted him and did as he was told.

Now, that's a movie. But I've seen posters on this forum who refuse to take classes because they don't like a certain training method...a method that many people have seen to be effective. People tend to assume that because there isn't an immediate connection between what they learn and how to fight.

I've got another example. When I started teaching at my school, I disagreed with my Master's philosophy. I prefer the do-it-right-from-the-start approach, he prefers to let students figure it out over time. While I still prefer the other approach, I have seen that his approach works. But it took a few years of teaching before I saw the effect it had on students. During that time, I've seen some students in which that's the only way they could have learned. And there are others who prefer the style I'd like to use.

So I say there's definitely something to be said for blind faith. Part of the problem is that when you just start, you don't have the experience to know what you do and don't know.

Yeah. You have a coach for a reason.

 

[Bruce7]

Don't agree with that. Blind faith is never a good thing. Everyone on this earth is equal so we have our to question things and if I think an instructors telling me something I don't agree with I will certainly question it not in a rude way but just out of curiousity. Any decent instructor should have 0 problem answering questions on what they say

My early teachers had amazing skills which help me trust them.
My first teacher taught MDK, he explain everything in such great deal, I had very few questions.
I don't ask questions from Taekwondo instructors, because I know if they are teach me correctly.
I watch how they teach, to determine their quality of instruction.
If I disagree with a Taekwondo instructor, I will not question his instruction. l may find other school.
My second teacher taught Kung Fu spoke no English. He taught me by example and touch.
He taught me to be humble and trust your teacher when learning a new art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes and no. Sometimes you don't know enough to know what does and doesn't work. Going back to wax-on, wax-off as a parable, Daniel thought that learning Karate would be about learning how to fight. Even though he was frustrated with Mr. Miyagi, he still trusted him and did as he was told.

Now, that's a movie. But I've seen posters on this forum who refuse to take classes because they don't like a certain training method...a method that many people have seen to be effective. People tend to assume that because there isn't an immediate connection between what they learn and how to fight.

I've got another example. When I started teaching at my school, I disagreed with my Master's philosophy. I prefer the do-it-right-from-the-start approach, he prefers to let students figure it out over time. While I still prefer the other approach, I have seen that his approach works. But it took a few years of teaching before I saw the effect it had on students. During that time, I've seen some students in which that's the only way they could have learned. And there are others who prefer the style I'd like to use.

So I say there's definitely something to be said for blind faith. Part of the problem is that when you just start, you don't have the experience to know what you do and don't know.

There's also a rather large component of "fit". There are some training practices that would annoy me. I'd put up with them for a seminar or something, but I wouldn't stay in classes if they were a regular thing. I'm probably bringing that same thought up in the thread on forms.

 

[skribs]

There's also a rather large component of "fit". There are some training practices that would annoy me. I'd put up with them for a seminar or something, but I wouldn't stay in classes if they were a regular thing. I'm probably bringing that same thought up in the thread on forms.

It depends on how much they annoy you!

In the case of my school, there are some things about my Master's teaching style that I still wish we would change, even though I've taken the time and seen how his style works. And several years later when I'm a master, I probably will do things a little bit different.

But it's not so bad that I need to leave.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It depends on how much they annoy you!

In the case of my school, there are some things about my Master's teaching style that I still wish we would change, even though I've taken the time and seen how his style works. And several years later when I'm a master, I probably will do things a little bit different.

But it's not so bad that I need to leave.

Agreed. There's much I do differently from my instructor. Some of it I did differently even when teaching at his school, but most of it I didn't (I think it would have been too confusing, especially when my students went for testing). It wasn't a big deal - just not what I preferred.

 

[skribs]

Agreed. There's much I do differently from my instructor. Some of it I did differently even when teaching at his school, but most of it I didn't (I think it would have been too confusing, especially when my students went for testing). It wasn't a big deal - just not what I preferred.

That's a very important piece. It's good you know what your instructor expected on the tests. Here's a story of someone who didn't...

At my school, we don't teach punches correctly. We do that on purpose. Because if you try to teach the proper footwork to do a punch with power to a 4-year-old, that 4-year-old is going to take "pivot your rear foot" as "run forward 5 steps and accidentally punch the person in front of you". So we teach the kids to not move anything but their arms when they punch. Around green belt we start to clean that up.

One of the black belts who would judge was an older student who couldn't really do Taekwondo anymore, so he wasn't around the dojang much except around testing times. So he would sit there and look at these kids who are white and yellow belts and be really harsh if they weren't punching correctly, even though they were doing what they'd been taught, and had never even heard the criticism he was giving until that day.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's a very important piece. It's good you know what your instructor expected on the tests. Here's a story of someone who didn't...

At my school, we don't teach punches correctly. We do that on purpose. Because if you try to teach the proper footwork to do a punch with power to a 4-year-old, that 4-year-old is going to take "pivot your rear foot" as "run forward 5 steps and accidentally punch the person in front of you". So we teach the kids to not move anything but their arms when they punch. Around green belt we start to clean that up.

One of the black belts who would judge was an older student who couldn't really do Taekwondo anymore, so he wasn't around the dojang much except around testing times. So he would sit there and look at these kids who are white and yellow belts and be really harsh if they weren't punching correctly, even though they were doing what they'd been taught, and had never even heard the criticism he was giving until that day.

I'm surprised the CI wasn't briefing folks beforehand on what to look for. It's a different situation in NGA - no panels, all testing is done by the instructor. In most schools, either the CI does all the testing, or each instructor tests the students who regularly attend their classes (if a student attends classes with more than one instructor at those schools, typically they can choose which is their "primary" instructor to test under). When more than one instructor is doing testing, there's usually agreement to test to the CI's standards.

 

[dvcochran]

Yes and no. Sometimes you don't know enough to know what does and doesn't work. Going back to wax-on, wax-off as a parable, Daniel thought that learning Karate would be about learning how to fight. Even though he was frustrated with Mr. Miyagi, he still trusted him and did as he was told.

Now, that's a movie. But I've seen posters on this forum who refuse to take classes because they don't like a certain training method...a method that many people have seen to be effective. People tend to assume that because there isn't an immediate connection between what they learn and how to fight.

I've got another example. When I started teaching at my school, I disagreed with my Master's philosophy. I prefer the do-it-right-from-the-start approach, he prefers to let students figure it out over time. While I still prefer the other approach, I have seen that his approach works. But it took a few years of teaching before I saw the effect it had on students. During that time, I've seen some students in which that's the only way they could have learned. And there are others who prefer the style I'd like to use.

So I say there's definitely something to be said for blind faith. Part of the problem is that when you just start, you don't have the experience to know what you do and don't know.

I do agree that the attrition rate is less for your Masters model.

 

[skribs]

I'm surprised the CI wasn't briefing folks beforehand on what to look for. It's a different situation in NGA - no panels, all testing is done by the instructor. In most schools, either the CI does all the testing, or each instructor tests the students who regularly attend their classes (if a student attends classes with more than one instructor at those schools, typically they can choose which is their "primary" instructor to test under). When more than one instructor is doing testing, there's usually agreement to test to the CI's standards.

We do tests every 2 months, and typically have 70ish students test each time. We break it up into 6 or so groups, but that's still a ton of students.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

We do tests every 2 months, and typically have 70ish students test each time. We break it up into 6 or so groups, but that's still a ton of students.

You have more students in one test than I think any dojo I've trained at has had in total

 

[Gerry Seymour]

We do tests every 2 months, and typically have 70ish students test each time. We break it up into 6 or so groups, but that's still a ton of students.

To me that would argue all the more for relaying the school standards to the examiners.

(Man, I’ve never been part of anything that big in MA. We tested individually, whenever we were ready. Maybe 70 tests a year, total.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You have more students in one test than I think any dojo I've trained at has had in total

At its largest, my old school wasn’t much bigger.

 

[dvcochran]

We do tests every 2 months, and typically have 70ish students test each time. We break it up into 6 or so groups, but that's still a ton of students.

You must have a large facility. You have 6 group going at the same time?

 

[skribs]

You must have a large facility. You have 6 group going at the same time?

No, spread out over the course of a week. Usually a couple Tuesday, a couple Wednesday, one Thursday, and maybe one Friday. My Master oversees all the tests, so we can't have multiple at once.

We have around 150-200 students (it's hard to keep track of some of the ones that are less than regular in attendance).