Teach stances or blocks first?

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I don't mean the full 60 minutes. I just mean the first few minutes of class the focus is on blocking and striking.



There's a difference between having students go into horse stance and teaching them horse stance. My old school taught you the way the stances look from the start. When you learned a front stance, you learned exactly what it was. When you learned a back stance, same thing, and you also learned why you would use each stance.

The school I'm at now teaches the stances very loosely at the white and yellow belt level, and gets more detail as you get to green belt. You learn a lot more details about the punches and kicks than you do the stances.



Because half the kids if we tell them to pivot their foot while they punch, they will step forward. Some of them step forward and then back, and others will walk forward until they're hitting the person in front of them. So we work on the arm motion first and work on the rest of the body later.



I'm not talking about being passive or defensive. I'm talking about morally the art is for defense, and to symbolize that you could teach defense first.

I was under the impression, cant remember where, that TKD was originally developed for military combat, not defense. Do you have anywhere you could point me that suggests TKD was made with the philosophy of defense in mind?

 

[ballen0351]

There's a difference between having students go into horse stance and teaching them horse stance. My old school taught you the way the stances look from the start. When you learned a front stance, you learned exactly what it was. When you learned a back stance, same thing, and you also learned why you would use each stance.

Well, then they are doing their students a disservice by teaching them how things "look" instead of how they should actually be done. Dont be lazy and teach then correcly from the start.

The school I'm at now teaches the stances very loosely at the white and yellow belt level, and gets more detail as you get to green belt. You learn a lot more details about the punches and kicks than you do the stances.

Well since punches and kicks are far more than just moving your arms and legs it doesn't sound like your teaching much of anything to your beginners

Because half the kids if we tell them to pivot their foot while they punch, they will step forward. Some of them step forward and then back, and others will walk forward until they're hitting the person in front of them. So we work on the arm motion first and work on the rest of the body later.

So teach them how to correctly pivot. If they are not old enough to teach a basic concept like pivot the foot then perhaps they are too young for martial arts and your nothing more then a babysitter

 

[skribs]

I don't think he's teaching for application use.

A lot of what he says seems to about everything else but application. For example:
1. Taekwondo is for defense, not attack - This is a moral value not a martial arts one. A practitioner may study Taoism for their moral values and kung fu for their fighting values. They are two separate things.
2. So if the first thing I teach in the early classes is the basic blocks, - The decision on this is based on the moral value that Taekwondo is for defense. The Martial Arts application perspective makes no such distinction of moral value which is why religion is often attached to fighting systems or some code of ethics is attached, but they are 2 different things. Most people don't know where one begins and the other ends so they see it as the same thing.

This sounds as if he has made up his mind of what TKD is so everything the OP will do will flow from #1 Perception of what TKD is for comes before the training according to his listing.

Not necessarily what Taekwondo is about, but more the message I'd want the newer students to receive. (Especially the first one about not fighting for personal gain).

Kids don't sign up for these programs, parents do based on what they parent wants to child to get out of it.

Which is why I'd want it to be more of a message.

Teach according to what the goal is. What is the goal? Are you trying to get students to learn how to actually use what you are teaching? Or are you just teaching without purpose or goals to students who really don't care if they can use it or not. If there is no goal then it doesn't matter what is taught first.

If you are teaching someone how use a fishing pole to someone who isn't going to actually use it, then does it matter what is taught first?

One aspect is that in Taekwondo, the white and colored belts are to build a firm understanding of the art, and it really opens up at black belt. At black belt you're supposed to have a firm grasp on the basic techniques of the art. So it's less about the goal, and more about what comes first, the stances and blocks, or the kicks and punches? By the time a student is a green belt they should have all of them.

Stance or blocks first.
I find this a bit comical.
If you teach blocks first do you teach such with the student sitting or standing?
I teach stance, blocks/covers, punches sequentially in the same session. Unless there is a physical abnormality most every person, adults, teens, and kids already know how to stand. I just have them stand in the particular manner I'm wanting them to. It only takes a few moments then we work on moving (footwork) again a few minutes checking and adjusting the stance. Then on to blocks/covers and strikes both stationary and with movement. Doesn't take long and we do it over the course of numerous classes all the while getting better on the particular stances, strikes, and blocks.

This is why I need to write novels on this forum. Because people take what I say to the ridiculous extreme and then ridicule me for it. (Then of course I write a novel and half what I said is ignored and people ridicule me on the rest).

This is what I mean:
In a typical white belt class, we will spend more time demonstrating the punch than the stance. Our primary goal at this level is to get students to understand the vocabulary for the punches, and how the punches are different. We teach 3 punches to the white belts and expect the hand movements at least to be precise. But we don't go too much into what a front stance or back stance is until orange belt. The "stance" at the white belt is simply one foot forward and one foot back.

I'm talking about taking the extra minute or so early on to go over stances in more detail. Or about instead of going punch -> block/kick -> stance, putting blocks first.

 

[skribs]

Well, then they are doing their students a disservice by teaching them how things "look" instead of how they should actually be done. Dont be lazy and teach then correcly from the start.

Well since punches and kicks are far more than just moving your arms and legs it doesn't sound like your teaching much of anything to your beginners



So teach them how to correctly pivot. If they are not old enough to teach a basic concept like pivot the foot then perhaps they are too young for martial arts and your nothing more then a babysitter

With a lot of our students, if we taught them everything correct from the start, they'd be overwhelmed and quit.

This applies both to older students who have not done anything physical before, and a lot of our younger students who have not had to control themselves this much before.

Some of those students are not old enough. Others get with the program fairly fast. By the time they're at the advanced level, they've got these details down. We just have to break it into smaller chunks to get them started.

And tell me, how is it bad to teach kids confidence, discipline, give them exercise, and give them the building blocks that will push them towards being excellent martial artists when they get older? Some of our students start off struggling with these concepts, but by the time they make black belt they've got it down.

 

[skribs]

How do you get different quotes in same reply? Do you copy and paste?

Click the +quote underneath each post you want to quote. Then go to where you would reply and click Insert Quotes.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Thank you for the picture, is that your little girl in front. She looks the age of my middle granddaughter.

No problem. I re-read what I had written and thought I needed to come off my "high horse" and clarify what I was referring to as a "low stance" What is low for one person may not be low for another.

As for the girl she's the daughter of the guy in the white (backing up). I used to teach kid and adults at the same time. It helped in the long run because sometimes the conversations with adults were things that kids needed to hear as well. Because their were kids around, adults knew to be on their best behavior and that helped provide multiple role models.

 

[ballen0351]

With a lot of our students, if we taught them everything correct from the start, they'd be overwhelmed and quit.

This applies both to older students who have not done anything physical before, and a lot of our younger students who have not had to control themselves this much before.

We are not talking about everything. We are talking about a proper punch which is more than just move your arm from here too there.

Some of those students are not old enough. Others get with the program fairly fast. By the time they're at the advanced level, they've got these details down. We just have to break it into smaller chunks to get them started.

And tell me, how is it bad to teach kids confidence, discipline, give them exercise, and give them the building blocks that will push them towards being excellent martial artists when they get older? Some of our students start off struggling with these concepts, but by the time they make black belt they've got it down.

Well I should hope they have it "down" by the time you give them a black belt.......

 

[skribs]

I was under the impression, cant remember where, that TKD was originally developed for military combat, not defense. Do you have anywhere you could point me that suggests TKD was made with the philosophy of defense in mind?

I don't have the facts to back it up right now, but I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. It's possible it was used by the military (actually very possible considering General Choi is considered the founder of the art), but I believe it was more about reclaiming Korean cultural heritage by bringing back a Korean martial art. Some of the Karate videos I've watched have said that the techniques in the forms changed names from attacks to blocks in the early 1900s when Karate started being taught in schools.

Regardless of what the original purpose was I'm not teaching little kids military combat. I'm teaching them discipline, respect, confidence, among other things. We're teaching them to stand up for themselves and others, not to go to war.

 

[skribs]

We are not talking about everything. We are talking about a proper punch which is more than just move your arm from here too there.

I'm not going to argue that the proper punch is better. I'm telling you that sometimes isolating specific motions until you can get those down, and then moving onto the other motions that are made concurrently can help.

When I started playing guitar, I'd do different exercises. Sometimes I'd focus on my fretting hand and which notes I'm getting. Sometimes I'd focus on my right hand and which strings I'm plucking. Sometimes I'd focus on the metronome and just hit a single open string over and over and try to get my timing right.

If I tried to do even two at once, let alone all 3, it was impossible. My fingers would miss the notes and I'd be way off time. By starting off on the fretting hand, I could hit the right notes at least, even if a few extra notes rang out. As I got more comfortable I moved onto my right hand and worked on my accuracy. Then I worked on my timing when I had the muscle memory.

Now, I picked up the punches and kicks fairly easily. Not all of my students do. I did not pick up the guitar quickly. If I was expected to do all three of those things (fret, strum, and do it on time) immediately from the get-go, I would have quit because it would have been impossible. By breaking it down into pieces, I was able to learn it.

The same applies for a lot of my students. Break the technique down into manageable chunks, and give them more chunks when they understand the ones we gave them before.

Well I should hope they have it "down" by the time you give them a black belt.......

My point is that just because we don't teach them the 100% correct technique from the get-go, it doesn't mean we don't teach them the correct techniques. It's not all-or-nothing, learn everything from day 1 or forever suffer ignorance.

 

[ballen0351]

My point is that just because we don't teach them the 100% correct technique from the get-go, it doesn't mean we don't teach them the correct techniques. It's not all-or-nothing, learn everything from day 1 or forever suffer ignorance.

So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away. I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.

 

[Tez3]

Honest it works, learning without petal kids learn a lot faster. It worked for my grand kids, it worked for the kid down the street. I was skeptical at first, but it really works.

As I said we've had them for at least a century, what it does is teach balance however, the children still need to learn co-ordination of using feet on pedals and hands on handlebars.

You are starting to get it, but not really. Your body and mind feels comfort from your balance.
Like when I train in long fist, long periods of time in a horse stance humming achieve the by product of stronger legs, was not the main propose.

I rarely hum when in horse stance.
Learning 'balance' in horse stance is fine but you also need to learn balance in other stances (my style Wado Ryu has a lot of stances, it has 3 what you call horse stances but they should be called horse riding stances if using English, more accurate as no horse is bow legged or stands on two feet for long).

So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they would do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away. I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.

Totally agree with this. We teach correct techniques right from the start, for one thing techniques work best when done correctly and therefore encourage students to do them properly when they see the result. it's actually easier for the students to be shown and taught the whole package, yes practice strikes, stances separately but do so with the whole technique in mind, when practicing punches use the correct footwork though, makes the punch effective.

In a typical white belt class, we will spend more time demonstrating the punch than the stance

How can you do the punch properly without the stance?

 

[skribs]

So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away. I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.

It's not my school, it's my masters.

And like I said, too many details at once can overwhelm students. When I first started a lot of new students quit because I was too hard on them.

You can say they shouldn't take classes if they can't handle it, but these are the students that really need to be there to build up their confidence.

 

[skribs]

So why not teach them correctly from the beginning and understand that they wont do it perfectly at first but at least they know what they are supposed to be doing in theory even if they can't master it right away. I just can't see how the student is getting anything by saying "Here put your feet like this its called a front stance but don't worry about that we are working on punches so don't move your feet"
It's your school do what you want but I don't think it takes that much more time to teach a proper technique.

I pretty much answered this in the part of my post you didn't quote.

 

[ballen0351]

It's not my school, it's my masters.

And like I said, too many details at once can overwhelm students. When I first started a lot of new students quit because I was too hard on them.

You can say they shouldn't take classes if they can't handle it, but these are the students that really need to be there to build up their confidence.

You don't need to be "hard" on them to teach them properly. I'm not sure how one relates to the other.

 

[Bruce7]

I rarely hum when in horse stance.

Its a Kung Fu thing probably lost by the time it got to Japan.

 

[ballen0351]

I pretty much answered this in the part of my post you didn't quote.

No you didn't you went on and on about playing the guitar......Which by the way goes more with my point. You clearly know the fundamentals of playing the guitar and all that's involved. You may practice and focus on 1 specific part at a time but you know there are other parts to it. UNLIKE "put your feet like this and don't move while we work on punches"

 

[JowGaWolf]

Which is why I'd want it to be more of a message

To be honest I usually try to set the goals for parents. If they came to the school because they want their kids to have better discipline and more respect, then I quickly inform them that we teach practical martial arts and that much of what is trained in the school can really hurt others. While I'm willing to work with kids, the child has to have a minimum understanding that what we do can hurt others. We have to be responsible for each other's safety. At any point of during class their may be weapons around and to say sorry for hitting someone with a staff due to horse playing is not an acceptable apology.

Right off the bat I let parents know that we don't do this type of stuff.

For me as an instructor and student, fighting is serious and it demands the same respect as going to a shooting range. If parents are fine with that, then I'm fine with teaching. I know some schools aren't like that where respect and disciple are a main focus. If this is where you are trying to position yourself then you are doing the right thing.

At black belt you're supposed to have a firm grasp on the basic techniques of the art. So it's less about the goal, and more about what comes first, the stances and blocks, or the kicks and punches? By the time a student is a green belt they should have all of them.

I would have thought a black belt would have a firm grasp of advance techniques.

Here's how I taught based on the goal to make it possible for all of my students to be able to fight using Jow Ga kung fu techniques.
1. Stances - because strong trees grow from the root up. Everything is weak without a strong stance and understanding of rooting.
1a. Footwork - It's not good enough to be still. Our feet must know what to doe without us having to think about how to command them. They must work in harmony and move without thought.
1b. Punching - basic structure so student don't injure themselves while punching others or punching bags
1c. Kicking - basic kicking structure so the students don't injure themselves and cause long terms joint damage.

Blocking doesn't come until much later. The first 4 things gives them enough skills to fight back without hurting themselves. It doesn't mean they will win a fight, it just means they won't hurt themselves in a fight.

For example, Kid misses target and punches truck At 1:00

another one.

There is much more to punching and kicking than hitting and kicking. I want to students to understand this because I teach long fist techniques and a bad punch can break a hand, finger, or hyper extend an arm. I have a video of my son hyper-extending his elbow after many lectures of me telling him not to fully extend his arm, and the dangers of it. There are just many things in Martial Arts application that will hurt a child if they get the structure wrong.


If you aren't teaching students how to actually apply martial arts techniques then you have no worry about them using it to fight. Most students who don't know how to use martial arts techniques will usually revert back to some basic kickboxing and punching skill set.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

too many details at once can overwhelm students.

Instead of to treat 2 arms and 2 legs as 4 parts, You can teach them to only consider 2 parts instead. You can always ask them to coordinate 1 hand with 1 foot.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Honest it works, learning without petal kids learn a lot faster. It worked for my grand kids, it worked for the kid down the street. I was skeptical at first, but it really works.

It's one of those things I wonder about. Surely they do learn balance. But it's not the same as balancing a bicycle while riding, since the bicycle is self-balancing above a certain speed. The problem most kids have (and this would solve part of it) is they don't manage to balance when they slow down, and they stay slow too long out of fear.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When I say low stance. This is what I refer to as low. This is an actual fighting stance, that I'm applying. I'm not trying to pose for the camera. I was teaching students how to use use the low fighting stance in fighting, so I asked a student to try and take me to the ground. I dropped my stance the moment he came in and at that moment my wife took the picture. This type of low stance provides some very good defense and allows offensive attacks as well. But you'll pay a heavy price for it.

If you image me keeping my legs where they are and my height where it is and asked me to turn my waist to look at the camera, then you would see that I would be in a typical horse stance. If I were to train punching. Then I would do it from this stance and not from the traditional horse stance.

From this position I can do the following,

• quickly retreat a few feet (the length of my stance)
  
• quickly advance a few feet (the length of my stance)
• jab
• thrust punch
• grab
• kick low using rear leg my rear leg can reach his rear leg but his rear leg can not reach mine
• reverse punch,
• lead leg front kick
• rear leg front kick
• upper cut
• elbow
• defend my front leg from single leg take down
• initiate a scissor take down
• perform a similar technique called "ox rolls in mud" it's a lower scissor technique used to destroy opponent's knee joints.
• block incoming kicks
• redirect incoming kicks.
• There are certain martial arts techniques that only work at this height.

This is what I mean about the need to have that muscle endurance in my legs. If I use the traditional horse stance to detect balance then I won't punch. I would just focus on trying to keep the weight 50-50 an take note when that weight distribution changes in the slightest.
View attachment 21998

I think I'd have gotten into training that fighting stance in my 30's. It presents some interesting options and obstacles.