Percentage breakdown

[loki09789]

Well, until Bob gets a Tactical/Military/Strategic science forum up I will have to post this stuff here.

My question is this: What percentages would you say are good at difference levels of training? I got the idea for the question after looking at some sport development/training systems out there and saw this breakdown from Hockey Canada. I know some of the categories don't directly apply for civilian/individual self defense, but the format is really what I am focusing on.

Time, age, conditioning/fitness, comprehension, skill.... all are considerations as well when considering this process. Make up your own categories that fit your training philosophy/terminology... have fun.

DISCLAIMER: This is based on human performance training goals, not intended to spark a 'Martial arts isn't Sports and is completely different' tangent.

The Initiation Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
85% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 0% Team Tactics 0% Team Play 0% Strategy

The Novice Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
75% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 10% Team Tactics 0% Team Play
0% Strategy

The Atom Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
50% Technical Skills 20% Individual Tactics 15% Team Tactics
10% Team Play 5% Strategy

The Peewee Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
45% Technical Skills 25% Individual Tactics 10% Team Tactics
10% Team Play 10% Strategy

The Bantam Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
40% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 20% Team Tactics
15% Team Play 10% Strategy

The Midget Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
35% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 20% Team Tactics
15% Team Play 10% Strategy

 

[loki09789]

Well, in light of the friction over 'tradition vs. reality/military martial arts/aliveness" issues I thought I might resurrect this topic that got no play originally.

Basically, without getting wordy all over again, I am wondering how you would breakdown training for self defense/street application....though I prefer self defense.... into categories/criteria and what percentages would you devote to each one based on skill, fitness, age, need....

This could be what you are already doing or what you think needs to be done. Maybe it will get people to see training from a different perspective.

Here's my example (not be my opinion just a quick example).

Beginner martial arts/self defense focused program training time breakdown. This could/is the break down for the entire beginnner program (whether belt rank or 'level' system)

20%fitness/conditioning (reasonable level of muscular/cardio endurance/strength/joint stability/flexibility/recovery...).

70%technical skill (form, power, focus, speed of simple and combination motions, footwork, drills, ....)

10%tactical skill (mental ability to read a situation and react appropriately - from a simple "if he grabs me x, I will respond y" to evaluating scenarios as a whole).

Well, until Bob gets a Tactical/Military/Strategic science forum up I will have to post this stuff here.

My question is this: What percentages would you say are good at difference levels of training? I got the idea for the question after looking at some sport development/training systems out there and saw this breakdown from Hockey Canada. I know some of the categories don't directly apply for civilian/individual self defense, but the format is really what I am focusing on.

Time, age, conditioning/fitness, comprehension, skill.... all are considerations as well when considering this process. Make up your own categories that fit your training philosophy/terminology... have fun.

DISCLAIMER: This is based on human performance training goals, not intended to spark a 'Martial arts isn't Sports and is completely different' tangent.

The Initiation Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
85% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 0% Team Tactics 0% Team Play 0% Strategy

The Novice Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
75% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 10% Team Tactics 0% Team Play
0% Strategy

The Atom Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
50% Technical Skills 20% Individual Tactics 15% Team Tactics
10% Team Play 5% Strategy

The Peewee Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
45% Technical Skills 25% Individual Tactics 10% Team Tactics
10% Team Play 10% Strategy

The Bantam Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
40% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 20% Team Tactics
15% Team Play 10% Strategy

The Midget Program recommends the following practice time allotment.
35% Technical Skills 15% Individual Tactics 20% Team Tactics
15% Team Play 10% Strategy

 

[Brother John]

huh?
:idunno:
Could be that I didn't get enough sleep.
But I just don't see what you are asking for here.


Your Brother
John

 

[loki09789]

Okay, Let me 'splain...No too long. Let me sum up...

When we train in martial arts, especially for self defense we devote a certain percentage of time to certain training goals.

Within a one hour class for instance, if you start right at the top of the hour, you might spend 10-15 minutes on exercise/warmup/conditioning, some of that might be technique specific to get more bang for your buck as well because of time limitations.

Then you might spend x amount of time devoted to instruction and technical skill (basic kicks, punches, combination patterns...) just to make sure the mechanics are in tact or review/refresh the material.

After that, you might spend y amount of time applying that technique/combo against a feeder (of the appropriate 'aliveness' given the ability level of the student). That, in miltary/martial science terms is tactical training. In martial arts terms it usually isn't referredt to as that but in performance/strategic based language, technical training is the ability to do something and tactical training is doing it at the right time in the right way. Much like the word "tact" in interpersonal relations means doing/saying the right thing at the right time.

When that is all done, you might critique, review and cool down stretch....

So basically, reflecting your training time, how much do time do you spend on each area? And, if appropriate, are there other areas/terms that you devote training time to that I haven't addressed.

At different ability, fitness and skill levels the percentages have to be different. My example was for a theoretical beginner.

When I look at training this way, it helps me to make sure that I am aligning my training to meet my goals. If I am saying that I want to be better at power striking, then I need to shift the priority so that I am devoting more time to technical skill so that I focus on that. If I am saying that I want to improve my tactical sense, I need to shift my training time to devote more time to drilling and tactical stuff.... and so on. If you get the hang of it, this percentage breakdown can also help to evaluate what the goals/intents of an entire system are to a degree.

 

[MA-Caver]

My head hurts now.

 

[loki09789]

My head hurts now.

Welcome to the world of scholar artists!!! If you think that is bad, check out some of the Kenpo jargon around force lines, leverage and power generation. Serious improvement takes serious thought. I would rather have your head hurt from this than from a bludgeoning....

 

[Flatlander]

Well, I think I see where you are going with this, but as a student who hasn't done 'formal instruction' per se, it's nonsensical for me to respond from a teacher's point of view. However, from my own point of view;

I feel that in order to get started, 100% of the instruction should be on basics. Mechanics of movement as it pertains to various entry level punching, kicking and blocking skills, as advanced techniques build upon these concepts. Proper form is crucial to be effective.

After the basics have been covered, and combinations and 'flow' begin to enter the equation, resistance through drilling should be incorporated.

Once there is progress here, tactical issues and degrees of live spar should be added in.

Basics should be a part of every class, but should decrease in class time as the student progresses, as it is my belief that these things should be practiced at home, on your own time. As long as you continue with drilling and resistant partnership throughout, there shouldn't be a concern about 'stiffness' or lack of 'aliveness'.

I do not thing that live spar needs to be an every class thing. There are, simply put, way too many other things to cover on the road to proficiency. As long as the spar makes an appearance every now and then, I believe that the 'free unpredictable resistance' discovered within the spar will continue to be a framework from which all subsequent learned technique will be referenced to mentally.

I think drilling needs to be an every class thing. I think tactical/legal issues become more relevant once the skill level of the student increases, and once one is on the road to proficiency, they must be introduced.

What about moral issues? I recall not long after the beginning of my training (maybe 2 or 3 months) beginning to feel like I was "pretty skilled", which caused me to develop ego. I don't think this was a particularly useful path for me to follow, and fortunately it didn't get me into too much trouble. I just think that near the beginning of training, this isn't terribly uncommon, and should be addressed, as a rule. It's amazing how shortsighted and narrow minded a 'slighly trained' young man can be, which can potentially put people into dangerous and unhealthy situations.

 

[loki09789]

I feel that in order to get started, 100% of the instruction should be on basics. Mechanics of movement as it pertains to various entry level punching, kicking and blocking skills, as advanced techniques build upon these concepts. Proper form is crucial to be effective.

I think drilling needs to be an every class thing. I think tactical/legal issues become more relevant once the skill level of the student increases, and once one is on the road to proficiency, they must be introduced.

What about moral issues?

As a student, you can use this breakdown observation to discover what you are learning and what you are focusing on through guided instruction. No need to disclaim your right to use/post on it.

I think all the stuff with be essentially 'basics' but what purpose, and to what percentage, are those basics being applied? If you are doing multiple/timed repetitions of a basic technique is your instructor primarily focusing on endurance/strength or form? I say primarily because with some activities, there will be multiple benefits, but what is the conscious focus/goal of the instruction at that time?

The other points you make are excellent IMO as well.

 

[Flatlander]

I think all the stuff with be essentially 'basics' but what purpose, and to what percentage, are those basics being applied? If you are doing multiple/timed repetitions of a basic technique is your instructor primarily focusing on endurance/strength or form? I say primarily because with some activities, there will be multiple benefits, but what is the conscious focus/goal of the instruction at that time?

I would say the focus is on form, while repetition with increasing resistance results in strength, endurance, and speed.

Really, the gist of most of my training is rather form based, in terms of form being the primary goal. My thought is that with good form, the rest follows in time.

 

[Brother John]

Okay, Let me 'splain...No too long. Let me sum up...

When we train in martial arts, especially for self defense we devote a certain percentage of time to certain training goals.

Nice "Princess Bride" quote!

Please understand, I think that your aim is good. You are seeking to highten your quality in every area by paying specific attention to each area. MY issue with your approach toward doing this is this...
Why isolate just one area? When I'm training in my techniques I focus on each area. When working my students I make sure that they know and understand the tactical purpose of what they are doing. If they slip in proper form I'm quick to correct them. If they are growing lax and letting up on the 'snap' or focus of each action I bring it to their attention. If they are moving at substandard speed/quickness/fluidity I make SPECIFIC mention of it at once and bring them back to acceptable practice, model for them, draw analogies...etc.
I also don't know what you intend by "team tactics". Group assault? Group defense? ? Even if you are taking a 'sport oriented' slant...there's no team in general martial arts competition.
My breakdown:
Tactical understanding: 100%
Technical recall: 100%
Technical skill: 100%
Energy/feel/form/power/focus/relaxation: 101%

:uhyeah:
Your Brother
John

 

[loki09789]

Nice "Princess Bride" quote!

Please understand, I think that your aim is good. You are seeking to highten your quality in every area by paying specific attention to each area. MY issue with your approach toward doing this is this...
Why isolate just one area?

My breakdown:
Tactical understanding: 100%
Technical recall: 100%
Technical skill: 100%
Energy/feel/form/power/focus/relaxation: 101%

:uhyeah:
Your Brother
John

I don't think you do understand. The team stuff was from the hockey reference that I was using as my reference/example of performance focused training. Of course the categories will change when you go from a team oriented sport such as hockey to, generally, an individual performance activity like martial arts.

Your breakdown is a physical impossibility. You can devote 100% focus on each of these areas as different times in different proportions but there is no realistic way that you can be consciously focusing on ALL of them every time you teach/train. The point is that whether any of the other benefits/outcomes are there or not, you as an instructor are trying to get something to manifest as a skill/understanding that will progress to another skill/understanding..... and so on.

The only way to assess a student's needs and to meet that need is to recognize what the specific area of deficiency/proficiency/mastery is and focus on those things in need of improvement or to create challenges that are developmentally appropriate.

Is a student better at hand skills than kicks? Are the stances weak even though they can spar well? Do they drift off during class?....

Each of these is a specific. It is a thing that needs to be addressed, trained and improved on in training that is appropriately organized for that student's skill level/fitness....

The break down is only a systematic tool to evaluate whether your goals/intented outcomes are aligned with the training you are doing.

I think the disconnect in general, not just with you Bro Jo, is that philosophically, most eastern martial arts follow the "do as I say" model of instruction which is based on the "revelation" goal that gets students to go "Ah! Now I get it!" somewhere down the road.

The systematic and professional method of evaluating and identifying goals and the planning on how to accomplish them is based on a more upfront approach that lays it all out for the student from the get go. It was a shift that was noticeable in the service too. They were changing from the old NCO "Cuz I said so" model to the "informed troops make better choices/perform better" model. It is true for students as well. This is not to mean that it is all touchy feely or anything, just more focused with everyone on the same sheet of music.

I remember going to the Science museum where there was a clicker counter thing. The instructions were to click it as many times as possible within a minute. The second time through, the instruction was to match or beat the number. Easy as pie. When the experiment was explained, the point was that the human brain/people respond/perform better when they understand the goals and intents of short term and long term activities.

Breaking down the training into categories is helpful so that instructors can communicate clear short term and long term training goals. If they know what is going to happen they will perform better, theoretically.

 

[OULobo]

I'll take a poke at this one.

First the disclaimer: The breakdown would change per art, experience and goal. The breakdown for a Boxer would be different than a FMAist, the breakdown for a forms competetor would be different than a rape prevention specialist, the breakdown for a 1st month student would be different than a 10 year vet.

I think that an ideal average for general MAists would be (breakdown for overall training, not time per session):

20% conditioning (strength, flexibility, reflexes/speed, stamina, ect)
20% roots/basics (drills, footwork, strikes, movement, form, mechanics, ect)
10% history/culture (lineage, symbolism, written/oral history, geography, ect)
10% concepts/tactics (awarness, mentality, mental skills, dirty tricks, ect)
20% technique (various application, locks, throws, combos, forms, ect)
20% alive work (sparring, grappling, sensitivity, action games, randori, ect)

Another few to add in would be meditation/energy work, cross training and teaching.

 

[Flatlander]

I'll take a poke at this one.

First the disclaimer: The breakdown would change per art, experience and goal. The breakdown for a Boxer would be different than a FMAist, the breakdown for a forms competetor would be different than a rape prevention specialist, the breakdown for a 1st month student would be different than a 10 year vet.

.

This was an important point.

Man, when you see the breakdown of percentages right there, it really makes you wonder. Only 20% on technique? That's an average of only 12 minutes of instruction/ week for me. I know you didn't mean it like that, and I'm not criticizing your breakdown at all, it just really got me thinking. I need to at least double my training time.

Now, I may have still misunderstood you here...when you said breakdown for overall training, are you includin time spent training alone? Because for me, that's almost exclusively conditioning with the batons, which I suppose incorporates some of the basics, as well as some technique as well....

 

[OULobo]

This was an important point.

Man, when you see the breakdown of percentages right there, it really makes you wonder. Only 20% on technique? That's an average of only 12 minutes of instruction/ week for me. I know you didn't mean it like that, and I'm not criticizing your breakdown at all, it just really got me thinking. I need to at least double my training time.

Now, I may have still misunderstood you here...when you said breakdown for overall training, are you includin time spent training alone? Because for me, that's almost exclusively conditioning with the batons, which I suppose incorporates some of the basics, as well as some technique as well....

I was thinking that this breakdown would include independant training. I was trying to avoid the time vs percentage game that would make you look at the percentages and say, "Well in a 2 hour class that means I have to spend 24 min. doing calistenics, 24 min. on doing drills, 24 min. sparring, 24 min. working on throws, 12 min. reciting history and 12 min. learning how to examine my surroundings." I was looking at it more as, "If I look at all the hours I spend training/studying/learning about martial arts in a month, in or out of class, I should dedicate about X% of that time or effort on all the additive sub-catagories in this group, ect."

This little exercise does illustrate how our current training might not stack up well when compared to our goals or ideal breakdown.

 

[Flatlander]

This little exercise does illustrate how our current training might not stack up well when compared to our goals or ideal breakdown.

No kidding! Good thread loki09789!

So, now, to toss in my thought, lets say a student trains for one hour/ week in privates. This will be the time which would contain all of the instruction, therefore all things must be covered here, except conditioning and basics, which can and should be worked on outside of the dojo. This is assuming that the student has developed to a point where they understand the basics, and are able to keep form while alone.

Where I'm going with this, is that I probably do in the area of 3-4 hours of conditioning/week, which makes it the bulk majority of my time spent "training" in a week.

I do not see this as being particularly lopsided yet, though in the future, I intend to get some friends together to assist me with some more aliveness in my 'out of dojo' training.

So, the advancement of skill seems to necessitate a variance in the different areas of training that needs to be addressed. I don't think that these graduations or escalations can be accurately set to specific intervals, as there are no clear delineations as to "at what specific point" the student needs to change it up. So I guess this all falls to the instructor to manage, but I think that the student should be able to direct this somewhat, if they are honest with themselves, and are able to self evaluate correctly.

 

[Tgace]

Ive often thought about the same issue but on a different tack. Were talking about training in the "martial arts class" scope here. What about all the skills you should be honing besides h2h? Physical fitness/conditioning? If you are hoping to use a MA class as your main route to fitness, IMHO you are deluded. True fitness requires a dedicated, planned program all of its own. In my situation, firearms training is a must. What % of training (time+$$$) should be dedicated to that skill? Should you dedicate hours of time to knife fighting if you dont carry one? You get my point I hope? If your goal is self-defense and all that entails, what precentage breakdown of your time and money should you dedicate to what?

 

[Flatlander]

For me, as a Canadian, firearms training is a non-issue. Illegal to carry, nearly completely illegal to own a handgun here.

 

[Tgace]

Take a look at this site...
http://www.policetraining.net/
As a LEO/Tac Officer, I would love to be able to attend each and every one of these. Even in the civilian sector, theres tons of training in all types of defensive/tactical/MA/etc. skills as well as the requirements of physical fitness, legal ramifications of self defense, and so on. How do you, personally determine your breakdown? Is it a close inspection of needs/strength vs. weakness/availability of funds and location of training? Or is it purely just what you are interested in?

 

[OULobo]

No kidding! Good thread loki09789!

So, now, to toss in my thought, lets say a student trains for one hour/ week in privates. This will be the time which would contain all of the instruction, therefore all things must be covered here, except conditioning and basics, which can and should be worked on outside of the dojo. This is assuming that the student has developed to a point where they understand the basics, and are able to keep form while alone.

Where I'm going with this, is that I probably do in the area of 3-4 hours of conditioning/week, which makes it the bulk majority of my time spent "training" in a week.

I do not see this as being particularly lopsided yet, though in the future, I intend to get some friends together to assist me with some more aliveness in my 'out of dojo' training.

In your particular instance I would venture to say that you can knock out the basics and conditioning phases on your own. I would change to 80% technique group, 10% history group, 10% tactics group with your instructor, because some of the history group can be learned with independant study and some of the tactics can be researched in other arts or other outlets. The big problem, as you mentioned, is the alive group. With no other present students it is hard to feel new energies and face new styles of sparring, sensitivity, ect. that other fellow students can bring.

So, the advancement of skill seems to necessitate a variance in the different areas of training that needs to be addressed. I don't think that these graduations or escalations can be accurately set to specific intervals, as there are no clear delineations as to "at what specific point" the student needs to change it up. So I guess this all falls to the instructor to manage, but I think that the student should be able to direct this somewhat, if they are honest with themselves, and are able to self evaluate correctly.

I would say it is a constant flux of input from you your training partners and your instructor that decides where your levels should be set. As you progress some levels will drop in relation to others. If you feel you want to focus more on technique and your instructor wants to focus on concepts, then the shift may increase in those and loosen up in history and basics. Conditioning always starts high and then lessens to what should be a steady level. I've noticed that aliveness starts low, gets high and then returns to a lower level with age. This is usually because the individual gets older and finds himself in less confrontation and so relies on other methods of defense, like concepts. The groups' loading should constantly flux with the experience and desires of the student.

 

[Flatlander]

Take a look at this site...
http://www.policetraining.net/
As a LEO/Tac Officer, I would love to be able to attend each and every one of these. Even in the civilian sector, theres tons of training in all types of defensive/tactical/MA/etc. skills as well as the requirements of physical fitness, legal ramifications of self defense, and so on. How do you, personally determine your breakdown? Is it a close inspection of needs/strength vs. weakness/availability of funds and location of training? Or is it purely just what you are interested in?

Really, its a combination of what interests me right now, as well as an inspection of what I feel I need to work on, but self assessment is by far not the best way to determine these things. Personally, right now I'm alot more concerned with gaining proficiency in modern arnis, and much less concerned with other issues.