11 posts / 0 new
Last post
PASmith
PASmith's picture
Initial application issues

So yesterday I introduced my taekwondo club (I'm an assistant instructor so it's not "my" club per se) to some Abernethy inspired pattern applications! :)

Had a really good session that was well received (afaik) although it was a bit of a departure from some of the regular (more mainstream) stuff we do.

It was really interesting to see some of the issues people (and myself) had with the drills so thought I'd share some thoughts.

Talking too much. This is an issue I have rather than other people. Once I get started showing this sort of thing, it's so interesting and there's so much depth and nuance that I have a tendency to gab on a bit and get carried away. I suppose I'm a bit "evangelical" and over-share rather than offering bitesize chunks. :)

Lack of correct distance. Despite me stressing that this sort of stuff is for the close range chaos of a real go people still reverted to their familiar longer sparring/kicking distance. In many cases without even realising they had done that. And then the drills started to fall apart a bit.

People still seeing it as "sparring". I tried to get people to re-create a more realistic set up of aggressor and target but people still went back to bouncing towards each other with their guards up.

Not play acting the attacker very well. Some people had a hard time "being" the attacker. Either not attacking in the right way or the right energy. Not offering the right "look".

Being uncomfortable with proximity and being in personal space. When people are used to long range sparring and 2 person drills at arms length I could see some people feeling awkward at the closer distance, grips, controls, indexing targets, pushing on faces and how much more tactile it was compared to regular training drills.

Getting over complicated. The stuff I showed was pretty simple. But because it departed from their regular stuff or what they "knew" people assumed it was more complex than it was. I kept having to remind people that the drills followed the pattern fairly closely. Go back to what the pattern is showing.

Philios
Philios's picture

With nearly 3 decades of experience in Shotokan, I recall just how foreign grappling felt to me when I started Judo a few years ago.  No matter how many times I was shown a relatively simple technique, it was just flat out hard for me to "see" what was going on.  Newaza techniques were the hardest to comprehend.  Honestly, it all just looked like a jumble of arms and legs.  After a few weeks, I was able to see what was going on in an exchange much quicker.  It just takes some time for people to adjust.  They aren't used to learning stuff in that way, and even though they have likely done those exact movements in the air hundreds of times, the simple change of context and introducing a partner at close distance can really throw someone for a loop.  

I began introducing practical applications to my karate students about 4 years ago.  My advice:  Start small.  Start simple.  Build on it.  Although you may want to cover a slew of techniques or an entire pattern's worth of applications in a class, you may discover that your audience just isn't there yet.  In my experience, even stuff like grabbing wrists or collars needed work.  It's better for them to get really good at a core concept through repetition.  Introduce the basics of the core principle, get them to practice it, and then add layers of difficulty (progressively decreasing a partner's compliance, reacting to a trigger, moving around, etc).  If distance is a problem (they're too far away), force them into the correct engagement distance either by tapping their partner on the shoulder (an arm's length away at most), or starting from a wrist or lapel grab.  Introducing the basics of gripping (see Iain's videos on that) can also be a great way of getting students accustomed to the close range of grappling.  Another thing you can try is to tie their belts together using an extra belt to keep them at an appropriate distance and prevent them from drifting apart into a more comfortable range.

Being a good uke (partner) is about being sensitive to your partner's needs, and giving them exactly what they need in order to benefit.  If this means being agressive or acting mean, then that is what is required.  This is especially important if you are practising de-escalation drills.  I've found that karate practitioners often make THE WORST street thugs.  It's probably the same in TKD.  They're much too nice, and they punch like karateka (linear karate punches), not untrained criminals (big swings).  I've had the class "compete" to see who was the most convincing thug.  They were judged on their body language, technique (or lack thereof), and distance.  Bonus points were awarded to those who cheated or tried to trick their partner in some way.  It's a fun way to get people to come out of their shell and "sell it" in convincing the group that they are indeed dangerous people.

Good luck!

Heath White
Heath White's picture

PASmith, 

Good to hear this feedback.  I've not been in your position but here are some thoughts:

On talking too much: I've discovered this as I've been surfing YouTube for applications.  You can skip past a great deal of video before getting to any action.  You can solve this one.

Three of the following points have to do with distance.  I think I agree with Philios.  Start simple and strucured,  then work up.  Practice using the pulling hand when striking.  Start from wrist or lapel grabs in applications.  

I'll be interested to hear how things go, and taking notes for myself.  Keep up the good work.

Dylan Tucker
Dylan Tucker's picture

I definitely feel you on the talking too much, as I'm guilty of it myself. Sometimes you just have to shut up and let 'em play. I have found that new ideas/concepts/drills tend to stick better if I begin with a simple or general idea (as previously stated) and let the students explore their options, even if they do it wrong. Most of them figure out what works and what doesn't and maybe even discover something I hadn't thought of or seen. I think they remember it better because it was their idea and not just something I told them. Of course, give instruction and guidance if they become too off-track or unsafe. I like to end new drills with a recap where they tell me what worked, what didn't, and why. This makes them think about it further and they tend to recall it better the next time we drill.

For keeping close-up distance, tying belts together and having one student back to the wall have both worked well for me.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Great post! Very interesting and valuable.

PASmith wrote:
Talking too much. This is an issue I have rather than other people. Once I get started showing this sort of thing, it's so interesting and there's so much depth and nuance that I have a tendency to gab on a bit and get carried away. I suppose I'm a bit "evangelical" and over-share rather than offering bitesize chunks. :)

One of the tricks I apply at seminars is to take an educated guess at the minimum level of explanation they need. I then let then play and stand back to look at the group as a whole. If there are common issues, then I’ll gather everyone back in go over those issues.

Sometimes there is no need to explain part of the method if they demonstrably get it any way.

It also helps the learning because the combined experience of doing it wrong and then getting to try it the right way after the “addendum” to the original instruction is often more powerful in getting them to appreciate the role of the “missing element” than giving instruction that includes it from the off.

Heath White wrote:
On talking too much: I've discovered this as I've been surfing YouTube for applications.  You can skip past a great deal of video before getting to any action.  You can solve this one.

An ever-present problem is that you have to make the videos for everyone. Some get it. Some don’t. If I make a video short and to the point, on the assumption that people understand the context of what is being shown, I quickly find there are hundreds of people who watch through the lens of their own confusion and assume I am showing something 180 degrees from what I actually am.

The other issue is that people don’t watch long videos. What I try to do is given the minimum information so that most people will get it.  Some can fast-forward past the background information and understand it just fine. Others have attention span issues and jump past it only to totally misunderstand what is being shown (always very obvious when they’ve done that). I’ve lost count of the times I start a post on YouTube with, “As I say in the video …”.

The advantage of in-person teaching is you can judge the level of understanding of the people there and then apply to process above. As Einstein said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” A desire for brevity should not lead to incomplete instruction. A desire to give complete instruction does not necessitate the giving of information which may be superfluous to the immediate task at hand.

PASmith wrote:
Lack of correct distance. Despite me stressing that this sort of stuff is for the close range chaos of a real go people still reverted to their familiar longer sparring/kicking distance. In many cases without even realising they had done that. And then the drills started to fall apart a bit.

PASmith wrote:
People still seeing it as "sparring". I tried to get people to re-create a more realistic set up of aggressor and target but people still went back to bouncing towards each other with their guards up.

It can take time to get them used to the range and nature of this kind of practise. Playing for grips is a really useful drill that, with practise, will help prevent that happening.

PASmith wrote:
Getting over complicated. The stuff I showed was pretty simple. But because it departed from their regular stuff or what they "knew" people assumed it was more complex than it was. I kept having to remind people that the drills followed the pattern fairly closely. Go back to what the pattern is showing.

Amen! I once had an 7th dan come to a seminar with one of his orange belt students. The orange belt got it all immediately. The 7th dan (all very 3K) could not help himself when it came to assuming he was always responding to a formal attack, that the hand on the hip must be empty, that most of the movement did nothing and it was only the last inch that was active (as a block), etc. He genuinely struggled way more than anyone else there. He could not even get himself to do the basic shuto-uke application (push arm out of the way with one hand, while striking the neck with the other) because it HAD TO BE a single-handed block to a lunge punch and his brain and body would not permit him to do anything else. At the end he told me, “I enjoyed that Iain, but your stuff it is extremely complicated”. The fact the orange belt has no issue with any of it escaped his attention :-)

For experienced people it can take time for “the cup to empty” enough for them to start working with the new paradigm. The constant referral back to the kata is definitely the way to go. They know the motion, it’s just educating them where the other guy fits on to it. Once they get it, it all tends to fall it to place quite rapidly because their false expectations get out of the way and the kata is free to do its thing.

All the best,

Iain

PASmith
PASmith's picture

One thing I felt that worked well was having a list of concepts (it was an actual written list as I'd wrtten a lesson plan although I barely referred to it) that were driving the applications and referring back to them. How there is an underlying structure and ethos. It's not just a collection "application for part A, applicaction for part B, etc, etc".

I even summarised as the end some of the main concepts (using the whole movement inc. the chamber, both hands working, realistic distance, realistic attacks and situations, moving off their line while staying on your own attack line, etc). They laughed when I explained the concept of "husband and wife hands" and the traditional structure of marriage in asian culture and how it wasn't necessarily how I viewed my own marriage but the concept of mutual support could still apply to the concept. But at least they'll remember the idea.

I've also had a few people asking who this Iain Abernethy character is I keep mentioning. laugh

Heath White
Heath White's picture

Heath White wrote:
On talking too much: I've discovered this as I've been surfing YouTube for applications.  You can skip past a great deal of video before getting to any action.  You can solve this one.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
You have to make videos for everyone .... People don't watch long videos ...

I would like to retract my perhaps ill-considered remark, though I  was not particularly thinking of Abernathy sensei's videos.  I understand that making videos is a process balancing a lot of factors, and I would not like to leave the impression that what our host does is anything less than a massive service to the martial arts community.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Heath White wrote:
I was not particularly thinking of Abernathy sensei's videos.  I understand that making videos is a process balancing a lot of factors, and I would not like to leave the impression that what our host does is anything less than a massive service to the martial arts community.

I did not read your comment as being in any way negative :-) I simply wanted to discuss the difference between sharing information via video and in-person teaching, and the point you raised enabled me to do that. Video is fixed regardless of who watches it; but we can alter our in-person teaching based on the level of understanding of the students. I really appreciate the contribution and all the support.

All the best,

Iain

AllyWhytock
AllyWhytock's picture

Hi  PaSMith,

Thanks for the topic. Resnonates with my own experience.

Talking too much. 

Yes, I do this at times and force myself to focus on the topic/subject without allowing my enthusiasm to take over.  

Lack of correct distance.

 Yes, especially if people have been drilled in 1,3 or 5 step regimes and they revert to those distances plus further gapping when close proximity is required. People seem to focus on their upper arm & shoulder strength at a distance instead of using the whole body to lever, rotate and sieze.  

People still seeing it as "sparring"

Yes, setup, execution and finish as per "sparring" with the aim to "ippon" and job is done.  

Not play acting the attacker very well.

Yes, a failure to attack robustly equates to a failure to respond robustly and miss experiencing an insight into the mind/boidy reaction to violence (albeit in a controlled, incremental and iterative progression).  

Being uncomfortable with proximity and being in personal space.

Yes, a common inhibition, leading to a lack of correct distance and proper use of "Hikite". Again, without proximity you lose the experience of having someone in your face.  

Getting over complicated.

Yes, with experienced people and I include myself in that. I am still slightly biased to one side and a slightly linear mover. Beginners are no problem.  

I would also include the following (with some jest): 1. The "what if" person.

2. The "that's MMA" person.

3. The "that's disrespectful" person.

4. The "that's derogatory towards the tradition of [<insert martial art here>]" person.

5. The person who has one level of control that is "no control".

6. The person who has one level of relaxation that is "tenser than a telegraph pole".

7. The "I like doing it this way" person.

8. The two person practice pair who are "just chatting about stuff".

Looking to my own weaknesses:

1.  Allow my enthusiasm to overtake me - talking, talking & talking.

2. Over complicate things before finally getting to the simple version.

3. Sticky right hip

Looking to my own strengths:

1.  Always open to learning.

2. Open to being critiqued.

3.  Can make connections across different Kata.

So by exploring within Kata I've been able to explore within myself.

Kindest Regards, Ally

PASmith
PASmith's picture

Excellent points. I had one guy ask if it was systema I was showing. I politely said no. :)

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

AllyWhytock wrote:
1. The "what if" person.

2. The "that's MMA" person.

3. The "that's disrespectful" person.

4. The "that's derogatory towards the tradition of [<insert martial art here>]" person.

5. The person who has one level of control that is "no control".

6. The person who has one level of relaxation that is "tenser than a telegraph pole".

7. The "I like doing it this way" person.

8. The two person practice pair who are "just chatting about stuff".

I think you need to produce an “i-spy” book for the dojo Ally! :-) Brilliant!

PASmith wrote:
Excellent points. I had one guy ask if it was systema I was showing. I politely said no. :)

One of the problems is that people have very personal definitions of what is what; based largely on prior experience and an expected aesthetic. Do a hip throw with a white suit on, then it’s “judo” because “karate has no throws” (limited prior experience) and it fits with what they think judo looks like. Do a gakuzuki with a guard up in shorts and a t-shirt, then it’s “boxing” for the same reasons. And so on. I once taught an hour-long session on the limb-control elements of Naihanchi at a multi-style charity event. I was dressed in shorts and a plain blue t-shirt. At the end, one of the participants came up to say how much he had enjoyed my bit and asked, “So, how long have you done Wing Chun?” :-) I’ve also been mistaken for a Thai-Boxer (hitting the bag in the gym with Thai shorts on), a jujutsu practitioner (prospective new student came into dojo and assumed he was in the wrong place because the students were doing ground work drills) and a Krav Maga practitioner (teaching escape drills at a multi-style event out of my gi).

As regards “karate”, the sad fact is that people are very quick to demand all practitioners accept their experience and definition as the definitive one, and that their definition must apply to all others. In truth, “Karate has no throws, and if your throwing it’s not karate” should be translated as, “I’ve never done throws, and I don’t know the history of my art, but rather that see this as an opportunity to expand and enhance my practise, I shall proclaim my take on the art “complete” by ruling all the areas I don’t know or practise as being outside the remit of the art, and I demand you do the same because I, and only I, get to define what karate is! What? Wait! All the old masters show throws and refer to them in their texts? Well, they aren’t doing karate either then!” :-)

We fight on :-)

All the best,

Iain