Thoughts on Learning from Videos

[Bill Mattocks]

I would argue that a fighting technique is the same way. It's entirely possible for someone to have a punch or a kick that is "bad form" but still effective, though once it's been proven to be effective it's no longer called bad form . . . it's called unorthodox.

Absolutely. There are some bad-*** street fighters out there. No doubt. However, I don't know of many street fighters who didn't learn by losing a lot in real street fights. Their school involved getting beat up until they figured out what people are likely to do in a fight and stopping that and getting their own licks in.

However, I've also seen a lot of videos of street fights with two lunkheads duking it out, maybe both throwing relatively powerful blows, but just some serious sad sack technique. A trained martial artist would just tear them apart by exploiting all the holes in their unorthodox self-made style that they didn't know they had, because their equally sad sack opponents didn't realize they were holes that could be exploited.

Good example? Kimo.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And for what it may be worth, this thread is going just exactly like all the others on video training. The person asking isn't really asking if it's effective. They are basically insisting that it is. After about ten days of back and forth, the new person who thinks they can learn this or that via video stomps off in a huff, stating that they will come back and show us all. None of them has done so. We don't want to lose you as a new member and we don't want to get people angry on either side of the argument. Suffice to say this argument comes up again and again, and it always ends the same way.

So I'm going to bow out here. I've given my opinion, and I respect yours, but I respectfully disagree with you. You do what you must. And I'm sure we'll find things to agree on in other threads.

 

[Flying Crane]

You know, I suspect you are winding people up here with your assertions that it's easy to learn from videos, if you aren't have you considered it's rather insulting to instructors saying they aren't necessary when so many put blood, sweat, love and tears into what they are doing?

Personally, I don't find it insulting (I'm only minimally an instructor, but whatever), I am just amused at the willful ignorance that so many people show with regard to this topic. I'm stepping in to offer some advice, give a bit of guidance, try to help the naive folks to understand a little bit about what this stuff really entails to do it right.

If they insist on disregarding what I and the others here have to say, that's their choice. I am content with the knowledge that compared to anyone who might believe and insist that video is a viable form of primary instruction, well I am the more intelligent person on that issue. I know what's right and what's not right and it doesn't make me lose sleep at night knowing that fools will ignore good advice.

 

[shihansmurf]

I have had the opportunity to meet with some kenpo guys who were solely video trained, they sucked, three different groups from that particular organization sucked. The fourth guy was OK, and I attribute that to the background in other martial arts that he already had.

I am working through the material from the group that you mentioned right now. My experience has been uniformly positive with the members of the group but I have noticed the same trend. With a couple of exceptions, the more skilled practitioners are ones that had prior experience. I know that I wouldn't have considered starting their program if I hadn't had a lot of years of training in similar system as well as other striking arts.

I am moving to their system as the fighting philosophy of the founders and the pared down system works better for the purpose I have of working kenpo(namely as an adjunct to the shotokan and boxing that I teach in my class). The association and the system are a good fit for me.

That being said, if you want to learn from videos then go for it. If you are happy with the results you're getting then happy training. If not, then put in the mat time with a good instructor.

I'm starting to think we should have a sticky on this subject as often as it comes up. That ay those of us that consistantly post in these threads, for and agains, can post our thought one time and be done with it.

Mark

 

[Tez3]

Personally, I don't find it insulting (I'm only minimally an instructor, but whatever), I am just amused at the willful ignorance that so many people show with regard to this topic. I'm stepping in to offer some advice, give a bit of guidance, try to help the naive folks to understand a little bit about what this stuff really entails to do it right.

If they insist on disregarding what I and the others here have to say, that's their choice. I am content with the knowledge that compared to anyone who might believe and insist that video is a viable form of primary instruction, well I am the more intelligent person on that issue. I know what's right and what's not right and it doesn't make me lose sleep at night knowing that fools will ignore good advice.

Many people won't feel insulted but the tone of the posts does seem to indicate that whether meant or not it looks like the OP finds instructors pointless. Bill's post just now I think has the right of it.

 

[dancingalone]

Personally, I don't find it insulting (I'm only minimally an instructor, but whatever), I am just amused at the willful ignorance that so many people show with regard to this topic. I'm stepping in to offer some advice, give a bit of guidance, try to help the naive folks to understand a little bit about what this stuff really entails to do it right.

If they insist on disregarding what I and the others here have to say, that's their choice. I am content with the knowledge that compared to anyone who might believe and insist that video is a viable form of primary instruction, well I am the more intelligent person on that issue. I know what's right and what's not right and it doesn't make me lose sleep at night knowing that fools will ignore good advice.

But Michael, it's clear that the subject irritates you to an extent. You're very vocal and, forgive me, extreme about your view on this topic.

I look upon technology as just another way to reach my students. I use email and a private website for communications. To me, video is just another way to reaching out to them as part of a comprehensive instructional plan. Some may benefit more from it than others and that is fine.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'll share one more little story and then I'm probably done with this thread as well. It's been re-hashed over and over and it get's tiresome having the same debate over and over with the next crop of folks.

I trained for over a decade with a sifu in my particular system. He had trained this system many decades earlier, and really had drifted away from it to pursue other things. He agreed to teach me what he could remember of this particular system, but he was honest with me from the beginning: he told me that he has forgotten a lot of it, that he doesn't really train it anymore and his skills are rusty. But he agreed to teach me what he could.

Most of his time and energy were devoted to teaching the other students in the other things that have become his primary focus over the years. He has a lot of students, so of course that is where he needs to spend his energies.

So he would teach me on the side, in between times, because I was the only one interested in this particular system that he no longer trains. In hindsight, I realize that because he was no longer focused on this system, because his time and attention was demanded elsewhere, he had little time to give me detailed instruction. The arrangement was akin to an independent study, with a moderate amount of guidance. I was largely left to my own devices, to work out what he had shown me. I'm a dedicated student, I worked hard, trained hard, did the best that I could. On the surface what I was doing didn't look too bad, to somebody who wasn't educated about my system.

Finally, after more than a decade, he told me that his instructor was willing to meet me, and possibly accept me into his training group. His instructor really is a master of the system, and he and his students focus on that alone, without other distractions. That man had closed his public kwoon decades earlier and only taught four students in his back yard. He wasn't interested in having new students, so the opportunity had never arose before. But now my sifu told me that he could take me to meet him and he might make room for me in his group. I had hoped for this for many years, so I was ecstatic.

I was accepted into the group and have been training with that group for going on three years now. I could not be happier with my situation.

Here's what I learned, and what became evident to me very very quickly, upon joining this group: I had NO IDEA how much I simply did not understand. I was largely mimicking the system, and simply did not understand the purpose of the training methods, did not understand what skills the methods were really designed to develop, and what could be done with it. I just didn't get it. Joining the new group really opened my eyes in ways that I could never have guessed. With this revelation, I can say that the QUALITY of my training has improved dramatically. Before, I was just going thru the motions. Now, I am training to develop very specific skills that I now understand much more fully. The difference in the quality of my training is just so vastly improved, I cannot adequately express it.

In hindsight I can see that my first sifu gave me what he could, but the fact that he didn't have a lot of time to REALLY work with me, to REALLY make me understand what I was working on, gave me very limited results. He would tell me that I still needed a lot of work, that I had a lot of room for improvement. I didn't understand what he meant, where the corrections were needed, and he wasn't able to adequately communicate that to me because he simply didn't have time to work with me thoroughly. He gave me what he could and I appreciated that a lot. I understood the limitations. The experience sparked my interest in this system and I am very glad to have had that door opened for me. But ultimately the instruction was inadequate due to the circumstances.

I say this in admission that this was what I got from a real instructor. Learning from video would be much much worse. There would be no feedback, no correction, no depth of discussion. That is what is needed to really understand what you are doing. With my first sifu I actually had all of that, but still it wasn't enough. It wasn't until I joined with my current sifu that the inadequacies in the instruction were eliminated. With video, you have NONE of that, and it's a disaster.

I can see that now, because of the instruction that I have been receiving for the last three years. Sometimes a real instructor still isn't enough. A better instructor is still needed. Video is worse.

 

[Flying Crane]

But Michael, it's clear that the subject irritates you to an extent. You're very vocal and, forgive me, extreme about your view on this topic.

I look upon technology as just another way to reach my students. I use email and a private website for communications. To me, video is just another way to reaching out to them as part of a comprehensive instructional plan. Some may benefit more from it than others and that is fine.

yeah, it is somewhat irritating, but at the end of the day I don't take it home with me at night. I don't feel insulted by it. We go around and around, and ultimately everyone makes their own decision about it and the discussion fades away.

 

[Tez3]

But Michael, it's clear that the subject irritates you to an extent. You're very vocal and, forgive me, extreme about your view on this topic.

I look upon technology as just another way to reach my students. I use email and a private website for communications. To me, video is just another way to reaching out to them as part of a comprehensive instructional plan. Some may benefit more from it than others and that is fine.

Those are the magic words though...part of..not instead of. I think most of us agree that videos can help, but only as an aid, they can't take the place of an instructor.

 

[SPX]

Okay, at this point I feel like there are a lot of strawman arguments going on here, so let me clarify exactly what I never said:

1. Learning from video is as good as learning with an instructor.
2. Learning from video is better than learning from an instructor.
3. Instructor's are pointless.
4. I'm personally learning a martial art exclusively via video.

Now let me re-state the claims that I did make:

1. An untrained person can gain enough skills to defend himself against most untrained persons, solely via the use of high-quality instructional videos, good training equipment, and good training partners.

2. An untrained person can gain the necessary skills solely via the above resources + competitive opportunities to pass a 1st dan grading in many TKD organizations (and I would guess many other martial arts as well).

Regarding this second point, let me be clear. Of the two TKD organizations that I've been a part of, the ATA and USTF, the grading requirements basically consist of a) knowing the patterns and being able to do them in a way that they look correct in front of a panel of judges, b) being able to demonstrate one-steps, c) being able to break a board or two via a handful of techniques, d) having good enough fitness to endure a multi-hour test, e) make a show of sparring (you need not actually win, you just have to look like you know what you're doing).

To the above claims, I'll make one more:

3. With the aformentioned resources, this video trained black belt could get good enough to smoke plenty of "legitimate" black belts in either competition or a street fight. That is, he could best them in terms of skill.

So hopefully that helps, because I don't feel like most of what's been said really addressed my initial post.

 

[Flying Crane]

Okay, at this point I feel like there are a lot of strawman arguments going on here, so let me clarify exactly what I never said:

1. Learning from video is as good as learning with an instructor.
2. Learning from video is better than learning from an instructor.
3. Instructor's are pointless.
4. I'm personally learning a martial art exclusively via video.

thanks for restating and clarifying.

Now let me re-state the claims that I did make:

1. An untrained person can gain enough skills to defend himself against most untrained persons, solely via the use of high-quality instructional videos, good training equipment, and good training partners.

agreed sort of, but honestly I suspect the results are more about the person and less about the video instruction. This person might not actually need the instruction. He may have the natural attributes (strength, speed, natural ability, raw aggression) that would make him able to defend himself, and that ability may have little to do with the video instruction. I think this is the person with whom you would see the most results, but the results aren't really brought about by the video instruction.

If you take non-athletic, non physically talented, non-aggressive type person and gave him video instruction, I'd say it's highly doubtful.

2. An untrained person can gain the necessary skills solely via the above resources + competitive opportunities to pass a 1st dan grading in many TKD organizations (and I would guess many other martial arts as well).

I don't know anything about TKD org requirements. But if your statement is true, then that speaks very very very very very poorly of their standards. Same for any other martial arts org. But hey, video instruction and ranking programs exist all over the place. If you are a good salesman it seems like it's an easy way to make some money.

To the above claims, I'll make one more:

3. With the aformentioned resources, this video trained black belt could get good enough to smoke plenty of "legitimate" black belts in either competition or a street fight. That is, he could best them in terms of skill.

Once again, it's not that hard to beat someone up. You don't need a high level of skill to do that. Unfortunately, a lot of "legitimately" trained people are also not very good, because standards in instruction have dropped pretty low in a lot of cases. If your hypothetical video black belt could beat up a school-trained black belt speaks more to the poor instruction the latter received, and possibly the natural talents of the former. I don't believe it's the quality of the video training.

 

[SPX]

agreed sort of, but honestly I suspect the results are more about the person and less about the video instruction. This person might not actually need the instruction. He may have the natural attributes (strength, speed, natural ability, raw aggression) that would make him able to defend himself, and that ability may have little to do with the video instruction. I think this is the person with whom you would see the most results, but the results aren't really brought about by the video instruction.

If you take non-athletic, non physically talented, non-aggressive type person and gave him video instruction, I'd say it's highly doubtful.

I would agree that naturally strong, fast, aggressive people can often brawl their way through a regular person's defenses. And I also agree that someone with no aptitude for fighting is unlikely to be much of a fighter because he studies some stuff from a video (though I'd also say that many such individuals are unlikely to become very good fighters even with good personal instruction).

But one thing I have learned is that if you just know some basics then that puts you leaps and bounds ahead of someone who knows nothing. Personally, I think the most important element is practice. If you have someone of quality to spar with and try things out on then you'll eventually get a lot figured out just through trial and error and being observant about how things work and don't work.

I don't know anything about TKD org requirements. But if your statement is true, then that speaks very very very very very poorly of their standards. Same for any other martial arts org.

LOL, yeah I know. That's actually why I left the last TKD school I was at. There were no black belts other than the instructor, but the higher leveled color belts did not intimidate me at all. If I'm going to train somewhere, I WANT to feel like I would be pretty helpless against those ranked higher than myself. That's one of the main reasons I'm probably about to join a wado-ryu school I've been visiting: watching their practice sessions I've gotten the feeling that I could put up little resistance if any of them wanted to hurt me. Granted, EVERYONE in the class is either a brown or black belt and most of them have 50 pounds on me or more, but still. . .

Really though, the testing model that I've laid out is fairly standard among many martial arts organizations. As long as you can perform the techniques then you will pass your test. This is why, personally, I'm starting to wonder if maybe traditional styles should start to have some sort of combat requirements in order to pass. I know that in BJJ, for instance, you can get promoted much faster for winning matches in tournaments. If you win the whole thing for your division, then you get promoted all the faster. If you compete but do not win, then you will get promoted more slowly, though still faster than someone who does not compete at all. In other cases, you get promoted for performing some particular feat, like when Frank Mir got his black belt for breaking Tim Sylvia's arm at UFC 48. I don't do BJJ, but I believe that, at least for competing in tournaments, the way it works is that there's a point system and you get points based on performance that go toward promotion.

Why can't traditional karate, TKD, kung fu etc. styles do something similar? Furthermore, why isn't it the NORM to do something similar? Why in fact can you pass a grading without throwing a single punch toward an opponent (such as when I recently saw a red belt successfully test at a TKD testing)?

This is why, personally, I feel like if the requirements for testing are such that it's possible a person could learn exclusively through video-lead instruction, then such a person, if they learn the material, are no less a black belt than someone who got their instruction in other ways.

Unfortunately, a lot of "legitimately" trained people are also not very good, because standards in instruction have dropped pretty low in a lot of cases.

Yep.

 

[Flying Crane]

As long as you can perform the techniques then you will pass your test.

I've seen this as well, I won't deny it. But the lowering of standards on one end doesn't justify what can be achieved on the other, when used as a comparison.

What I mean is, IF it's possible for someone to take video instruction and reach a comparable level as what one might see in certain schools, does that mean the video instruction is a good approach? Personally, I say "no". It means that the standards of certain schools are woefully low. I think the better way to put it is actually the reverse. Rather than saying, "It is possible to get comparable level training thru video, as what is found in some schools", the way it should be phrased is, "The quality of instruction at some schools is so poor that it's little or no better than trying to learn from video". To me, that's far more telling of the real picture and is quite damning to be honest.

I think I said in an earlier post, my Sifu uses what he sees on Youtube as an example of how not to do things, and he uses it as an insult. If we are not training up to his expectations, he starts telling us that we look like Youtube. It's NOT a compliment. A lot of schools give terrible instruction, their bar is so low you are more in danger of tripping over it than not being able to reach it.

Why can't traditional karate, TKD, kung fu etc. styles do something similar? Furthermore, why isn't it the NORM to do something similar?

in the good schools, they keep the standards up, and grading comes with high demands. In the bad schools, it does not. You made something of a blanket statement there, and I don't believe it applies across the board.

 

[SPX]

It means that the standards of certain schools are woefully low.

Yes, and the way they justify this is to say that most people don't WANT serious training . . . rather, they want a good work out and to have a little fun . . . and truth be told, they are right.

I think the better way to put it is actually the reverse. Rather than saying, "It is possible to get comparable level training thru video, as what is found in some schools", the way it should be phrased is, "The quality of instruction at some schools is so poor that it's little or no better than trying to learn from video". To me, that's far more telling of the real picture and is quite damning to be honest.

I think I said in an earlier post, my Sifu uses what he sees on Youtube as an example of how not to do things, and he uses it as an insult. If we are not training up to his expectations, he starts telling us that we look like Youtube. It's NOT a compliment. A lot of schools give terrible instruction, their bar is so low you are more in danger of tripping over it than not being able to reach it.

I don't know why, but I now have a mental image of a diminutive Chinese guy screaming in heavily accented English, "Get it right! You wanna look like YouTube?!?!?" I'm sure I've got that all wrong, though.

In the good schools, they keep the standards up, and grading comes with high demands. In the bad schools, it does not. You made something of a blanket statement there, and I don't believe it applies across the board.

I agree that not all schools are bad. If I felt that way, I'd just give up right now. And yet I'm going to check out a judo school tonight at 7:45, so there must be hope (though to be honest I haven't had the same issues with grappling schools that I have with striking schools).

I think I have just experienced a lot of lackluster schools in my life. And that's probably the right word . . . lackluster. I never felt like I was really had the resources in most cases to be fashioned into a great fighter. I guess I've just always felt like I was getting something of a canned training experience without a lot of guidance or support.

The exceptions to this rule are a wushu school that I was involved with as a teen (but Wushu is not really a combat art), and the judo school I was involved with back in Minnesota.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, and the way they justify this is to say that most people don't WANT serious training . . . rather, they want a good work out and to have a little fun . . . and truth be told, they are right.

whatever justification is necessary to keep paying students...
I say it all the time: martial arts are NOT for everyone. But when a commercial school is meant to be a primary and viable source of income, and especially when the owner of said school has dreams of wealth, then he needs LOTS of students to realize those goals and dreams. So martial arts needs to be packaged as "for everyone". And that creates a need to pander to the lowest common denominator. And that creates a need to lower the standards.

I don't know why, but I now have a mental image of a diminutive Chinese guy screaming in heavily accented English, "Get it right! You wanna look like YouTube?!?!?" I'm sure I've got that all wrong, though.

you've actually got that EXACTLY right. Now add "76 years old and chain smoking" to that description.

I agree that not all schools are bad. If I felt that way, I'd just give up right now. And yet I'm going to check out a judo school tonight at 7:45, so there must be hope (though to be honest I haven't had the same issues with grappling schools that I have with striking schools).

I think I have just experienced a lot of lackluster schools in my life. And that's probably the right word . . . lackluster. I never felt like I was really had the resources in most cases to be fashioned into a great fighter. I guess I've just always felt like I was getting something of a canned training experience without a lot of guidance or support.

The exceptions to this rule are a wushu school that I was involved with as a teen (but Wushu is not really a combat art), and the judo school I was involved with back in Minnesota.

I have had similar experiences. Both things that I've been a part of myself, and things that I've witnessed. And sometimes we might lack the experience and perspective to recognize it until later.

It's not easy finding a truly good teacher. When you find one, you hang on with both hands and don't let go.