How does your school structure the curriculum?

[MetalBoar]

This is a very long post, if you want to jump to the meat of my question just skip to below the break ******

I recently started taking Tai Chi at a community center nearby. So far, only a handful of classes in, I'm enjoying it and feel like I'm learning a lot faster than I have in previous efforts to pick up this art. Not to say that I have any skill after a few classes, simply that I feel like a light bulb goes off at least once a class where in the past that has not been my experience with Tai Chi.

I credit a lot of both my enjoyment and the increased rate of learning to the fact that the instructor devotes ~30 minutes of each 90 minute class to push hands starting from day 1. Previously, in all but my first brush with Tai Chi, the instructors have started by teaching the form as if it was a set of movements completely divorced from martial application - whether that was their intention or not - and I always found it really difficult to learn without any context to hang things on.

This got me to thinking about my past martial arts experiences and really attempts to learn physical skills in general. I feel like over the 30 years of off and on study that I only ever got particularly good at sport fencing and Hapkido - which between them only represent 7-8 years of combined study (fencing ~2 yrs. Hapkido ~5yrs.). Not that I haven't learned anything from my other studies or incorporated some pieces of other arts into my own personal tool set, but I don't feel like most of my other studies have really produced the same kinds of results.

Now if you've seen the post with my training history you might point out that outside of fencing and Hapkido most or my training in other arts has been ~ 1 year or less. While this is true, I would counter that part of the reason I stuck with those two arts is because I was able to start developing some real, practical skills in under a year.

For me, training that focused on developing a really solid foundation in the basics without any hurry to add new techniques has proven to be very effective. Unfortunately, I'm guessing a lot of people must get bored working on the same things and quit if they aren't seeing something completely new every class.

In Aikido for instance, I got to be very comfortable and skilled with rolling and break falls in short order, probably less than 3 months, and was at least mostly competent much sooner than that. I picked it up quickly because in my school that's what we did pretty much all class every class until we didn't suck. That part was great for teaching me a useful skill in a realistic time frame. On the other hand, in the same Aikido class once you moved passed learning to fall and roll, it seemed like you rarely saw the same technique more than a couple of times in a month and certainly didn't get to practice it to competence. So, while after 2 years in Aikido I could do great breakfalls I doubt I could have applied Nikyo against someone who was really resisting.

On a related note, both sport fencing in general and the Hapkido I studied in particular have a limited number of techniques. In Hapkido for example, we didn't try to learn a new grappling technique for every situation we learned how joints worked and how to disrupt someone's structure and how to use these things to apply a relatively small number of techniques in most any situation. We'd start with a basic application and minimal resistance - for instance our equivalent to Aikido's nikyo would first be taught from the starting point of the classic cross hand grab. Once we had the basic mechanics down we'd gradually add more resistance and less conventional applications - like can you still apply the technique if they grab you by the same side hand? The lapel, shoulder or neck instead of the wrist? Is there an easier technique to use in that situation, etc.? Obviously the fewer unique techniques that you have to learn the more time you can spend practicing them.

The other common thread between fencing and the Hapkido I studied was actually practicing against a resisting opponent. Fencing is a sport, so of course it's entirely focused on getting on the strip and competing so you get a lot of experience with what works and what doesn't very quickly. In the Hapkido I studied we started applying some resistance from the first day we learned a technique and by the time you'd made yellow belt you'd be doing free style fully resisted stand up grappling within the scope of what your training partner was capable of handling.

Now I've studied almost exclusively in small semi-commercial schools and clubs so I've rarely trained in a place that had enough students to warrant separate classes for different skill levels and I see how that might allow for more focused classes and more repetition of the basics. In your experience, how does that play out?

***************************************************************************************************************************
So, I'm really not trying to start some sport MA training is better than TMA training thread, though I can see those clouds on the horizon... What I'd like to know is what peoples' experience has been in their training in terms of what sort of class size, structure, format, curriculum, training methodologies, etc. have produced the best learning results. And by best, I mean, fastest acquisition of functional skills, deepest level of understanding, greatest overall competence, etc. What have you found to be really effective for developing whatever skills you wanted to get from your MA practice? How long do you think it should take to reach different levels of skill and understanding in an art? What is gained or lost by different approaches you've experienced?

 

[dvcochran]

This is a very long post, if you want to jump to the meat of my question just skip to below the break ******

I recently started taking Tai Chi at a community center nearby. So far, only a handful of classes in, I'm enjoying it and feel like I'm learning a lot faster than I have in previous efforts to pick up this art. Not to say that I have any skill after a few classes, simply that I feel like a light bulb goes off at least once a class where in the past that has not been my experience with Tai Chi.

I credit a lot of both my enjoyment and the increased rate of learning to the fact that the instructor devotes ~30 minutes of each 90 minute class to push hands starting from day 1. Previously, in all but my first brush with Tai Chi, the instructors have started by teaching the form as if it was a set of movements completely divorced from martial application - whether that was their intention or not - and I always found it really difficult to learn without any context to hang things on.

This got me to thinking about my past martial arts experiences and really attempts to learn physical skills in general. I feel like over the 30 years of off and on study that I only ever got particularly good at sport fencing and Hapkido - which between them only represent 7-8 years of combined study (fencing ~2 yrs. Hapkido ~5yrs.). Not that I haven't learned anything from my other studies or incorporated some pieces of other arts into my own personal tool set, but I don't feel like most of my other studies have really produced the same kinds of results.

Now if you've seen the post with my training history you might point out that outside of fencing and Hapkido most or my training in other arts has been ~ 1 year or less. While this is true, I would counter that part of the reason I stuck with those two arts is because I was able to start developing some real, practical skills in under a year.

For me, training that focused on developing a really solid foundation in the basics without any hurry to add new techniques has proven to be very effective. Unfortunately, I'm guessing a lot of people must get bored working on the same things and quit if they aren't seeing something completely new every class.

In Aikido for instance, I got to be very comfortable and skilled with rolling and break falls in short order, probably less than 3 months, and was at least mostly competent much sooner than that. I picked it up quickly because in my school that's what we did pretty much all class every class until we didn't suck. That part was great for teaching me a useful skill in a realistic time frame. On the other hand, in the same Aikido class once you moved passed learning to fall and roll, it seemed like you rarely saw the same technique more than a couple of times in a month and certainly didn't get to practice it to competence. So, while after 2 years in Aikido I could do great breakfalls I doubt I could have applied Nikyo against someone who was really resisting.

On a related note, both sport fencing in general and the Hapkido I studied in particular have a limited number of techniques. In Hapkido for example, we didn't try to learn a new grappling technique for every situation we learned how joints worked and how to disrupt someone's structure and how to use these things to apply a relatively small number of techniques in most any situation. We'd start with a basic application and minimal resistance - for instance our equivalent to Aikido's nikyo would first be taught from the starting point of the classic cross hand grab. Once we had the basic mechanics down we'd gradually add more resistance and less conventional applications - like can you still apply the technique if they grab you by the same side hand? The lapel, shoulder or neck instead of the wrist? Is there an easier technique to use in that situation, etc.? Obviously the fewer unique techniques that you have to learn the more time you can spend practicing them.

The other common thread between fencing and the Hapkido I studied was actually practicing against a resisting opponent. Fencing is a sport, so of course it's entirely focused on getting on the strip and competing so you get a lot of experience with what works and what doesn't very quickly. In the Hapkido I studied we started applying some resistance from the first day we learned a technique and by the time you'd made yellow belt you'd be doing free style fully resisted stand up grappling within the scope of what your training partner was capable of handling.

Now I've studied almost exclusively in small semi-commercial schools and clubs so I've rarely trained in a place that had enough students to warrant separate classes for different skill levels and I see how that might allow for more focused classes and more repetition of the basics. In your experience, how does that play out?

***************************************************************************************************************************
So, I'm really not trying to start some sport MA training is better than TMA training thread, though I can see those clouds on the horizon... What I'd like to know is what peoples' experience has been in their training in terms of what sort of class size, structure, format, curriculum, training methodologies, etc. have produced the best learning results. And by best, I mean, fastest acquisition of functional skills, deepest level of understanding, greatest overall competence, etc. What have you found to be really effective for developing whatever skills you wanted to get from your MA practice? How long do you think it should take to reach different levels of skill and understanding in an art? What is gained or lost by different approaches you've experienced?

Good post. There are so many variables that prevent a straight answer to most of the question. Such as the differences in the trainers for each style, the differences in people; mental and physical. And it is subjective so mu answer likely will not be your answer but here goes.
My first and base style is TKD. Even though I have been heavily involved in competitive sports it took a while to understand the competitive differences in MA. I understood the idea of pushing yourself but did not get how important repetition was. And I did not understand that practice does not make perfect. "Perfect" practice makes perfect. Largely because I was new to TKD I was just a student following what I was being told to do without a lot of understanding. Again, there were variables; a busy personal life being the greatest. It took at least 6 months to step back and think about evaluation. I realized this was difficult because there was zero other MA's in my area. So after about a year I found I knew some people doing Shotokan in the adjoining county. I reached out and started working out with them once a week. Not in a structured class environment as much as sharing philosophy and method. It was eye opening and educational. Learning my strengths and weaknesses.
My competitive nature was already gravitating toward tournaments. I did the research and learned how to become a USA Tae Kwon Do member (USTU back then) and started working my way toward eligibility through tourney competitions and wins. After missing the Nationals the first time I found a trainer. This was hard because Olympic TKD was very new and there were not a lot of people doing it yet. So my trainer wasn't for working strength and endurance but more for tactic and the chess match of sparring in this new format. She (yes she) helped immensely. I placed in the Nationals the next two years and made the trials in '88. It was a great journey and I found my limit as a competitor.
After "peaking in TKD I stepped back from the sport side. I had a good friend who is a LEO out west who came back east for a while. He had been taking Kali for several years and his Tuhon came to Nashville for about 3 years to teach Metro Nashville LEO and surrounds departments in the southeast defensive tactics. I worked with Tuhon in very small groups for about three years earning my BB.

To summarize;
in TKD class structure for traditional training is best in a multi-person class environment for most. For the person looking to "specialize" in the TKD sport side, individual or very small group training is helpful. Probably necessary.

Kali is so different from TKD I would say it is hard to learn in a large group format because of the closeness of the techniques and inherent risks of using real weapons in practice.
I dabbled in Kung Fu to green sash. It was a classroom environment and seemed to work fine with larger groups. ​

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is a very long post, if you want to jump to the meat of my question just skip to below the break ******

I recently started taking Tai Chi at a community center nearby. So far, only a handful of classes in, I'm enjoying it and feel like I'm learning a lot faster than I have in previous efforts to pick up this art. Not to say that I have any skill after a few classes, simply that I feel like a light bulb goes off at least once a class where in the past that has not been my experience with Tai Chi.

I credit a lot of both my enjoyment and the increased rate of learning to the fact that the instructor devotes ~30 minutes of each 90 minute class to push hands starting from day 1. Previously, in all but my first brush with Tai Chi, the instructors have started by teaching the form as if it was a set of movements completely divorced from martial application - whether that was their intention or not - and I always found it really difficult to learn without any context to hang things on.

This got me to thinking about my past martial arts experiences and really attempts to learn physical skills in general. I feel like over the 30 years of off and on study that I only ever got particularly good at sport fencing and Hapkido - which between them only represent 7-8 years of combined study (fencing ~2 yrs. Hapkido ~5yrs.). Not that I haven't learned anything from my other studies or incorporated some pieces of other arts into my own personal tool set, but I don't feel like most of my other studies have really produced the same kinds of results.

Now if you've seen the post with my training history you might point out that outside of fencing and Hapkido most or my training in other arts has been ~ 1 year or less. While this is true, I would counter that part of the reason I stuck with those two arts is because I was able to start developing some real, practical skills in under a year.

For me, training that focused on developing a really solid foundation in the basics without any hurry to add new techniques has proven to be very effective. Unfortunately, I'm guessing a lot of people must get bored working on the same things and quit if they aren't seeing something completely new every class.

In Aikido for instance, I got to be very comfortable and skilled with rolling and break falls in short order, probably less than 3 months, and was at least mostly competent much sooner than that. I picked it up quickly because in my school that's what we did pretty much all class every class until we didn't suck. That part was great for teaching me a useful skill in a realistic time frame. On the other hand, in the same Aikido class once you moved passed learning to fall and roll, it seemed like you rarely saw the same technique more than a couple of times in a month and certainly didn't get to practice it to competence. So, while after 2 years in Aikido I could do great breakfalls I doubt I could have applied Nikyo against someone who was really resisting.

On a related note, both sport fencing in general and the Hapkido I studied in particular have a limited number of techniques. In Hapkido for example, we didn't try to learn a new grappling technique for every situation we learned how joints worked and how to disrupt someone's structure and how to use these things to apply a relatively small number of techniques in most any situation. We'd start with a basic application and minimal resistance - for instance our equivalent to Aikido's nikyo would first be taught from the starting point of the classic cross hand grab. Once we had the basic mechanics down we'd gradually add more resistance and less conventional applications - like can you still apply the technique if they grab you by the same side hand? The lapel, shoulder or neck instead of the wrist? Is there an easier technique to use in that situation, etc.? Obviously the fewer unique techniques that you have to learn the more time you can spend practicing them.

The other common thread between fencing and the Hapkido I studied was actually practicing against a resisting opponent. Fencing is a sport, so of course it's entirely focused on getting on the strip and competing so you get a lot of experience with what works and what doesn't very quickly. In the Hapkido I studied we started applying some resistance from the first day we learned a technique and by the time you'd made yellow belt you'd be doing free style fully resisted stand up grappling within the scope of what your training partner was capable of handling.

Now I've studied almost exclusively in small semi-commercial schools and clubs so I've rarely trained in a place that had enough students to warrant separate classes for different skill levels and I see how that might allow for more focused classes and more repetition of the basics. In your experience, how does that play out?

***************************************************************************************************************************
So, I'm really not trying to start some sport MA training is better than TMA training thread, though I can see those clouds on the horizon... What I'd like to know is what peoples' experience has been in their training in terms of what sort of class size, structure, format, curriculum, training methodologies, etc. have produced the best learning results. And by best, I mean, fastest acquisition of functional skills, deepest level of understanding, greatest overall competence, etc. What have you found to be really effective for developing whatever skills you wanted to get from your MA practice? How long do you think it should take to reach different levels of skill and understanding in an art? What is gained or lost by different approaches you've experienced?

In my NGA training, I can look back and see some of what you say about your Aikido training. The normal pace of progression keeps people learning new techniques on a regular basis. Each colored belt has 10 named techniques, and the approach is somewhat similar to what you say about your Hapkido experience (learn the classical, then some applications). Often, it's less than 6 months to yellow belt (including learning falls and rolls, and the first basic strikes, all the stances, and 10 techniques). Then it's on to the next 10 (plus a bit of auxiliary material) for blue, and so forth. I didn't experience that, because I sat at every rank much longer than normal.

Based on my experience with that, I set up my curriculum with the expectation that folks would spend about a year at white belt, and a bit longer at each next rank, progressively. That means they get that first 10 (plus some foundation work on strikes and groundwork) and get to just grind that material for several months before we worry about testing. Repeat that at each rank, with actually less new material at each new rank (since there's more old material to go over). That allows more time to really get into a technique, understand the principles of application, and develop useful skill at each rank, rather than expecting folks to have useful skill by their 4th rank (a common expectation in mainline NGA).

 

[MetalBoar]

To summarize;
in TKD class structure for traditional training is best in a multi-person class environment for most. For the person looking to "specialize" in the TKD sport side, individual or very small group training is helpful. Probably necessary.

This is very similar to my fencing experience. I started out in a college fencing class, then started training with the fencing club from another nearby college too, and finally started doing group classes and private lessons at a very good school ~190 miles away in San Francisco (yes, I loved fencing enough to drive ~380 miles round trip 1-2 times/week for extra training). I found that the more experience I got with a wide range of opponents the faster my skills grew and then when I added in private instruction with an Olympic level coach things really went to a whole other level.

As a side note, no, I wasn't independently wealthy, I had 2 friends who took fencing about as seriously as I did. We'd carpool to save on gas and one of them had access to a free place to spend the night when we needed it. The private lessons were the thing that made it work though, $5 for a 30 minute private lesson with a retired Olympic coach and that included the cost of attending the group class and open fencing afterwards!

Kali is so different from TKD I would say it is hard to learn in a large group format because of the closeness of the techniques and inherent risks of using real weapons in practice.
I dabbled in Kung Fu to green sash. It was a classroom environment and seemed to work fine with larger groups. ​

Interesting. Obviously fencing uses extremely safe "weapons" but even with the little bit of Kali and Silat that I've done it seemed like one of the benefits of weapon arts has been that with a 3-weapon fencing mask, proper gloves and practice weapons that one could practice a lot of techniques at full speed with minimal risk of serious injury. Though I admit my experience with Kali/Silat has been in very small groups where most of the participants were very experienced and I never got advanced enough to do more than the basics. I know that too much padding can lead to unrealistic defense and perhaps other issues. What is your take on this?

 

[MetalBoar]

Based on my experience with that, I set up my curriculum with the expectation that folks would spend about a year at white belt, and a bit longer at each next rank, progressively. That means they get that first 10 (plus some foundation work on strikes and groundwork) and get to just grind that material for several months before we worry about testing. Repeat that at each rank, with actually less new material at each new rank (since there's more old material to go over). That allows more time to really get into a technique, understand the principles of application, and develop useful skill at each rank, rather than expecting folks to have useful skill by their 4th rank (a common expectation in mainline NGA).

Now I would really prefer your approach to the mainline version. Of course I like to learn new techniques, but I'm really happy just knowing they're out there available to me in the future when I get to them. Assuming of course that I already have techniques that I'm working on that I haven't yet gotten down really solidly. I don't like to feel like I've had a survey level exposure to a bunch of techniques and wonder if I'll ever have the chance to really learn them.

Thinking about this some more, I have done a lot of training in arts that involve high falls and rolling. It's very hard to practice that sort of thing outside of class since you don't usually have good mats or tall enough ceilings in your house, so in class repetition is vital. With fencing (in Central California anyway, where it's always dry) if you had your own equipment and a training partner you could (and I did) practice almost anywhere with some space and a hard, level surface. I guess this is more or less true with other striking and weapons arts outside of maybe an increased risk of getting the police asking questions if you train in a park or other very public place. Even here in Washington with all the rain I wouldn't mind training out doors (as long as it wasn't fencing or something where my equipment would rust!).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now I would really prefer your approach to the mainline version. Of course I like to learn new techniques, but I'm really happy just knowing they're out there available to me in the future when I get to them. Assuming of course that I already have techniques that I'm working on that I haven't yet gotten down really solidly. I don't like to feel like I've had a survey level exposure to a bunch of techniques and wonder if I'll ever have the chance to really learn them.

Thinking about this some more, I have done a lot of training in arts that involve high falls and rolling. It's very hard to practice that sort of thing outside of class since you don't usually have good mats or tall enough ceilings in your house, so in class repetition is vital. With fencing (in Central California anyway, where it's always dry) if you had your own equipment and a training partner you could (and I did) practice almost anywhere with some space and a hard, level surface. I guess this is more or less true with other striking and weapons arts outside of maybe an increased risk of getting the police asking questions if you train in a park or other very public place. Even here in Washington with all the rain I wouldn't mind training out doors (as long as it wasn't fencing or something where my equipment would rust!).

Early on, I practiced my falls and rolls outside on grass a lot, both with and without a partner. Then I practiced them a lot in hotel rooms (on that unpadded carpet). When the school had an area of unpadded carpet (before it went to wall-to-wall mats), I also practiced on that, before class. I also had an 8'x8' set of mats I could set up at home or outside if I wanted to practice with the padding. I think that extra repetition is the reason I can still take all the falls.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now I would really prefer your approach to the mainline version. Of course I like to learn new techniques, but I'm really happy just knowing they're out there available to me in the future when I get to them. Assuming of course that I already have techniques that I'm working on that I haven't yet gotten down really solidly. I don't like to feel like I've had a survey level exposure to a bunch of techniques and wonder if I'll ever have the chance to really learn them.

When I was pondering how to structure the curriculum, I actually considered giving all the techniques - just the "classical" version - in quick succession over a year or two, before getting into serious training on their use. I think that might also work, but it delays learning anything like actual application far more than is necessary. I've heard some folks in TCMA talk about how long they spent working on one form or one stance or one technique, before they could move on, and I think that's the same problem.

 

[MetalBoar]

When I was pondering how to structure the curriculum, I actually considered giving all the techniques - just the "classical" version - in quick succession over a year or two, before getting into serious training on their use. I think that might also work, but it delays learning anything like actual application far more than is necessary. I've heard some folks in TCMA talk about how long they spent working on one form or one stance or one technique, before they could move on, and I think that's the same problem.

Oh yeah, I definitely think it can go the other way too. In the arts I've studied I've experienced a lot more of the former than the latter, but outside of a few passing attempts at Tai Chi and one very brief foray into Xing Yi I haven't really done any training in TCMA's. I think Tai Chi schools tend to have their own unique set of problems, though to some degree I guess the propensity to delay applications training and even push hands for a very long time might be related to this issue. Unfortunately, I think it's frequently just a matter of disinterest in martial applications on the part of the instructor or the students or both. I admit, I left the Xing Yi class largely because I spent 3x90 minute classes/week for a month just doing a basic drill involving stepping with a straight punch with no instruction after day 1. I might have been OK with the pace if I'd been receiving any kind of corrections or feedback that made me feel like I was learning something, but the instructor really seemed to either be just milking me for my dues or wanted me to "prove my dedication" or some similar (and unexpressed) BS.

 

[dvcochran]

Oh yeah, I definitely think it can go the other way too. In the arts I've studied I've experienced a lot more of the former than the latter, but outside of a few passing attempts at Tai Chi and one very brief foray into Xing Yi I haven't really done any training in TCMA's. I think Tai Chi schools tend to have their own unique set of problems, though to some degree I guess the propensity to delay applications training and even push hands for a very long time might be related to this issue. Unfortunately, I think it's frequently just a matter of disinterest in martial applications on the part of the instructor or the students or both. I admit, I left the Xing Yi class largely because I spent 3x90 minute classes/week for a month just doing a basic drill involving stepping with a straight punch with no instruction after day 1. I might have been OK with the pace if I'd been receiving any kind of corrections or feedback that made me feel like I was learning something, but the instructor really seemed to either be just milking me for my dues or wanted me to "prove my dedication" or some similar (and unexpressed) BS.

I detest examples like that. It reminds me of one of my most hated sayings; "That's the way we have always done it". While it has it place in the repetition component necessary of most MA's, I am thankful we have figured out more engaging ways to break up the monotony. Especially when there is no direction for the monotony.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I detest examples like that. It reminds me of one of my most hated sayings; "That's the way we have always done it". While it has it place in the repetition component necessary of most MA's, I am thankful we have figured out more engaging ways to break up the monotony. Especially when there is no direction for the monotony.

When I hear of instructors like that, I remember that there are students who appear to like that approach. Then I'm glad those instructors exist, because I probably can't teach those students.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

On a related note, both sport fencing in general and the Hapkido I studied in particular have a limited number of techniques. In Hapkido for example, we didn't try to learn a new grappling technique for every situation we learned how joints worked and how to disrupt someone's structure and how to use these things to apply a relatively small number of techniques in most any situation. We'd start with a basic application and minimal resistance - for instance our equivalent to Aikido's nikyo would first be taught from the starting point of the classic cross hand grab. Once we had the basic mechanics down we'd gradually add more resistance and less conventional applications - like can you still apply the technique if they grab you by the same side hand? The lapel, shoulder or neck instead of the wrist? Is there an easier technique to use in that situation, etc.? Obviously the fewer unique techniques that you have to learn the more time you can spend practicing them.

The other common thread between fencing and the Hapkido I studied was actually practicing against a resisting opponent. Fencing is a sport, so of course it's entirely focused on getting on the strip and competing so you get a lot of experience with what works and what doesn't very quickly. In the Hapkido I studied we started applying some resistance from the first day we learned a technique and by the time you'd made yellow belt you'd be doing free style fully resisted stand up grappling within the scope of what your training partner was capable of handling.

...
Interesting questions and responses. I first studied TKD. Our class sizes varied from night to night, but probably never less that 15, and of different belt levels. It was never a problem. Higher belts could teach lower belts (two belts higher iirc). Forms, striking, kicking, stepping, all could co-exist in the space we had. It just never seemed a problem. When US Army duties got in the way, I quit after something around 1 year. I enjoyed TKD, but it was much different training than what seems to be taught these days.

The Hapkido I learned was in Korea. We learned a progression of techniques, usually 7 striking wrist grab defenses, 7 breaking wrist grab defenses (almost all joint manipulations), and 7 throwing wrist grab defenses. Then clothing grab defenses, bear hug defenses front and back, belt grabs, and lapel grab defenses. We learned 3 techniques every class, and went over techniques already learned. At Yellow belt, we learned punch blocks and defenses, at blue belt, kick blocks and defenses. At red belt, knife defenses, offensive techniques (attacking using parts of a previously learned defensive technique, not that they were obnoxious ), and other things. We did learn a defense to it conclusion, not as you describe your learning. I am sure the way you did it worked, and was effective, we just did it differently.

As to your questions, any of us who were deemed to have learned a technique were allowed to teach it, but usually a 3rd Dan assistant would teach/demonstrate it first. We would take it as far as causing pain but not beyond. In general, we learned that a properly learned and applied technique could not be resisted, so that was not a question. Usually resistance only increased the pain. I know there is a lot of controversy about that, but it worked for us. Of course after 2nd Dan testing, we learned some counters to our 1st Dan techniques, but I can't remember any that used resistance to a technique. That wouldn't have worked.

In that method, class size didn't affect the teaching or learning. As you may know, most Hapkido techniques are one defender against one attacker. At higher belts, some may be learned one defender to two or more attackers. Serious learners soon begin to be aware of the space around them for other possible areas from which another attacker might attack, and what technique would work. In the Hapkido I learned, if we sparred, it was rather TKD style. It is hard to use techniques used to damage an opponent, at speed (a necessary part of Hapkido since we normally move into an attack), without damaging the practice opponent. Not that we couldn't practice a technique at speed, but a practice opponent should know what that technique would be, to flow into it, or the person applying the technique had to know where to stop to keep from causing damage/injury.

 

[skribs]

What I'd like to know is what peoples' experience has been in their training in terms of what sort of class size, structure, format, curriculum, training methodologies, etc. have produced the best learning results.

I take Hapkido and Taekwondo at the same school. I've taken Taekwondo in another school as a kid.

Class Size - I find that a class of 6-10 students is optimal. It gives a good amount of 1-on-1 training with the instructor, but also enough students to work things out. You get enough different body types and skill levels to kind of get a good grasp of how your techniques work. When we had 4 regular students in Hapkido, quite often 3 people wouldn't show up, and we wouldn't have class. Now we have about 8 active students, which means we'll have 4-6 available even if a few don't show up.

If martial arts is a hobby and you just want to teach what you know, then a smaller class can be better. But if martial arts is going to be your business and how you make your living, you will probably end up having bigger class sizes so you can collect more in tuition.

Structure - You need more structure in a kids' class and less in an adult class. You need more structure in a beginner class and less in an advanced class.

Curriculum - This is one I'm still struggling with to this day. I have gone to two different Taekwondo schools, and they had different philosophies regarding the curriculum:

• The school I'm at right now has a VERY extensive curriculum. My last test for 3rd degree black belt, I had 14 punch combinations (memorized #2-15), 20 kick combinations (memorized #1-20), 10 jump kick combinatons, 6 forms, 5 punch defense drills, 5 knife defense drills, 5 hand grab defense drills, 8 single eskrima stick drills, 3 sword forms, 15 nunchaku combinations (which I needed to do each hand), a knife form, a bo staff form, and probably a few things I'm not remembering right now. The test was over 3 hours long, and I'd say 80% of it was rote memorization of techniques and patterns.
  
  
• The school I was at before had a much more limited curriculum. We didn't do weapon skills at all. We did self defense skills maybe once or twice a month. We mostly focused on forms, kicking drills, and sparring. There were more forms, but overall less on the curriculum.

The advantage of the school I'm at right now is that we practice all of these things. We drill our self defense drills every week, and because they're the same drills that will be on the test, we drill them until we fully understand them and have the muscle memory for them. We're exposed to a wide variety of techniques. I love the weapon skills we do, particularly the sword and nunchaku. I'm sure eskrima will be more fun when we start using the second stick. At my old school, when we did these things, we wouldn't practice them enough to really get good at them.

However, the advantage of the other school is it seemed a lot more common to do techniques that were not on the curriculum. We'd devote more class time to conditioning and other techniques. We trained at the Y, and so every other Wednesday we'd do practice in the pool. I was so skinny I couldn't float, so I'd wear fins. Try doing kicks wearing swim fins. We'd also devote more time to details on a technique, but I'll get to that in a bit.

So at my current school, we learn 5 punch defenses at each belt, and we drill those to perfection. But there's little wiggle room for improvisation or different techniques, because we have to devote class time to these. At my old school, we had no "punch defense" in the curriculum, but we'd get a lot more ideas of how to deal with a punch.

Having gone to both schools, it's really tough. Because I look at the freedom we had in my old school and think "I'd like to be able to do more of that type of stuff" or "I wish we had more time to focus on details." And as I get closer to becoming a Master, I think about my Master's curriculum and what I'd do different. I keep trying to figure out what is the fat that I could trim from the curriculum...but every individual piece I look at and think "no, can't get rid of that!"

Training Methodologies - Just like we had 2 different curriculums at my Taekwondo schools, we also had two different teaching philosophies. The way I see it, there are two main styles of teaching.

1. The "Do it right from day 1" method. When you teach something in your curriculum, you eliminate all bad habits before you allow the person to move on. You teach every detail of the technique, stance, or pattern, and you expect those details to be followed. This way you don't have people with a bad habit they build up for years before they try to fix it.
2. The "Just do it" method. When you teach something in your curriculum, you have target habits as people progress. You expect people testing for yellow belt to have a yellow belt understanding of the material, but then you expect black belts to have a black belt understanding of the material.

The school I'm at right now is part of the "Just do it" crowd. This has the benefits of:

• It's more fun to go pound out the techniques than to slow them down
• Your body will quickly work out some details on its own
• Some people have so much to work on that you can't fix all the details at once
• Some people need the flexibility, balance, or muscle memory from the gross movement in order to refine their technique, and that will come with time

The school I was at before was on the other team. That also had it's benefits:

• More standardization of what a technique should look like at each belt level
• Less bad habits to fix later
• Easier to learn details later, since they were hammered in from the start

Personally, I lean to the "Do it right" crowd. I like doing things slow at first and getting it correct, than trying to fix it over time. That's why I really like the in-depth videos that Ginger Ninja Trickster does on YouTube, where he'll spend 10 minutes explaining how to do a Roundhouse Kick (and with no time wasted, either). There are a lot of instructors at my school that wish we did it this way, too.

However, I've seen plenty of students where that method wouldn't work at all. Kids get bored and lose focus, adults haven't done anything like this before and they need to rewire their brains to get things down. And while I was initially skeptical of it, after seeing the growth people make in this system, I've come to trust that it works. I'd still prefer the other style, though.

The Most Important Things
More important than your curriculum, is this: As a master/chief instructor...

1. Will you consistently have class?
2. Do you know your stuff?
3. Do you know how to teach?

That third one may be the hardest of all. To be able to deliver information in a way that's understandable, to not waste class time, and to be able to deliver energy to the class when giving commands, that's the difficult part. If you can do these, then the specific curriculum itself isn't much of a concern. Plenty of people learn to fight in boxing, where there's basically 6 moves. It's not an extensive curriculum. But people learn it well because they have good coaches who know the material and know how to teach it.

 

[Bruce7]

This is a very long post, if you want to jump to the meat of my question just skip to below the break ******

I recently started taking Tai Chi at a community center nearby. So far, only a handful of classes in, I'm enjoying it and feel like I'm learning a lot faster than I have in previous efforts to pick up this art. Not to say that I have any skill after a few classes, simply that I feel like a light bulb goes off at least once a class where in the past that has not been my experience with Tai Chi.

I credit a lot of both my enjoyment and the increased rate of learning to the fact that the instructor devotes ~30 minutes of each 90 minute class to push hands starting from day 1. Previously, in all but my first brush with Tai Chi, the instructors have started by teaching the form as if it was a set of movements completely divorced from martial application - whether that was their intention or not - and I always found it really difficult to learn without any context to hang things on.

This got me to thinking about my past martial arts experiences and really attempts to learn physical skills in general. I feel like over the 30 years of off and on study that I only ever got particularly good at sport fencing and Hapkido - which between them only represent 7-8 years of combined study (fencing ~2 yrs. Hapkido ~5yrs.). Not that I haven't learned anything from my other studies or incorporated some pieces of other arts into my own personal tool set, but I don't feel like most of my other studies have really produced the same kinds of results.

Now if you've seen the post with my training history you might point out that outside of fencing and Hapkido most or my training in other arts has been ~ 1 year or less. While this is true, I would counter that part of the reason I stuck with those two arts is because I was able to start developing some real, practical skills in under a year.



For me, training that focused on developing a really solid foundation in the basics without any hurry to add new techniques has proven to be very effective. Unfortunately, I'm guessing a lot of people must get bored working on the same things and quit if they aren't seeing something completely new every class.

In Aikido for instance, I got to be very comfortable and skilled with rolling and break falls in short order, probably less than 3 months, and was at least mostly competent much sooner than that. I picked it up quickly because in my school that's what we did pretty much all class every class until we didn't suck. That part was great for teaching me a useful skill in a realistic time frame. On the other hand, in the same Aikido class once you moved passed learning to fall and roll, it seemed like you rarely saw the same technique more than a couple of times in a month and certainly didn't get to practice it to competence. So, while after 2 years in Aikido I could do great breakfalls I doubt I could have applied Nikyo against someone who was really resisting.

On a related note, both sport fencing in general and the Hapkido I studied in particular have a limited number of techniques. In Hapkido for example, we didn't try to learn a new grappling technique for every situation we learned how joints worked and how to disrupt someone's structure and how to use these things to apply a relatively small number of techniques in most any situation. We'd start with a basic application and minimal resistance - for instance our equivalent to Aikido's nikyo would first be taught from the starting point of the classic cross hand grab. Once we had the basic mechanics down we'd gradually add more resistance and less conventional applications - like can you still apply the technique if they grab you by the same side hand? The lapel, shoulder or neck instead of the wrist? Is there an easier technique to use in that situation, etc.? Obviously the fewer unique techniques that you have to learn the more time you can spend practicing them.

The other common thread between fencing and the Hapkido I studied was actually practicing against a resisting opponent. Fencing is a sport, so of course it's entirely focused on getting on the strip and competing so you get a lot of experience with what works and what doesn't very quickly. In the Hapkido I studied we started applying some resistance from the first day we learned a technique and by the time you'd made yellow belt you'd be doing free style fully resisted stand up grappling within the scope of what your training partner was capable of handling.

Now I've studied almost exclusively in small semi-commercial schools and clubs so I've rarely trained in a place that had enough students to warrant separate classes for different skill levels and I see how that might allow for more focused classes and more repetition of the basics. In your experience, how does that play out?

***************************************************************************************************************************
So, I'm really not trying to start some sport MA training is better than TMA training thread, though I can see those clouds on the horizon... What I'd like to know is what peoples' experience has been in their training in terms of what sort of class size, structure, format, curriculum, training methodologies, etc. have produced the best learning results. And by best, I mean, fastest acquisition of functional skills, deepest level of understanding, greatest overall competence, etc. What have you found to be really effective for developing whatever skills you wanted to get from your MA practice? How long do you think it should take to reach different levels of skill and understanding in an art? What is gained or lost by different approaches you've experienced?

I learn the most the fastest from my Moo Duk KwanTae Kwon Do class. The nearest school was 60 miles away and I was verily old enough to drive. Jack Hwang had started this school in Texas and was letting an extremely good black belt who had train for over 10 years run the school. I came every Saturday and stayed all day. The black would show the yellow belt who had been there over two years what I was to learn. The yellow belt would teach me one one for an hour. The black would watch me as he train other students. Saturday was a practice day for everyone else. The yellow belt had been trained one on one with the black belt so he did not to do much. Since they watch my every move when I made a mistake it was fixed right then. I did not have to unlearn things. I bought a big mirror and train at home every chance I got. If I did not perfect what they taught me they would not teach me something new so I made sure I was ready to learn something new every week.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

we learned some counters to our 1st Dan techniques, but I can't remember any that used resistance to a technique. That wouldn't have worked.

Counters are resistance. When folks speak of "training with resistance", they're talking about preventing and countering techniques. Resisting a technique with force (what I think you're talking about when you say "resistance") is only one way to resist a technique, and usually only works before the technique actually starts (during what I call the "entry").

 

[oftheherd1]

Counters are resistance. When folks speak of "training with resistance", they're talking about preventing and countering techniques. Resisting a technique with force (what I think you're talking about when you say "resistance") is only one way to resist a technique, and usually only works before the technique actually starts (during what I call the "entry").

Thanks for the different interpretation. I will watch more closely when I see that in the future.

However, I certainly have not interpreted what I have seen before regarding 'resistance' to grappling moves, as anything like you describe. It seemed to me people were saying the only reason a technique worked was because a person having the technique applied to him was not resisting, that is, not trying to apply strength against the move. In the Hapkido I studied, that is what resistance would have been. Not counters, which aren't even taught until one has attained a 2nd Dan BB. The type of resistance you describe, and say would only work before the technique actually starts would I guess be so. But since most techniques are applied with such little warning, that would be rather difficult, to the point of making it inefficient to the point of being useless as a resistance/counter.

But again, I appreciate your insight and will pay more attention to people who say that in the future, or question them as to exactly what they mean. I hope I don't sound too defensive in this, but perhaps you more than most can understand my frustration at the idea of claiming grappling techniques are useless unless tested against resistance (?).

 

[oftheherd1]

@MetalBoar I hope this hasn't distracted the thread too much and you are getting some answers that help you.

 

[MetalBoar]

@MetalBoar I hope this hasn't distracted the thread too much and you are getting some answers that help you.

Not at all, this is actually part of what I was looking for, things like peoples' opinion about the value of resistance and how best to include it (or not) in training.

I've been meaning to reply to several posts here on MT but I've been super busy. I've just had a client cancel on me unexpectedly so hopefully I can get caught up with some things and give some thoughtful responses here.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thanks for the different interpretation. I will watch more closely when I see that in the future.

However, I certainly have not interpreted what I have seen before regarding 'resistance' to grappling moves, as anything like you describe. It seemed to me people were saying the only reason a technique worked was because a person having the technique applied to him was not resisting, that is, not trying to apply strength against the move. In the Hapkido I studied, that is what resistance would have been. Not counters, which aren't even taught until one has attained a 2nd Dan BB. The type of resistance you describe, and say would only work before the technique actually starts would I guess be so. But since most techniques are applied with such little warning, that would be rather difficult, to the point of making it inefficient to the point of being useless as a resistance/counter.

But again, I appreciate your insight and will pay more attention to people who say that in the future, or question them as to exactly what they mean. I hope I don't sound too defensive in this, but perhaps you more than most can understand my frustration at the idea of claiming grappling techniques are useless unless tested against resistance (?).

I think the aiki/hapki arts often have this usage of "resist/resistance". It's tied to how we understand the application of the principles, so we move away from "resistance" (which, in that usage, means where we feel muscular strength from the uke). And when we want to demonstrate the effectiveness of a lock (once applied), we often say things like, "Now, resist." So, that certainly is one type of "resistance".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@MetalBoar I hope this hasn't distracted the thread too much and you are getting some answers that help you.

Meh, he's just the OP. We here at Martial Talk don't feel the need to cater to the person who actually started the thread.

 

[MetalBoar]

Early on, I practiced my falls and rolls outside on grass a lot, both with and without a partner. Then I practiced them a lot in hotel rooms (on that unpadded carpet). When the school had an area of unpadded carpet (before it went to wall-to-wall mats), I also practiced on that, before class. I also had an 8'x8' set of mats I could set up at home or outside if I wanted to practice with the padding. I think that extra repetition is the reason I can still take all the falls.

Do you have any concerns about injury from the repetitive stresses? I've had at least 2 instructors with permanent injuries, in one case probably leading to serious disability before he's 60, who blame their problems on too many high falls on improper surfaces.

I've done some break fall training on grass and carpet, and a lot on very firm mats. I think there's benefit to doing some of that. If you've never rolled and fallen on at least a hard-ish surface it takes a lot longer to really "get it", if you ever do. Still, I have some concerns about regular, long term training of that sort (specifically high falls), especially partner training where you have less control over your descent. I know that I had a "black belt" from our organization, but a different school, spear me head first into the mat rather than release me so that I could roll out of a high fall. I've got some probably permanent injury from that but I think it could have been very serious if it had been on unpadded carpet.