Efficiency

[Bigshadow]

This was posted in another thread and raised a question I thought deserved it's own thread.

Mr. Parker was remarkable at the end of his career but he was no longer the fit young man he had been in the '50s, instead he had learned to be more efficient as a martial artist.

If it takes a whole career to figure out how to be more efficient, why then those who have learned don't start off training new students to be efficient in their movement from the beginning?

Wouldn't this advance the student's skill level faster?

Wouldn't this also allow instructors to teach to a certain level in less time than it took them to learn?

Yes the students will start off learning at a higher level and it will be tougher, but the instructor could probably do in 10 years what took him/her 15 to 20 years to learn.

 

[morph4me]

In my experience there is usually a chasm between what is being taught and what is being learned. Students tend to try to interpret what is being taught and find new movements awkward and uncomfortable. So as much as the instructor may try to teach how to be efficiency of movement from the beginning, it usually ends up taking awhile for it to finally sink in. That's why most instructors really begin to learn their art once they start teaching it. I know I have learned more from my students then I ever taught them.

 

[Flying Crane]

There may be some connection to technique itself in developing efficiency, meaning that application of the tech becomes more efficient than it was before thru subtle changes and whatnot.

However, I think "efficiency" really means experience, and experience develops a "vision" for the fight. A highly experienced person is able to read his opponent and effectively predict what is coming next, almost before the opponent knows himself. Once you can do that, you can beat him before he can hit you, even if you are slower than him.

This kind of experience simply takes years and years of training and there are no shortcuts based on teaching efficiency.

 

[morph4me]

If I may expand on Flying Cranes excellent points. The more relaxed a practioner is in the execution of his techniques, the less extraneous motion he uses and the more efficient his techniques become, and that only happens with time and experience

 

[CoryKS]

Because in order to bend the rules, first you have to learn the rules. Also, if Mr. Parker developed his efficiency as a way to work around his waning fitness, as Kenpodoc seems to be saying, it may be that we neglect efficiency because we are not driven by necessity.

 

[Bigshadow]

If I may expand on Flying Cranes excellent points. The more relaxed a practioner is in the execution of his techniques, the less extraneous motion he uses and the more efficient his techniques become, and that only happens with time and experience

I would agree with that to a point... Why does it have to take time and experience? Couldn't one learn to relax at the same time? Just a thought. Learning to relax takes time, but it certainly doesn't take a lifetime.

 

[Bigshadow]

Because in order to bend the rules, first you have to learn the rules.

But the only rules are the laws of physics, no? You cannot bend them.

 

[Flying Crane]

I would agree with that to a point... Why does it have to take time and experience? Couldn't one learn to relax at the same time? Just a thought. Learning to relax takes time, but it certainly doesn't take a lifetime.

It takes time and happens gradually. You don't suddenly "learn" it.

 

[CoryKS]

But the only rules are the laws of physics, no? You cannot bend them.

True. Perhaps "rules" is too strong a term. I just meant that in general it's good to have a grasp on what you are doing before changing it. If I, at my beginner level, were to start trying to change things or economize my motions, I'd probably just break the technique.

 

[Bigshadow]

This kind of experience simply takes years and years of training and there are no shortcuts based on teaching efficiency.

This is the commonly accepted belief, but I am not fully on board with that. I have seen some teachers in my art shortcut it, not drastically, but considerably. Their students are very good for their time in. So I think that might speak volumes on this subject. The instructors in question will tell you they are shortcutting. Basically, teaching NOW what it took them 10, 15, 20 years to learn.

The theory is... Why teach something that the student has to unlearn to get to the high level stuff.

 

[Bigshadow]

I just meant that in general it's good to have a grasp on what you are doing before changing it. If I, at my beginner level, were to start trying to change things or economizing my motions, I'd probably just break the technique.

That is true! But being efficient is breaking anything, it is just doing it more efficiently.

 

[Bigshadow]

It takes time and happens gradually. You don't suddenly "learn" it.

True, I would agree with you regarding techniques and so forth, but learning to relax and be efficient at the same time is possible, I think.

It isn't dramatically faster, my point is, if a teacher could get a student to an advanced level early.... shaving off 5 years of training, wouldn't it make that student that much better at 20 years?

It still takes time, but teaching things that has to be unlearned to be great seems counter productive to me.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I would agree with that to a point... Why does it have to take time and experience? Couldn't one learn to relax at the same time? Just a thought. Learning to relax takes time, but it certainly doesn't take a lifetime.

It takes time to relax properly into any form, posture, style, way, etc. And time gives you experience. And you are, in a sense, learning to relax at the same time. But you will not fully relax until you understand all parts of whatever form, style application you are doing. Confidence is also required for relaxation.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is the commonly accepted belief, but I am not fully on board with that. I have seen some teachers in my art shortcut it, not drastically, but considerably. Their students are very good for their time in. So I think that might speak volumes on this subject. The instructors in question will tell you they are shortcutting. Basically, teaching NOW what it took them 10, 15, 20 years to learn.

The theory is... Why teach something that the student has to unlearn to get to the high level stuff.

Interesting thoughts, and valid points I'll agree.

not sure what the answer is.

Maybe it really comes down to what works for the individual. We all learn something in a formalized (more or less) setting. It is a body of knowledge that has been codified, at least to some extent, to allow for teaching. But it may not all be the best for the individual. Maybe for someone in the past it was the best, but for each individual this is not necessarily the case. So it takes time to learn from others, what others believe is the best. Then, after years of experience and experimentation with what you have learned, you figure out what works best for you. You have become more efficient, but you had to pay your dues before you learned enough, and had the experience to recognize what you were working with.

So now these instructors are teaching the "shortcut". Again, this is just their opinion about what works best, for them. Maybe their "shortcuts" will become codified dogma, and three generations from now someone else will break free of it and make new "shortcuts", once they figure out that this stuff doesn't work the best for them.

 

[Bigshadow]

It takes time to relax properly into any form, posture, style, way, etc. And time gives you experience. And you are, in a sense, learning to relax at the same time. But you will not fully relax until you understand all parts of whatever form, style application you are doing. Confidence is also required for relaxation.

I agree with that.

 

[Bigshadow]

So now these instructors are teaching the "shortcut". Again, this is just their opinion about what works best, for them. Maybe their "shortcuts" will become codified dogma, and three generations from now someone else will break free of it and make new "shortcuts", once they figure out that this stuff doesn't work the best for them.

Their teaching methodologies are definitely experimental, but seem to be having great results.

 

[Flying Crane]

It isn't dramatically faster, my point is, if a teacher could get a student to an advanced level early.... shaving off 5 years of training, wouldn't it make that student that much better at 20 years?

.

I think you are looking at things in too much of a "black and white" way and this isn't realistic. You could have the most efficient training methods, however that could even be measured. But the individual might still have a hard time learning it simply because of his own issues and abilities and such.

Results in teaching with different students cannot be measured or predicted accurately or easily. What might take one student 2 years to become reasonably proficient with, might take another student 15 years, even with the same teaching methods. I don't think you can expect to shave off 5 years of someone's training time by creating a specific approach to teaching. Sure, for some people this might work, but not for every student, and it cannot be relied upon to be consistent.

Of course the only way to know for sure would be to create a scientific experiment. You teach a student using one method for one year. Then you erase his memory and teach him the same material using a different method for one year, and compare the results. You cannot compare different students, because of the differences that every individual has. So we just need to figure out how to erase his memory and then we can try this out

.

 

[Flying Crane]

Their teaching methodologies are definitely experimental, but seem to be having great results.

As I am sure was true of the methods from 10 generations ago, that are now seen as inefficient.

 

[Bigshadow]

I think you are looking at things in too much of a "black and white" way and this isn't realistic. You could have the most efficient training methods, however that could even be measured. But the individual might still have a hard time learning it simply because of his own issues and abilities and such.

Oh I agree with you! I wasn't being specific, I was using the 5 years as an example. It is very relative to how fast the student learns, no doubt! Again, I was throwing that out there as an example. It could be 5 years, 2 years, 0 years, depending on the student. But overall the class may learn faster as a whole. That was point really.

 

[Xue Sheng]

True, I would agree with you regarding techniques and so forth, but learning to relax and be efficient at the same time is possible, I think.

It isn't dramatically faster, my point is, if a teacher could get a student to an advanced level early.... shaving off 5 years of training, wouldn't it make that student that much better at 20 years?

It still takes time, but teaching things that has to be unlearned to be great seems counter productive to me.

The student gains from the experience of a good instructor this is true. But they still have to become competent in what they are shown in order to relax into it. Just because the teacher got rid of what he/she felt was superfluous does not make the process quicker. It may make it longer, it may make it quicker it may make no difference. It depends on the student and the goals of that student in my opinion in that case.

Example CMA and Sanda; Sanda is basically a lot of the extra prettier forms of Chinese martial arts removed in order to make an efficient fighting style for the military. A person training Sanda would not have to train multiple CMA styles in order to become proficient a kicks, punches, Qinna, sweeps and take downs, they study Sanda and that is all. And they become efficient rather quick, but they also miss many parts of traditinal CMA in the process that help with relaxation such as Qi gong.

However they would not be relaxed in tai chi, Xingyi, Bagua, Wing Chun, Shuaijiao, Shaolin, etc. Or any of the CMA styles used to make Sanda. Nor does this mean that they are better fighters than people of those styles. And they would not be relaxed in Sanda immediately; it would take time and experience for that.

But they would only study Sanda for a few years to become efficient as opposed to studying all the other CMA forms for multiple years to become relaxed and efficient.