The Hobbyist vs. The Serious Student

[MJS]

In another thread, Chris Parker and I were having an interesting discussion (as always ) on various aspects of training. While the topic wasn't specifically on this, the subject of the differences between self defense and martial arts came up. We agreed that they were 2 distinct topics, I had suggested that it may be possible to interject the two into the same class.

During the discussion, the mention of the hobbyist student and the more serious student came up. I had said that while SD is a very important aspect, I had made the comment that I wondered if the hobbyist would really get anything out of that area. During my years of teaching, I've had mixtures of both in my classes....those that just show up after work, because they're looking for something different than the gym. And you'd have the more serious students, who really give it their all in the class, and are more likely to get more out of the SD side of things, which can be defined as the awareness, verbal defusion, as well as the aftermath of dealing with an attack, vs. the MA side, which tends to deal just with the during...meaning the attack is happening, heres what you do to deal with it.

So, for the sake of this thread, we can look at 2 areas:

1) Do you teach any differently in your classes, depending on who's there? Do you feel that the hobbyist will gain anything from the Sd side?

2) How do you seperate the SD side from the MA side?

 

[Shifu Steve]

1) Do you teach any differently in your classes, depending on who's there? Do you feel that the hobbyist will gain anything from the Sd side?

2) How do you seperate the SD side from the MA side?

1) In my experience a lot of people that dabble in MA are there for what they perceive will be a lesson in SD. Chris Parker's opinions on what constitutes SD aside (for the record I do agree with most of what he's said in prior posts I've read) I think that a lot of school's bill what they are doing as SD or at least directly relevant to it. So to put in different terms, I think the average hobbyist (in my experience) directly benefits from technique that is easily applied "on the street."

2) Personally I teach MA as a holistic approach. By that I mean it's a very general term so I try to relate the styles I teach with the principal concepts I believe are important in a MA education. That means all aspects are incorporated. Separation comes at those "teachable" moments in any class where it lends itself (by that I mean there is no hard line separation). I describe the styles I teach as combative movements that express an underlying philosophy. They are not SD per se but that's not to say that they can't be used that way. I won't go down that path however because it's well documented.

 

[MJS]

My teacher tends to break the traditional mold, so to speak, when it comes to teaching the techs. This isn't to say that he doesnt teach them, he does, but he, like myself, tends to focus more on the basics, taking a tech, and looking at ways to expand on it, break it down to simpler moves, etc., the use of more spontaneous reaction drills, and the padded attacker suit, so this is stuff that I've brought into the classes that I teach as well.

It seems that I have more hobbyists than serious students, however, many have commented that they like the way that I teach, what I'm teaching, etc., as they've said that much of what I teach, they dont get in the other classes. Instead of gearing my classes to always going over the required rank material, teaching new things, etc., my focus is to take what they already know, and really break it apart and look at it from a number of different views.

So, to answer my questions:

1) I dont seperate the groups. I teach what I teach to everyone present. Do I feel that they get anything out of it? Yes, I do, even if its just a little bit. My goal is to make them think outside of the box. I dont want them to be bound by the typical standards. Sometimes, I can see the frustration, because its hard for them to get out of that pattern.

For example...last week, we were going over a tech. The 'written' version, states that you do a left punch to the right side of the face. The student was having a hard time hitting that target, due to the way the attacker had moved. My reply was simple: who cares if you cant reach the right side. What else do you have available to you right now? The reply was, "Yeah, but you're supposed to hit the right side." to which I wanted to start banging my head against the wall. LOL. I repeated what I said earlier, and proceeded to show them a number of other open targets.

2) Due to the fact that IMO, I have more hobbyists, I inject the SD side every now and then. Yes, this is a topic that an entire class or numerous classes, can be devoted to, I still think that its important. At times, when teaching a specific tech, I'll look at the before phase and what can or could be done to avoid the during phase. I'm certainly no legal expert, however, I do have a few sources that I go to with questions, so while I do touch on the after phase, I usually dont go into great lengths on that.

 

[clfsean]

2) Personally I teach MA as a holistic approach. By that I mean it's a very general term so I try to relate the styles I teach with the principal concepts I believe are important in a MA education. That means all aspects are incorporated. Separation comes at those "teachable" moments in any class where it lends itself (by that I mean there is no hard line separation). I describe the styles I teach as combative movements that express an underlying philosophy. They are not SD per se but that's not to say that they can't be used that way. I won't go down that path however because it's well documented.

Huh??

 

[clfsean]

I teach everybody the same.

Everybody does: basics, drills, conditioning, applications, sets.

Whatever they take out of it is what they are looking for. If they want SD, it's there. If they want a hobby it's there. What's not there is fluff & puff. Mo duk is taught as we go, as they understand the history/origins/reasons & who/what/how/why/when for the basics.

I teach at 110% as best I can. It's up to them to absorb @ 120%. But don't worry... we'll probably be working on the exact same stuff the next class.

 

[Flying Crane]

But don't worry... we'll probably be working on the exact same stuff the next class.

Thank you for saying this. One thing that drives me nuts about the prevalent mentality today, and it's common in martial arts as well, is that, we gotta be doing something different every class, to "make it interesting" for the students. Bull-****. It ain't about entertainment. It's about learning a skill and getting it RIGHT, dammit, and that means DO IT AGAIN.

If you wanna, or gotta, be entertained in order to keep up your interest, then martial arts isn't for you. Go play a video game.

 

[clfsean]

Thank you for saying this. One thing that drives me nuts about the prevalent mentality today, and it's common in martial arts as well, is that, we gotta be doing something different every class, to "make it interesting" for the students. Bull-****. It ain't about entertainment. It's about learning a skill and getting it RIGHT, dammit, and that means DO IT AGAIN.

And again and again and again and again and again and again ...

Basics with me are the 10 seeds in small numbers until all 10 have been seen then reps start... no speed, technique only, then mechanics, then hard target. Speed happens after all that. About 6 months or so they should be at least be working on technique for all 10 seeds. Another couple & they should be hitting for effect.

Then the fun starts.

If you wanna, or gotta, be entertained in order to keep up your interest, then martial arts isn't for you. Go play a video game.

Nah... not at all. Video games are much more instant gratification.

Oh... by the way I have only one serious student... and she's EIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! So far everybody else I teach has yet to make it through all 10 seeds to begin the burning into the muscle memory... sad.

 

[Sukerkin]

Repetition and correction are the basis of all martial training. Without correction you have the situation where "practise makes permanent". In time, you gain the ability to judge yourself whether a technique was 'good' or not ...

... and that too is a two-edged sword as I can spend an hour performing a kata and not be satisfied with any given interation of it :lol:.

 

[Shifu Steve]

Huh??

Is this a serious response? If you have a question about something I've posted state it directly.

 

[Sukerkin]

And yet, I would still maintain I was a Hobbyist. If a real Samurai was to hop into a time machine and confront me in the dojo, despite the fact that I would be a giant compared to him, I wouldn't hold out much hope for my chances .

 

[Sukerkin]

Is this a serious response? If you have a question about something I've posted state it directly.

I think it was just that the paragraph and sentence structure was a touch impenetrable . Maybe a re-phrasing would help?

 

[searcher]

I can't say that I teach differently or that the curriculum is different depending on what the student wants to do with their training. It is not the techniques or how to use them, but the why that makes the difference.

I try to put the 16-36YO testosterone drippers together when we pair up to work on stuff. I can see no reason to put a 40+ father of 3 who is trying to make himself better with the 22YO kid who is a competitve kickboxer and knockdown stud, who uses his in his day job(Air Force TAC-P).

 

[Flying Crane]

In time, you gain the ability to judge yourself whether a technique was 'good' or not ...

... and that too is a two-edged sword as I can spend an hour performing a kata and not be satisfied with any given interation of it :lol:.

One of the guys I teach told me that I've effectively ruined his ability to enjoy a martial arts performance. He went to a big local tournament, and at the end there was a "masters" demonstration. He told me that all he could see was lousy stances and lack of rooting and lack of connection between the foundation and the technique. He couldn't just sit back and enjoy the demonstrations.

I told him that I must be doing my job well, then.

 

[terryl965]

As I do not teach everyone the same as some say, I do teach everyone the same materials. I believe we must have a different approach to training for some students.

 

[Chris Parker]

In another thread, Chris Parker and I were having an interesting discussion (as always ) on various aspects of training. While the topic wasn't specifically on this, the subject of the differences between self defense and martial arts came up. We agreed that they were 2 distinct topics, I had suggested that it may be possible to interject the two into the same class.

During the discussion, the mention of the hobbyist student and the more serious student came up. I had said that while SD is a very important aspect, I had made the comment that I wondered if the hobbyist would really get anything out of that area. During my years of teaching, I've had mixtures of both in my classes....those that just show up after work, because they're looking for something different than the gym. And you'd have the more serious students, who really give it their all in the class, and are more likely to get more out of the SD side of things, which can be defined as the awareness, verbal defusion, as well as the aftermath of dealing with an attack, vs. the MA side, which tends to deal just with the during...meaning the attack is happening, heres what you do to deal with it.

So, for the sake of this thread, we can look at 2 areas:

1) Do you teach any differently in your classes, depending on who's there? Do you feel that the hobbyist will gain anything from the Sd side?

2) How do you seperate the SD side from the MA side?[/quote]

Hey Mike,

1: Yeah, I change how I teach, but I don't change what I teach. I run two classes, one with a few more experienced people, and another larger one with more beginners than anything else. So the more experienced group tend to get more detailed and technical details to the lessons, whereas the beginners are given more "broad brush stroke" lessons, where close enough is fine. Then, depending on who exactly is making up the class, certain jokes may make an appearance, certain topics may come up, and some things that we don't normally cover may get introduced if the mood takes me.

When it comes to "serious versus hobbiest", I really don't take that into account honestly. That's up to the student how they want to approach their training, but I approach each student as a serious student, and give them guidance accordingly. If I give them a "hobbiest" manner of teaching, then that is selling them short, as they may become a serious student if they are given the proper instruction. If they are only treated as a hobbiest, they won't see the deeper benefit. So they all get treated as if they want to make the art their life, they want to get as much skill and understanding as possible, and are willing to work hard to attain it (wishful thinking, I know, but I'm an idealist).

2: Well, as detailed in the Kenpo and Ground Fighting thread, we literally seperate it out completely. The martial art side for us is a traditional system, and it really isn't suited for self defence, modern use, or similar as is. So I don't pretend it does. What it does, though, is provide the mechanics, power, targeting, principles, strategies, tactics, and so on that can be applied to the self defence aspect (at least the "during" phase of self defence). The rest, the "before and after" phases are also covered in both class training (drills and discussions), as well as other methods (such as emails to the students).

 

[clfsean]

Is this a serious response? If you have a question about something I've posted state it directly.

Yes quite serious. Your response is not exactly clear... at least to me.

 

[clfsean]

One of the guys I teach told me that I've effectively ruined his ability to enjoy a martial arts performance. He went to a big local tournament, and at the end there was a "masters" demonstration. He told me that all he could see was lousy stances and lack of rooting and lack of connection between the foundation and the technique. He couldn't just sit back and enjoy the demonstrations.

Shocked me the first time I encountered that. Tell your guy welcome to the club.

I told him that I must be doing my job well, then.

Indeed...

 

[Shifu Steve]

Yes quite serious. Your response is not exactly clear... at least to me.

My point is "Huh?" doesn't help anyone to address what you do or don't understand. Anyway, the bottom line is in teaching I do not specifically separate SD aspects from the more philosophical ones (the art side of things).

When I described a style of Martial Arts as "combative movements that express an underlying philosophy," the point here is to distinguish a Martial Art from a self defense system, which while a SD system may be derived from a given style, the style encompasses more than aspects of self defense. But like I said, that topic has been discussed quite a bit.

 

[clfsean]

My point is "Huh?" doesn't help anyone to address what you do or don't understand. Anyway, the bottom line is in teaching I do not specifically separate SD aspects from the more philosophical ones (the art side of things).

Actually it did.

When I described a style of Martial Arts as "combative movements that express an underlying philosophy," the point here is to distinguish a Martial Art from a self defense system, which while a SD system may be derived from a given style, the style encompasses more than aspects of self defense. But like I said, that topic has been discussed quite a bit.

Potato vs tater...

 

[Flying Crane]

Shocked me the first time I encountered that.

What disturbed me most was the realization that so much of what I had been doing for the past 25+ years, various systems under various teachers, was so fundamentally flawed and poorly understood. I had no idea. It took a little old sifu teaching a very traditional method to pound that into my head. Wish I had figured that out decades ago...