Teach stances or blocks first?

[Tez3]

You teach them all together. Let the student get things roughly right, and then refine it.

Exactly.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I still don't see how you can teach stances or blocks in isolation.

You can teach them separately but I can't remember ever training them separately. I'm not sure how other people do it, but In Jow Ga their is a form called the "Stepping Form" where the entire form is stance and foot work.
Here's a variation of it. Typically newer students train it until the wobbles disappear. From an instructor's point of view it gives us an opportunity to see clearly some of the issues the students have with their stances, transitions into stances, and rooting. It's a boring form, but I think of it like medicine. It's boring but it's good training. The stances should be held for at least 15 seconds before transitioning into another stance. They should rename it the "Patience Form" because instructors often have to tell students to hold the stance longer.

another version

When instructors introduce blocking, the students would have done this stepping form enough times to where the movements from the form are naturally integrated into the blocking.

In terms training Blocking in isolation, I can't remember learning that way or teaching that way. I might have taught the movement of a block or redirect in isolation so that the student knows what the hand should be doing, but I've always had students practice both and I learned the same way. But stances and footwork were the first lessons I had. My biggest memory of it was wanting to learn it quickly so I could get to the "Real" forms.

 

[Dirty Dog]

You can teach them separately but I can't remember ever training them separately.

I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just so we're clear, there's no obligation to discuss a disagree (or agree, or like, or whatever). You can disagree with something even if you don't think it's worth discussing.

On topic, I still don't see how you can teach stances or blocks in isolation.

The traditional method I was taught for blocks starts with a "normal stance" that really isn't useful for the block, fighting, or much else. It's arguably not really a stance (though it fits the definition), but just "how you normally stand". It's just used because most people get it right without instruction. As for teaching stances in isolation, that's easy enough. I don't do it much (except where students really struggle with getting an approximation of a useful stance), but have seen it done. It was pretty common for both of my Karate instructors, and NGA instructors have a pair of "walks" they often use to let students practice stance without any actual technique (strike, block, throw, etc.) involved.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That was my personal opinion on the subject.

It's easy to teach them in isolation. However, even if teaching them together, do you look at both of them in depth? Or do you focus on teaching the block sometimes and the stance other times?

When I first started at my school, I also went online and watched Ginger Ninja Trickster's tutorials on YouTube. The guy could spend 8 minutes talking about a front kick - and his information is well-edited and succinctly delivered. He goes over every detail of the kick, applications for the kick, variations of the kick, and troubleshooting if you're doing the kick wrong. If we took that approach and went into every detail of every technique, we could get through front kick, roundhouse kick, and side kick in about 25 minutes, and that's not even giving students enough time to practice!

So how much time do you devote to stances or blocks? Is the stance just kind of there, and you teach the block? Or is the block just kind of putting your arm up, and you teach the stance? Or do you spend twice the time and teach both at the same time?

There's a difference in video instruction - you're expecting people to go back over it again and again, so they don't have to catch everything at once. And you're not there to correct, so you want to include the things you'd normally just watch for and correct if necessary.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.

I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.

That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.

 

[Tez3]

There is a very big difference between teaching each thing separately in isolation then attempting to do it joined up at some later date and teaching as a whole while looking at separate parts to do correctly but still see the whole technique as it should be. For example a punch is more than just moving the arm to have the hand connect, we'd show the whole technique to do an effective punch and practice that but look at each component to make sure that was correct. We would spend weeks just doing the fist, then weeks doing the arm the even more weeks doing the body then the footwork. We'd also make sure the students understand the reason they are doing it the way we've shown. We don't deluge them with info but we give the whole basic movement so they can understand the parts and their place in the technique.

 

[Bruce7]

I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.

That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.

I am sorry I started talking about how I was taught, No one teaches that why anymore. So it kind of moot.
It looks like you only teach the old way, if a student has trouble, and that makes sense.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Punches are stances.

You must walk funny.

 

[RTKDCMB]

There is plenty of time in a 1 hour class to teach both stances and blocks.

 

[skribs]

I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.

To isolate the movements and focus specifically on them.

Let's say you do horse stance: well a few of the blocks don't really make sense in a horse stance, like a down block (because now you're pushing their kick into your leg).
Let's say you do back stance: you can work one arm at a time here, because you're rear arm is going to be further away.*
Let's say you do front stance: well unless your front stance is perfectly square, which it probably isn't unless you've taught the stance correctly instead of an approximation, then you run into the same problem as back stance.

*The obvious solution here is to have the students step forward or switch feet to practice both sides. In some of the white belts, particularly the young ones, they can get a little confused when switching feet. Sometimes "switch feet" means hop forward and switch feet. Stepping provides other problems. When we want to do a normal step, some people do a sliding step. Some people will take tiny little steps, and some of the little kids do huge leaps or take several steps. The adult class has less of these problems, but still sometimes don't understand what we're trying to have them do. And a lot of them are paying more attention to which leg or which arm should go, instead of learning the block.

We don't always teach the blocks in isolation, but when people are struggling with everything, taking stances out of the equation helps them understand the blocks a lot better.

 

[skribs]

I can only think of two reasons to do so. One is for the occasional student who has trouble learning them together. They pay attention to their hands, and the feet are always wrong, and vice versa. In that case, I'll separate the stance, let them practice it until it is easier for them to do without paying too much attention, then add back in the strike/block/throw. The other would be to use the stances as exercise, which the Jow Ga form JGW posted would do. I'd be using something like a hanmi (L-stance) walk instead of that form, but it's much the same principle (just using a single stance). I can get a student working their legs and building coordination, while developing a stance that makes learning other things easier.

That said, I prefer to just teach the stance when I teach what it's used for, most of the time.

Alternatively, when we finally get to the point where students really SHOULD know the stances, and they're behind, we can drill the stance itself.

(We did more of that at my old school and I do wish we did more of it at my school).

 

[Bruce7]

You can teach them separately but I can't remember ever training them separately. I'm not sure how other people do it, but In Jow Ga their is a form called the "Stepping Form" where the entire form is stance and foot work.
Here's a variation of it. Typically newer students train it until the wobbles disappear. From an instructor's point of view it gives us an opportunity to see clearly some of the issues the students have with their stances, transitions into stances, and rooting. It's a boring form, but I think of it like medicine. It's boring but it's good training. The stances should be held for at least 15 seconds before transitioning into another stance. They should rename it the "Patience Form" because instructors often have to tell students to hold the stance longer.

another version

When instructors introduce blocking, the students would have done this stepping form enough times to where the movements from the form are naturally integrated into the blocking.

In terms training Blocking in isolation, I can't remember learning that way or teaching that way. I might have taught the movement of a block or redirect in isolation so that the student knows what the hand should be doing, but I've always had students practice both and I learned the same way. But stances and footwork were the first lessons I had. My biggest memory of it was wanting to learn it quickly so I could get to the "Real" forms.

Cool video,
I remember doing that form when I studied long fist.

 

[Tez3]

In some of the white belts, particularly the young ones, they can get a little confused when switching feet. Sometimes "switch feet" means hop forward and switch feet. Stepping provides other problems. When we want to do a normal step, some people do a sliding step. Some people will take tiny little steps, and some of the little kids do huge leaps or take several steps.

How old are these children you are teaching?
We don't use the word 'switch', we will tell and show them exactly what to do and get them to do it. While they don't do it perfectly at the beginning we don't have the complications you seem to.
this is about teaching in schools but works equally well in martial arts. The interesting bit is that learning should be hard to start with! The point about understanding, as with the maths example, is also a good match for martial arts. Effective teaching: 10 tips on what works and what doesn’t

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You must walk funny.

When I step in my

- right foot, my left hand move down and my right hand move up.
- left foot, my left hand move up and my right hand move to my left.

MA guy's daily walking is different from normal guy's daily walking. Our MA training should be integrated into our daily activity.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I phrased it poorly. Obviously I can understand HOW you could teach them separately. I cannot understand WHY you'd do so. Stances without movement are silly. Strikes and blocks without footwork and body mechanics are silly.

. Stances without movement don't train the stance. It trains other things but not the stance itself. I've seen people who used to do static stances as a way to train their stance and they had the worst rooting and footwork in comparison to hold a stance for 30 seconds and transitioning into a different stance.

 

[skribs]

. Stances without movement don't train the stance. It trains other things but not the stance itself. I've seen people who used to do static stances as a way to train their stance and they had the worst rooting and footwork in comparison to hold a stance for 30 seconds and transitioning into a different stance.

IMO it's completely different. If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself. Then you train both the techniques in the stance and the transitions to other stances. Then you combine those techniques and transitions together.

That's not to say you can't learn the stances while you're learning the techniques, but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.

 

[Tez3]

but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.

Perhaps your attention will be split, it doesn't mean others will. I think perhaps you shouldn't generalise about what 'people' will think or do.
People focus on the technique because the stance is part and parcel of the technique, it is a whole. To train strikes without the stances and vice versa is like learning to swim on dry land.

 

[wab25]

If you want a true understanding of the stance you train the stance itself.

If you can't transition into the stance correctly or out of the stance correctly, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't generate the correct power and speed as you move into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't understand movement of your body, that is generated by moving into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. Sure, you can get used to the correct position and work on strength or balance. While those are needed, they, by themselves, are not enough to claim understanding of the stance.

That's not to say you can't learn the stances while you're learning the techniques, but your attention is going to be split and most people focus on the technique.

Most of the time, the technique is your stance (your transition into or out of a stance). What you do with your hands, is far less important than your footwork and transition.

If you don't have the proper footwork and transition work, you can do the hand work perfectly and it will still be completely ineffective. If you have the footwork and transition work down, but no hands you can still accomplish a lot. You can create distance, close distance, get off line, generate power and or speed... If the hands are terrible, maybe you only deliver half of the power you generated, while moving off line. If your footwork is terrible, but your hands are perfect, you deliver 100% of the zero amount of power you develop and are probably still in line to get hit before your hands can deliver.

 

[skribs]

Perhaps your attention will be split, it doesn't mean others will. I think perhaps you shouldn't generalise about what 'people' will think or do.
People focus on the technique because the stance is part and parcel of the technique, it is a whole. To train strikes without the stances and vice versa is like learning to swim on dry land.

This is not my experience from myself, but my observations from seeing probably 300+ white belts over the last 4 years. And yes, when I see that many, I start to generalize.

If you can't transition into the stance correctly or out of the stance correctly, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't generate the correct power and speed as you move into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. If you don't understand movement of your body, that is generated by moving into and out of a stance, I don't believe you truly understand the stance. Sure, you can get used to the correct position and work on strength or balance. While those are needed, they, by themselves, are not enough to claim understanding of the stance.

Most of the time, the technique is your stance (your transition into or out of a stance). What you do with your hands, is far less important than your footwork and transition.

If you don't have the proper footwork and transition work, you can do the hand work perfectly and it will still be completely ineffective. If you have the footwork and transition work down, but no hands you can still accomplish a lot. You can create distance, close distance, get off line, generate power and or speed... If the hands are terrible, maybe you only deliver half of the power you generated, while moving off line. If your footwork is terrible, but your hands are perfect, you deliver 100% of the zero amount of power you develop and are probably still in line to get hit before your hands can deliver.

If you don't have a proper stance, how can you transition from one to the other? That's like trying to give directions from point A to point B without knowing where either of them are.

Your legs do not amount to 100% of the power. Improper hand technique can hurt you more than your opponent, even if you deliver your power with it. Improper hand technique can leave you open a lot worse than an improper stance.