Teach stances or blocks first?

[skribs]

How old are these children you are teaching?
We don't use the word 'switch', we will tell and show them exactly what to do and get them to do it. While they don't do it perfectly at the beginning we don't have the complications you seem to.
this is about teaching in schools but works equally well in martial arts. The interesting bit is that learning should be hard to start with! The point about understanding, as with the maths example, is also a good match for martial arts. Effective teaching: 10 tips on what works and what doesn’t

We start at 4, sometimes 3.5.

It's not about them being perfect. It's about them being in such a wrong position they can't even correctly follow what we're doing, or being so far out of position they're getting hit by the person behind them.

 

[skribs]

There is a very big difference between teaching each thing separately in isolation then attempting to do it joined up at some later date and teaching as a whole while looking at separate parts to do correctly but still see the whole technique as it should be. For example a punch is more than just moving the arm to have the hand connect, we'd show the whole technique to do an effective punch and practice that but look at each component to make sure that was correct. We would spend weeks just doing the fist, then weeks doing the arm the even more weeks doing the body then the footwork. We'd also make sure the students understand the reason they are doing it the way we've shown. We don't deluge them with info but we give the whole basic movement so they can understand the parts and their place in the technique.

Sometimes that's too much. Sometimes it's not necessary.

You're going to have to clean up the habit later on down the road. When they're cleaning up the footwork they either need to break their old footwork habit of moving incorrectly, or start a new footwork habit of moving their feet.

 

[wab25]

If you don't have a proper stance, how can you transition from one to the other? That's like trying to give directions from point A to point B without knowing where either of them are.

Reread what I said. I said that knowing where A and B are was necessary.

While those are needed, they, by themselves, are not enough to claim understanding of the stance.

I said that knowing where A and B are was not sufficient to truly understand a stance. Just because my teacher can put my feet in the right place and I can stand there for 10 minutes without moving doesn't mean I truly understand the stance. I know a little more when I can put my own feet right. I know a little more when I can go into A from B. I know a little more when I understand how the power is generated as I step into A from B....

Your legs do not amount to 100% of the power.

Go out into space and punch somebody as hard as you can... its actually not that hard at all, because you are not connected to or rooted to something immovable. In order to generate power you must root or push off something immovable. That involves footwork. (even if you are doing ground work, your connection to the ground is vital)

Yes, you can incorrectly generate enough power to break your hand. But, lots of people hit and kick people all the time without injuring themselves. Go watch a bar room brawl or soccer field riot. Most of the fights I watched in high school had very bad hand technique, people came out with busted lips and black eyes and begged for it to stop. Very few busted hands. No broken feet.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.

That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.

That's not teaching them separately. That's teaching them together, letting them get things grossly correct, and then refining things. Focusing on specific areas of weakness that need improvement.
Which is what I said in the first place.

 

[Tez3]

We start at 4, sometimes 3.5.

Oh wow, that is far, far too early to be teaching martial arts. No wonder you have to break it all down, I'm sorry but I really do disapprove of children that young in martial arts classes. At three and a half they are called toddlers for a reason, four is no better.

Sometimes that's too much. Sometimes it's not necessary.

You're going to have to clean up the habit later on down the road. When they're cleaning up the footwork they either need to break their old footwork habit of moving incorrectly, or start a new footwork habit of moving their feet.

When your students are only four then no wonder you think that.
When students learn correctly the first time, and they do, there is no need to 'clean up habits', you can refine yes but teaching properly in the first place is the key. You cannot do that with young children who have not long learnt to walk.
Our youngest student would be nine nearly ten, no children under that age for us and we don't have problems teaching them correct stances and techniques. Before that age they don't have the co-ordination or understanding.

 

[Tez3]

This is not my experience from myself, but my observations from seeing probably 300+ white belts over the last 4 years

and my experience is over 40 and some years. I can't even count how many white belts I've taught. I would bet those who are also disagreeing with you have probably as many years as I, perhaps more.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself.

This doesn't exist if you are someone who trains for function. If you want a true understanding of a stance then you have to move as part of that stance training. A stance that stays still for more than 1 minute has no function in fighting. In fighting, the function is that your stance transitions into other stances, sometimes quickly and sometimes with pauses. Your stance is combined with your footwork and the understanding of weight distribution is key to know when your stance should resist completely, for a moment, and when your stance should yield.

A stance that does not move is a stance that cannot function in a fight. Give it a try, stand still for 1 minute in a horse stance during sparring and see how well that works for you.
Here's a complete walk down of stances:

Attacks: Stance:
0:06 1st attack Opponent attacks with kick : Move back into horse stance transition into cat stance, transition into horse stance.
0:10 2nd attack Opponent attacks with punch: Move into golden rooster stands on leg stance. (failed to kick so opponent grabs leg)
0:19 4rd attack Opponent attacks with low sweep: Move from horse stance transition in to horse stance, grab opponent's legs
0:37 7th attack Opponent attacks with punches: Stand in cat stance, give up cat stance
0:51 8th attack Opponent grapples: Golden rooster stands one leg, transitions into a second golden rooster stands on one leg (used to raise my opponent's foot to grab it)
0:55 9th attack Opponent charges: Transition into cat stance, Transition into bow stance (completely resist and redirect opponent's energy).
1:03 11th attack Opponent charges: Start in low horse stance, (stance gives after initial impact)
1:09 12th attack Opponent smothers: Start in low horse stance, shuffle back into horse stance. (resists completely), transitions into bow stance to grab opponent's leg, transitions into horse to lift (take note that my lead leg does not move from the spot from horse to bow it stays there.

During each stance there was a shift in weight distribution caused by me or by my opponent. Each transition required that I

• un-root,
  
• balance,
  
• re-root.

Which is 3 of the elements needed for a good stance. None of these can be learned or mastered by standing still in a stance. Standing still in a stance wasn't designed to help you understand a stance more. It's designed to help build strength while focusing on small shifts in weight distribution that you otherwise wouldn't know when there is a lot of movement. The first thing that is taught about a horse stance is that the weight distribution is 50% on each leg. This is not as easy to do as it sounds. True 50-50 weight distribution in a horse stance will actually make your body feel lighter as if there is no weight at all. It's like a see-saw. Put two heavy people of the same weight on each end and the see saw will balance. It's possible to move this balance with the lightest of touches. Have one person weigh more than the person on the other end of the see-saw and you'll use a considerable amount of energy to keep the see-saw in the same position when it's balanced. This is only part of the stance, the complete understanding of a stance is when you use it in the context of function which adds additional elements in which a stance has to navigate.

In martial arts sometimes it's more effective training to train 2 things at once instead of training only one thing at a time. Babies that are first learning to walk train more than one thing at a time. Balance, stance, coordination, and grabbing.

Take note of the bridge builder, wheeler. Hands and feet working at the same time. When you fight, your body does and manages multiple things all at once and the sooner students can get their brains to do that the better.

I'll have to check to see if I have a video of a 5 year old girl that I used to train. If a child can move like this at the age of 5 then doing 2 things at once (stance and punch) in a martial arts class should be do-able

 

[JowGaWolf]

Oh wow, that is far, far too early to be teaching martial arts. No wonder you have to break it all down, I'm sorry but I really do disapprove of children that young in martial arts classes. At three and a half they are called toddlers for a reason, four is no better.

Yes that's too young for martial arts but not for motor skills training. Motor skills training helps to develop good coordination. Some kids are born with it, but at that age all of the stance training would be motor skill based and not martial arts based, Bones and joints are still development so I wouldn't want to do more than what would happen on a playground with free play.
Stuff like this

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you don't have a proper stance, how can you transition from one to the other? That's like trying to give directions from point A to point B without knowing where either of them are.

A and B are destination and not the work that it takes to get from Point A to Point B. You still have to train what's in between. But if you are trying to teach 3 to 4 year old kids then drop the martial arts and help them develop motor skills.through natural activities. The more they move around the better their coordination will be and the stronger they will get and the easier martial arts will be.

Kids naturally move in funny ways and flail all over the place, which is actually really good for motor skill development and it's natural as the flailing helps them navigate balance.

 

[WaterGal]

Yes that's too young for martial arts but not for motor skills training. Motor skills training helps to develop good coordination. Some kids are born with it, but at that age all of the stance training would be motor skill based and not martial arts based, Bones and joints are still development so I wouldn't want to do more than what would happen on a playground with free play.
Stuff like this

I think a martial arts class can be one way to teach basic motor skills to kids that age. We have a program for kids as young as 4, and a good chunk of the class time is stuff like: walking on a low balance beam (the kind that's just a strip of mat on the floor), hop on one foot, step over hurdles, pop-ups, tumbles, etc. We don't focus a lot on stances. They do some kicks and blocks, but it's basic stuff. Edit: the big thing for kids that age is that they learn motor skills and have fun doing it. I think whether it's martial arts, dance, gymnastics, soccer etc is less important than are they having fun learning to move their bodies.

 

[JowGaWolf]

By the way Skribs. I'm not being hard on you or anything like that. Just, I'm just sharing my perspective. In terms of teaching beginners martial arts, everyone here has me beat. Much of of what I understand about youth and training them comes from working in the youth development field, and teaching kids how to play a variety of sports from basketball to street hockey. The one thing was common with all of those activities is that footwork, stance, and hand and eye coordination were critical.

The other thing I notice about kids is that they tend to spend less time thinking about how to do something and just do it, until it feels right. Teens and adults tend to think too much. I used to tell the adult students, "less thinking and more doing." or "stop thinking about it and just do it." Kids are the opposite. I usually want them to think a little more about what they are doing and put purpose behind action. It's all crazy lol.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

IMO it's completely different. If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself. Then you train both the techniques in the stance and the transitions to other stances. Then you combine those techniques and transitions together.

That's not to say you can't learn the stances while you're learning the techniques, but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.

I'm not sure static stance training has much benefit to the stance, itself (though it may be useful for things like strengthening legs). When I want to train a stance, I want to move into and out of that stance, because that's how we actually use them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Perhaps your attention will be split, it doesn't mean others will. I think perhaps you shouldn't generalise about what 'people' will think or do.
People focus on the technique because the stance is part and parcel of the technique, it is a whole. To train strikes without the stances and vice versa is like learning to swim on dry land.

I have to disagree, Tez. I've seen a lot of students entirely ignore stances during techniques, because they get focused on what they think the technique is (which is the hands, unless it's a kick). It happens quite a lot unless their attention is drawn purposely to the stance/footwork.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Most of the time, the technique is your stance (your transition into or out of a stance). What you do with your hands, is far less important than your footwork and transition.

That may be true (I'm not sure I agree entirely, but I agree with the concept), but that doesn't mean students know that. They often overlook things that are actually important.

 

[Tez3]

I have to disagree, Tez. I've seen a lot of students entirely ignore stances during techniques, because they get focused on what they think the technique is (which is the hands, unless it's a kick). It happens quite a lot unless their attention is drawn purposely to the stance/footwork.

The operative word here is that you have seen 'a lot of students' not all as was said in the post I replied to. Applying something one does oneself to everyone is wrong. Not all students do it so assuming that all do and teaching as if all di is incorrect. Besides we are talking about teaching toddlers here, something I find disappointing.

When we say 'students' we shouldn't be talking about teaching children who have just learnt to walk.

 

[Tez3]

I think a martial arts class can be one way to teach basic motor skills to kids that age. We have a program for kids as young as 4, and a good chunk of the class time is stuff like: walking on a low balance beam (the kind that's just a strip of mat on the floor), hop on one foot, step over hurdles, pop-ups, tumbles, etc. We don't focus a lot on stances. They do some kicks and blocks, but it's basic stuff. Edit: the big thing for kids that age is that they learn motor skills and have fun doing it. I think whether it's martial arts, dance, gymnastics, soccer etc is less important than are they having fun learning to move their bodies.

I agree with teaching them basic motor skills but not martial arts as such. However one has to be really experienced to take children of that age, make it fun and more importantly make it safe.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The operative word here is that you have seen 'a lot of students' not all as was said in the post I replied to. Applying something one does oneself to everyone is wrong. Not all students do it so assuming that all do and teaching as if all di is incorrect. Besides we are talking about teaching toddlers here, something I find disappointing.

When we say 'students' we shouldn't be talking about teaching children who have just learnt to walk.

Remember Skribs deals with a lot of very young kids. I know kids are weird, so maybe it's ubiquitous enough among them for it to be a fair statement.

I don't mind when folks teach toddlers (so long as they don't ask me to), if they keep the training safe for them. The kids have a lot of fun at it, and it helps build motor skills. Same goes for having them in sports, or anything else.

 

[Tez3]

Remember Skribs deals with a lot of very young kids. I know kids are weird, so maybe it's ubiquitous enough among them for it to be a fair statement.

I have been teaching for children for years not just martial arts but horse riding. I've run playschools and playgroups as well. I've been a Cub Scout Leader and am currently a Guiding leader with girls aged 5-14. I've done all of that for many years. All of those things have required me to be qualified and understand children so I don't think it's ubiquitous or a fair statement at all and children aren't weird, much better actually than most adults.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have been teaching for children for years not just martial arts but horse riding. I've run playschools and playgroups as well. I've been a Cub Scout Leader and am currently a Guiding leader with girls aged 5-14. I've done all of that for many years. All of those things have required me to be qualified and understand children so I don't think it's ubiquitous or a fair statement at all and children aren't weird, much better actually than most adults.

When I say "weird", that's comparing them to adults. It's light-hearted.

You work a lot more with kids than I do, so you're more likely to have insight on that than me. I'd still point out that he's teaching something to quite young kids that you don't teach, so he may be experiencing something you haven't. It's also possible that what he experiences as ubiquitous is somehow a product of the approach used.

 

[Tez3]

When I say "weird", that's comparing them to adults. It's light-hearted.

You work a lot more with kids than I do, so you're more likely to have insight on that than me. I'd still point out that he's teaching something to quite young kids that you don't teach, so he may be experiencing something you haven't. It's also possible that what he experiences as ubiquitous is somehow a product of the approach used.

There are very good reasons we don't teach such young children and that's why he's experiencing something that isn't good for anyone, students or instructors.
JGW posted a very good video of what children should be doing, and it's not lining them up and treating them as you would older or adult students. There should be no fretting about 'stances', or even techniques with such young ones. As JGW also pointed out though, children can easily do more than one thing when they learn. In fact they are the best learners you can get.

Teaching adults as you would children isn't a recipe for success either I've found.