The OP in the other thread got me thinking. Actually, it's a thought I've had for a long time, but I guess there's no time like 1 second into the future.
Should fighting strategy be mixed with applications?
There are two tiers to this question.
One is the teaching tier and the other is the learning tier. I think the teaching aspect should not confuse strategy and applications. I think the learning aspect should learn (and be taught) not to expect or force a strategy interpretation when learning applications.
The reason I think why the other thread is related to this thread is this:
Let's assume that there is a martial art with no lower body protection. ie, it's not and never is specifically taught. ie, not even the (very good) principle of using footwork as a defence/offence is specifically taught.
Such a martial art may be looked down upon. But is that because it is "not good" or is it because people are (maybe subconsciously) looking for a swiss army knife approach when being taught?
I say this because of my experience in teaching (students, but mostly myself) LHBF, I find that teaching applications is not as useful as it once seemed. I find that there are better ways of teaching correct posture without applications. I find that there are better ways of teaching applications than through the postures. I find this when I began thinking about separating strategy and applications when teaching.
So now, I'm thinking that it would be better for the student (that word includes the teachers as well) that they are taught the forms and postures with just enough applications to make them technically correct. And only when they're technically correct do you move onto strategy. Move right past applications onto strategy. ie, strategy informs applications and not the other way around.
I'm not sure I've explained myself well because what I've just said doesn't sound too different from other teachings.
Should fighting strategy be mixed with applications?
There are two tiers to this question.
One is the teaching tier and the other is the learning tier. I think the teaching aspect should not confuse strategy and applications. I think the learning aspect should learn (and be taught) not to expect or force a strategy interpretation when learning applications.
The reason I think why the other thread is related to this thread is this:
Let's assume that there is a martial art with no lower body protection. ie, it's not and never is specifically taught. ie, not even the (very good) principle of using footwork as a defence/offence is specifically taught.
Such a martial art may be looked down upon. But is that because it is "not good" or is it because people are (maybe subconsciously) looking for a swiss army knife approach when being taught?
I say this because of my experience in teaching (students, but mostly myself) LHBF, I find that teaching applications is not as useful as it once seemed. I find that there are better ways of teaching correct posture without applications. I find that there are better ways of teaching applications than through the postures. I find this when I began thinking about separating strategy and applications when teaching.
So now, I'm thinking that it would be better for the student (that word includes the teachers as well) that they are taught the forms and postures with just enough applications to make them technically correct. And only when they're technically correct do you move onto strategy. Move right past applications onto strategy. ie, strategy informs applications and not the other way around.
I'm not sure I've explained myself well because what I've just said doesn't sound too different from other teachings.