Group training or one-on-one?

[Mark Lynn]

Both have there palce.

Currently I'm teaching on a one on one basis, however one problem I have with this is that I'm always the uke (the practice dummy). One student I had spent 30 minutes wrenching my arm trying to learn a Hammer Lock, same guy different time did a head twist takedown without keeping me close to him and wrenched my neck big time. It took me several visits to my chiropractor to get that cleared up.

Also it takes time to get the student up to your skill level to where they are a good workout partner, than something comes up and they cruise on you.

However my current student is progressing very nicely and is a real good student, so I don't mind teaching one on one.

However with a larger class you would get more experience working with other people seeing other problems that people might have and in fact learn some new stuff from them at the same time. When I was teaching a smalll group I had one student who any time he was taken to the floor he would roll out of the technique, which screwed up what I was trying to show, but it was good for me to deal with. Line drills and Bull in the Ring are both drills that you can't do one on one. You can't have partner sparring or 2 against 3 or 2 against 1 with just one on one training.

Mark

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Personally, I think a primary focus on "spreading the art" is what fosters politics, successorship squabbles and all that mess.

It's a shame that you feel the need to focus on the negative. Remy focused on spreading the art and if he didn't you wouldn't have had exposure to it.

:deadhorse :sadsong:

 

[Tgace]

Absolutely, but look at the political mess it left...linked??? Who am I to say? Just my opinion.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Group is best.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Absolutely, but look at the political mess it left...linked??? Who am I to say? Just my opinion.

Remy wasn't perfect. In his attempt to spread the art I found out the at times he was a poor judge of character. This is why I left the IMAF when I did, along with all of the good people he attracted he also attracted the bad. I felt that it would be better for ME to start from scratch. Over the years some of the bad eggs took themselves out of the game only to resurface after his passing. We can try to learn from both the good and bad to make sure that we don’t make the same mistakes.

No one could have for seen Remy’s hospitalization and eventual passing. In the WMAA there is no question of who is in charge and what the chain of command is. If something like this were to happen a procedure has already been put in place to insure a smooth transition for the new chain of command.

 

[Tgace]

I guess I started this thread hi-jack so I apologize...I suppose the "spreading the art" topic should be on its own thread.

 

[ARNIS PRINCESS]

I guess I started this thread hi-jack so I apologize...I suppose the "spreading the art" topic should be on its own thread.

Hi-jacking or just causing trouble?

 

[Flatlander]

Hi-jacking or just causing trouble?

Tgace posted his opinion, and qualified it with "personally", and "I think".
I see no harm in that.

 

[Guro Harold]

Tgace posted his opinion, and qualified it with "personally", and "I think".
I see no harm in that.

I agree with Flatlander, also, Tgrace apologized for redirecting the thread. So lets continue the good discussion.

Palusut

 

[Flatlander]

Thanks Palusut, I'll carry forward then.

As a student, I'm training in privates exclusively right now, as I'm unable to make the group classes. I find the one on one instruction phenomenal in terms of absolute speed of learning. The fact is, there's no "fat". The only hands I touch are very skilled, and so my sensitivity benefits greatly. Also, "down time". No joking around, waiting for others to pay attention, etc. Just pure learning. Having said that, I also have found some thing that are lacking. It's true that sometimes, by showing something to someone else, it can give you an insight that you hadn't previously understood. I have experienced this before, and I miss it. As well, in dealing with only one body, there's an obvious limitation there.
So, in my opinion, a combination of both is good. But I do not like large classes.

 

[Rocky]

One on one training and group training is just another form of cross training, what you might miss in one you pick up in the other, and vice versa, an art spreads because of quality within, look at Balintawak in the U.S it started mostly with Remy and I back in the early 80s' we would give little bits and peaces, then Remy hooked me up with GM Buot in 1982 who had a few student here in the late 70s, and after people saw what GM Buots training along with Remys had done for me, they started seeking out GM BUot, who still has a very small group, but a well trained group, and people like myself, Jim Power, Rich, Tim, and some others will always keep it alive and growing. You must give Remys Modern Arnis's visability much of the credit of bringing Balintawak out, then of course other GM's like GM Tobada, Gm Lopez started spreading their form of Balintawak, and now it is a fairly well known name in FMA'S

Rocky

 

[Tgace]

Hi-jacking or just causing trouble?

Tried to send you a PM or E-mail to explain...but since you post no personal info or allow any alternate contacts, you will just have to take me at my word.

 

[Tgace]

Back on topic...I find that one-on-one training is typically harder to sustain for sessions longer that say an hour. When Its just the two people, there is a tendency to loose training discipline and have longer breaks, BS sessions etc. Having to run a "class" keeps the instructor to a stricter schedule.

 

[Tgace]

Anybody think the small, "tight", martial arts "family" set-ups are a sort of throwback to the clan origins of some of these arts? Not that its intentionally done, just a sort of tendency thats been handed down, almost subconsciously?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Back on topic...I find that one-on-one training is typically harder to sustain for sessions longer that say an hour. When Its just the two people, there is a tendency to loose training discipline and have longer breaks, BS sessions etc. Having to run a "class" keeps the instructor to a stricter schedule.

I agree; in a group, the leader leads. :asian:
Sean

 

[arnisandyz]

Anybody think the small, "tight", martial arts "family" set-ups are a sort of throwback to the clan origins of some of these arts? Not that its intentionally done, just a sort of tendency thats been handed down, almost subconsciously?

Yes, I agree...the "family" dynamics has more of a "tribal" feel to the structure of training. What I mean is, when a tribe would train it would be to protect the village as a group. There was merit in making your neigbor better, since it will make your tribe stronger, hence increase the probability of survival. Another question to further my origional post... Some may consider a larger number of people to fight for your tribe an advantage (outnumber the opponent), however, how do you think the tribal structure was maintained while increasing the numbers? I would guess it may have been broken down into subgroups where you would have groups of 10-15 training together, which would then train informally with other groups in the village rather than a milita of 50 people training at once. Special forces units have adapted this "tribal" form of training as opposed to an infantry aproach. A small tight group has many advantages.

 

[Cruentus]

Guys, don't ya know, only my way is best!

I think that there is value to having only one-on-one, small group training (well under 20 people), and large group training (large schools, well over 20 students), and large distance learning groups (seminar training).

They each have their strengths and limitations.

One-on-one: You are able to learn very quickly and very high quality in the shortest amount of time. Nothing can replace one-on-one time with your instructor. Even to this day, I value the one-on-one time I had with Professor Presas. I value the one-on-one time with Manong Ted Buot. My private students value one-on-one time with me. Limitations are that it is hard for your student to learn how to teach because they are never partnered with a "less experienced" student. It is not condusive of "spreading the art" either, because you can only take so many private students on.

Small Group (5-15 students, definatily no more then 20): A great way to train. You can learn very rapidly if your instructor is hands on, and you get your one-on-one time in. You can learn how to teach with a less experienced partner. You work with different body types and personal styles so you can make your self defense very practical. The limitation with this is that again, with only a small group, "spreading the art" doesn't really occur. Small groups can be volitale in that regards; their art risks dying out with only a small few to carry on the legacy of the master. Great martial systems have been lost by the disbanding and dying off of small groups and private students.

Large school (Well over 20 students): A lot of people to compete with could make the skill set of your groups skyrocket. Larger groups might attract other stylests, giving you more people to compete with in that regard as well. The downside of this is that there isn't as much one-on-one time available with the head instructor. You learn to teach others though, and even senior students can learn to run their own classes. Art still risks dying off, because it is being contained only in one school. But there is more people to take the torch, and open up satilite schools and start their own training groups, so the art dying isn't as big of an issue, but it is still a concern. Pollitical issues and in-fighting can more readily occur in large schools because there is more to fight over the "golden egg", but is more easily contained within the walls of the school.

Distance Learning/seminar training: This is the most effective way to spread the art that we know of. This gets your art to different far off lands. You don't have to worry as much about your art dieing off, as it can reach many people. The problems with this is that you now have a quality control problem. You also have a political problem. No longer can you contain the politics, in-fighting, and quality within your own school walls. But, some very dedicated and skilled students can be developed from seminar learning who would have never seen the art at all if it wasn't for the seminar training.

So, each has it's strengths and shortcomings. The key is learning them, and handling them as best as you can. Thinking out of the standard martial arts box is key indealing with the problems that each of these training methods cause.

I personally like all of the methods, and use them to my advantage and developement as an instructor and student. I teach privates. I run a small group (Tulisan Eskrima Group). One of my students teaches Modern Arnis at a larger more commercial school. I have taught seminars, and will be teaching seminars in the future (had to postpone some of those until august), and I host seminars to bring instructors in and give them some exposure. As a student I train privately (Manong Ted), in a small group (FMAC in Flint) and I attend seminars, and I am an affiliate of a large group (WMAA). I think they can all be good if they aren't done selfishly or egotistically.

Sorry for the lengthy reply.

Paul Janulis
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

I guess I started this thread hi-jack so I apologize...I suppose the "spreading the art" topic should be on its own thread.

Now it is! :uhyeah:

Link here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14958

Have fun!

artyon: