'The good stuff'

Lee Richardson wrote:

At what point in your syllabus do students begin to learn the good stuff?

Hopefully from day one!  We run classes with all abilities mixed in so newcomers are hitting things straight away. 

Gary

Good answer! It seems obvious, doesn't it? But, from my own experiences, it's not always the case. A lot of time can be spent perfecting form at the expense of actually making contact. Other than the physical, I've found that little or no time is giving to putting techniques into context. When awareness gets mentioned at all it's couched in Zen-like terms and fence concepts and pre-emptive striking don't get a look in.

I used to do that in Kyokushin - at least the first three months were just spent drilling basics.  I used to do it almost as a boredom test, those that got through it then got promoted to the main class.

Thank goodness I've learnt the lesson.  The most motivating thing in training (IME) is the feeling that your impact is improving in leaps and bounds.  The confidence gained from that is far more important than minute 'stylish' corrections.

Gary

If 2 major factors of application are timing and distancing then I would say at Green Belt any of my students should be 'half handy', green belt takes a minamum of a years training for most.

By this time they should have some structure, and some concepts of strategy as well. We teach contact from day 1 inc pads and each other!

Try to start off right away. Classes are mixed. Everyone in the mix. Sparring starts (depending on the student) at possibly day one just to see where they are. (I'm dealing with adults only) We go on with 1st kata, Gekisai, which basicly uses a riseing block ( natural flinch to a punch) and teaches to get in the fight immediately. Teaches some basic t echniques for close quarter survival.

shoshinkanuk wrote:

If 2 major factors of application are timing and distancing then I would say at Green Belt any of my students should be 'half handy', green belt takes a minamum of a years training for most.

By this time they should have some structure, and some concepts of strategy as well. We teach contact from day 1 inc pads and each other!

Seriously? Your students have to train for a year before they're taught anything that will be of use to them in a real-life confrontation? Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my definition of 'the good stuff'. I'm not talking about anything complex or visually pleasing. I'm talking about simple, low-skill, high percentage, techniques. And, by techniques, I mean not just the obvious physical ones such as high-line hand strikes and low-line kicks, but 'soft skills' such as awareness, threat evaluation and pre-emptive striking.

As for timing and distancing - if your awareness, assessment and avoidance skills are what they should be then timing isn't a factor. If they fail for whatever reason then timing comes down to striking first. Similarly with distancing - if Plan A fails then you won't be the one to set the distance, the assailant will. The chances are that you'll have to work at the distance you're given.

I’d like to think that everything taught is applicable so they obviously learn that from day one. And because they are beginners, they have no foundation to build on so everything taught is high-percentage / low skill. We also teach awareness and a thorough understanding of the “Threat Pyramid” and “The Colour Codes” as the physical skills are always a poor second to the soft skills. Pre-emption to facilitate escape is also taught from the very first session.

However, I also want to lay the foundation for the rest of their study and hence I want the high-percentage / low skill methods taught to be of high quality. You can spend a lifetime refining the basics and low skill does not automatically mean low quality. To use a well worn analogy, if the foundation is weak you can’t build on it. So I teach things they can use from day one, with a view to also laying a solid foundation on which they can build ever increasing effectiveness.

All the best,

Iain

In theory at least most of our classes include skill, impact, application against compliant partners, application against awkward and unforgiving partners.  (Although the last one is debatable as we stick to certain rules)

That starts from day one.  Beginners/low grades get more coaching on the first two initially, and of course as experience/skill/power improves the emphasis shifts to the latter two.

No system is perfect though, lets not kid ourselves.  It's all trying to get the most from the least as safely as possible ...

Gary

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

No system is perfect though, let’s not kid ourselves.  It's all trying to get the most from the least as safely as possible ...

This is true. I think things work best if we view every approach we adopt as a “temporary conclusion” that is subject to change following observations of how the students are developing and coming across information or training drills that progress people more efficiently.

It’s when people adopt a view of “this is the ultimate truth” or “this is perfect and does not need to be questioned or changed” that they stagnate.

How to best structure a syllabus or set up a training program is a topic that seems to be coming up a lot in various places and that may be something to explore in another thread?

All the best,

Iain

The way we teach is that the first things a new student learns is awareness, basic fence and getting away.

The way I feel about is that even is a person only comes for a taster session or just a few lesson and decides it's not for them, they should least walk away bit more savvy in what to look for and perhaps a bit safer.  

I'm sure you've all seen the situation where you have a student who knows a little but thinks they know it all and is therefore capable of getting into deeper trouble rather than just avoiding it altogether.

I think start with basic protection and important soft skills and if they get attacked or get into a situation on the way home they'll not try anything to clever but just keep themselves safe.

Phil