Shadow Boxing vs Kata fallacy argument.

[Kung Fu Wang]

early application seems to fit well.

I like the teacher in case 1. I don't like the teacher in case 2.

Case 1:

A: Dear master! I want to learn the technique that you just did on me.
B: In order for you to learn that technique, you will need to build foundation for ... and ...

Case 2:

A: Dear master! Why do I need to spend all day just staying in my horse stance?
B: One day when I teach you how to fight, you will need this kind of foundation.
A: But you haven't taught me any fighting skill yet.
B: One of these days, I'll.
A: ...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

early application seems to fit well.

Method 1:

Father: If you study hard, you will find a pretty wife.
Son: Where is that pretty girl?

Method 2:

Girl: If you want to marry me, you will need to graduate from MIT.
Boy: I'll do all I can to meet your requirement.

I don't believe in method 1. I strongly believe in method 2.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I like the teacher in case 1. I don't like the teacher in case 2.

Case 1:

A: Dear master! I want to learn the technique that you just did on me.
B: In order for you to learn that technique, you will need to build foundation for ... and ...

Case 2:

A: Dear master! Why do I need to spend all day just staying in my horse stance?
B: One day when I teach you how to fight, you will need this kind of foundation.
A: But you haven't taught me any fighting skill yet.
B: One of these days, I'll.
A: ...

Agreed. I think there can be over-emphasis in either direction. Sprinting too quickly to application can have students struggling to attempt something they don't have the foundation to do. Staying too long on foundation (or focusing on foundation minutae too much) can lead to having attributes with no way to actually use them. With the latter, we'd be falling into the fantasy world of the original Karate Kid movie.

 

[Steve]

Agreed. I think there can be over-emphasis in either direction. Sprinting too quickly to application can have students struggling to attempt something they don't have the foundation to do. Staying too long on foundation (or focusing on foundation minutae too much) can lead to having attributes with no way to actually use them. With the latter, we'd be falling into the fantasy world of the original Karate Kid movie.

I disagree. Application can replace training. You can learn to do things without any training. It may take longer, but it can be done, and is done all the time. But training can never replace application.

Kids play tee ball games after just a few practices. Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.

It's never too soon to apply skills, and doing so makes any training you receive more effective.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Application can replace training.

Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You can learn to do things without any training.

I don't think the issue is so much can you learn to do something without training. The issue is more of the quality of learning that you get from the training vs the quality of learning that you get just by trying to go out and do something.

The entire advancement of humans regardless of cultures has been based on knowledge built on foundation. The better the foundation the faster the advancement and the better the skill.

Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.

Someone say chess?

The best way to learn chess is to learn the basics. Starting with the easiest piece first (the pawn) and understanding how that piece moves. The applications of that would be pawn vs pawn only. Once that is mastered, add another piece. Here's why I think this.

Once you have an understanding of how to use the Pawn, then you begin to build more advanced skills upon that. The Pawn is the foundation of one's chess skills, Failure to know how to use the pawn can result in the quickest lost. The Pawn and the King are the most important pieces and are the only 2 pieces that are for the most part limited to moving 2 spaces at as a first move and then only one move afterwards.

The Pawn is the only piece that can grow in ability. The King is the only piece that can lose. The knight the rook are important, but not as important as the pawn. Pawns maneuver to set up defenses and offensives. All of the other pieces are supportive roles. Used to strike or defend based on the movement of the Pawns. Similar to Chess. The better you're able to apply your foundation the better off you'll be. Both made moves which the pawns, but only one did better better with the foundation.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.

When I was a kid, my swimming teacher pushed me in the deep end. Probably 20ft. when I didn't know how to swim. But I did what I could to not drown. I wouldn't call that swimming. It was more like not drowning. I remember this because I would dream about how I cried out of fear as I tried not to sink below the water. I begged to be help but he didn't help me as other children watch me as the teacher made me dog paddle the length of the pool.

There are many kids who fall into the water and never learn how to swim, but they learn how to drown.

The only things I learned from that day was 2 things. Learn to be good at holding my breath and how to come up to get a quick breath. My logic was simple. If I could hold my breath long enough, then I could reach the side of the pool. To this day, I still can't swim above water well. When I swim now, I do all of my laps underwater. Still following that same logic. If I can hold my breath long enough then I can swim to the edge. If I fall in the middle of the ocean then I'm just screwed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I disagree. Application can replace training. You can learn to do things without any training. It may take longer, but it can be done, and is done all the time. But training can never replace application.

Kids play tee ball games after just a few practices. Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.

It's never too soon to apply skills, and doing so makes any training you receive more effective.

That last sentence is key. If you're applying skills, then you have some skill to apply. If you take someone and say, "go spar with kicks" without teaching them kicks (and assuming they don't have that skill from some other source), you're asking them to learn the skill while they apply. Which is going to slow down learning. Better to get some basics going, then get to that sparring. Sure, you CAN start immediately to sparring, but unless that's just evaluation, it's going to limit them.

There are situations where I could see "application" looking the same as "evaluation". Let's say a new guy comes into a BJJ class. The instructor might want to roll with him briefly (or have some other advanced person do so) to get a quick measure of where they're starting. That way if they have some useful ability (from horseplay with their siblings, or whatever), that could be leveraged from the start.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.

Which is only going to work if you already are able to swim (by which I mean stay afloat and control your movement in the water). You didn't learn how to swim by jumping in the river, because if you couldn't swim, you stand a good chance of just drowning. Can't learn while drowning.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Best way to learn to play chess is to play chess.

I missed this on my first read. I'll disagree entirely. If you just go play (no teaching), then your first several games will consist almost entirely of you breaking the rules and getting demolished, while having no idea what's going on. Chess isn't a physical skill, so the comparison isn't going to line up well, but the best way to learn chess is probably something like this: watch a little while someone explains the rules, then start playing while someone walks you through the rules and explains your options at key points. Which is pretty analogous to someone teaching some basic foundation then starting into sparring/application with some teaching interspersed at key points.

 

[drop bear]

That last sentence is key. If you're applying skills, then you have some skill to apply. If you take someone and say, "go spar with kicks" without teaching them kicks (and assuming they don't have that skill from some other source), you're asking them to learn the skill while they apply. Which is going to slow down learning. Better to get some basics going, then get to that sparring. Sure, you CAN start immediately to sparring, but unless that's just evaluation, it's going to limit them.

There are situations where I could see "application" looking the same as "evaluation". Let's say a new guy comes into a BJJ class. The instructor might want to roll with him briefly (or have some other advanced person do so) to get a quick measure of where they're starting. That way if they have some useful ability (from horseplay with their siblings, or whatever), that could be leveraged from the start.

 

[Steve]

I don't think the issue is so much can you learn to do something without training. The issue is more of the quality of learning that you get from the training vs the quality of learning that you get just by trying to go out and do something.

The entire advancement of humans regardless of cultures has been based on knowledge built on foundation. The better the foundation the faster the advancement and the better the skill.


Someone say chess?

The best way to learn chess is to learn the basics. Starting with the easiest piece first (the pawn) and understanding how that piece moves. The applications of that would be pawn vs pawn only. Once that is mastered, add another piece. Here's why I think this.

Once you have an understanding of how to use the Pawn, then you begin to build more advanced skills upon that. The Pawn is the foundation of one's chess skills, Failure to know how to use the pawn can result in the quickest lost. The Pawn and the King are the most important pieces and are the only 2 pieces that are for the most part limited to moving 2 spaces at as a first move and then only one move afterwards.

The Pawn is the only piece that can grow in ability. The King is the only piece that can lose. The knight the rook are important, but not as important as the pawn. Pawns maneuver to set up defenses and offensives. All of the other pieces are supportive roles. Used to strike or defend based on the movement of the Pawns. Similar to Chess. The better you're able to apply your foundation the better off you'll be. Both made moves which the pawns, but only one did better better with the foundation.

Couple of things going on here. First, I think you've missed the forest for the trees. I'm not arguing against training nor foundational instruction. I'm arguing against training as a replacement for application. In the same post, a sentence you snipped out made this more clear.

Second, knowledge based on foundation only works in context. To really understand the foundation, you have to apply the foundation in context. In order to understand the more nuanced application, you have to be adept at the foundational application. This is such a simple concept, and it goes out the window with martial arts. Confounding to me.

Lastly, it's never too early to get to application. The specific issue here is the suggestion that one should wait to apply any foundation until one has firmly grasped the foundation. Sure, good training makes a huge difference. But if I had to choose between really, really good training without application or adequate training with application, I choose the latter. The person who trains a little and applies a lot will always progress faster than the one who does not.

Let's consider chess. You have 24 people. There are 12 who play chess and 12 who don't know how, and they're all paired up together. The idea is to teach all 12 of the novices how to play chess with some degree of competence. After 30 days and at 60 days, they are interviewed to assess their general understanding of the game, and then at 1 year they all play each other. We could get into what the actual measures are, but for now, just picture whatever that looks like in your mind. There are three teaching models on the table: death through training, sink or swim, and a hybrid of the two.

• Four of them read the books, watch YouTube videos, and talk to their coaches about chess. They get to hold the pieces in their hands, but they never get to play a game.
• Four of them play the game. While their coach may demonstrate the rules and various tactics during the game, these four are learning the game by playing the game. They are being required to intuit the rules from observation, and trial and error.
• Four of them are in the hybrid. They get a brief explanation of the general rules on day one, and then play the game. After each game, they talk about what went right and wrong, ask questions, and then play more. They play a lot of chess, but the mentors are able to explain their actions and coach in real time.

At the end of 30 day interview, who's doing well? I'd argue that out of the gate, the hybrid group is doing best. Applying skills right away puts them into context and helps build a framework so that they remember nuance. The death through training group will talk a good game, and the sink or swim group will appear to be mostly sinking.

As the year progresses, the hybrid group, who is training and also applying their training in context, will excel. At the end of the year, I would expect each of the four of them to easily win matches against the other two models, and the real competition would be among themselves.

Second, though, would be the sink or swim group. Initially, they would lag behind everyone, because they're having to figure it out. But over time, they're going to be creating a structure for themselves and just by logging the hours playing with someone who is competent, they will become proficient.

Lagging far behind would be the death by training folks. Never actually applying the techniques, they would plateau very quickly, and their skill progression will stall.

All of that said, there is an instructional design model that's been around for a decade or so, that's sort of a "sink or swim" with a life vest model. I could get more into it, but the gist is that you are essentially thrown into the pool on day one, and if you start to drown, you're given a pool noodle. But the struggle is an essential part of the model.

 

[Steve]

That last sentence is key. If you're applying skills, then you have some skill to apply. If you take someone and say, "go spar with kicks" without teaching them kicks (and assuming they don't have that skill from some other source), you're asking them to learn the skill while they apply. Which is going to slow down learning. Better to get some basics going, then get to that sparring. Sure, you CAN start immediately to sparring, but unless that's just evaluation, it's going to limit them.

There are situations where I could see "application" looking the same as "evaluation". Let's say a new guy comes into a BJJ class. The instructor might want to roll with him briefly (or have some other advanced person do so) to get a quick measure of where they're starting. That way if they have some useful ability (from horseplay with their siblings, or whatever), that could be leveraged from the start.

Ummm... so we can agree that the folks coming in can have some useful ability without instruction, from horseplay or whatever? How can that be?

To be clear, we can debate the ideal ratio of training vs application. There's room for discussion. But....

Can we agree that 100% training vs 0% application does not work? Best case scenario, you end up with something like cops firing their weapons indiscriminately, hitting their intended target about 1 out of every 5 shots they fire? There is a transfer of learning that must occur. The transfer of learning from training to application is always far less reliable than the application of a skill from one context in another. In fact, we can be pretty sure that the accuracy rate of cops is not a training issue. More training hasn't helped improve their accuracy. It's an application issue.

Can we agree that 0% training vs 100% application is not ideal? While is does work, it can take longer and often leads to skills gaps and potentially some creative problem solving (aka, bad habits).

Can we agree that some mix of the two is ideal?

 

[Steve]

I missed this on my first read. I'll disagree entirely. If you just go play (no teaching), then your first several games will consist almost entirely of you breaking the rules and getting demolished, while having no idea what's going on. Chess isn't a physical skill, so the comparison isn't going to line up well, but the best way to learn chess is probably something like this: watch a little while someone explains the rules, then start playing while someone walks you through the rules and explains your options at key points. Which is pretty analogous to someone teaching some basic foundation then starting into sparring/application with some teaching interspersed at key points.

Playing the game is the key, though. Right? Not analogous to sparring at all, IMO. Because, unless your goal is to be an expert sparring partner, that's not what you're trying to learn. Is it?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Couple of things going on here. First, I think you've missed the forest for the trees. I'm not arguing against training nor foundational instruction. I'm arguing against training as a replacement for application. In the same post, a sentence you snipped out made this more clear.

Second, knowledge based on foundation only works in context. To really understand the foundation, you have to apply the foundation in context. In order to understand the more nuanced application, you have to be adept at the foundational application. This is such a simple concept, and it goes out the window with martial arts. Confounding to me.

Lastly, it's never too early to get to application. The specific issue here is the suggestion that one should wait to apply any foundation until one has firmly grasped the foundation. Sure, good training makes a huge difference. But if I had to choose between really, really good training without application or adequate training with application, I choose the latter. The person who trains a little and applies a lot will always progress faster than the one who does not.

Let's consider chess. You have 24 people. There are 12 who play chess and 12 who don't know how, and they're all paired up together. The idea is to teach all 12 of the novices how to play chess with some degree of competence. After 30 days and at 60 days, they are interviewed to assess their general understanding of the game, and then at 1 year they all play each other. We could get into what the actual measures are, but for now, just picture whatever that looks like in your mind. There are three teaching models on the table: death through training, sink or swim, and a hybrid of the two.

• Four of them read the books, watch YouTube videos, and talk to their coaches about chess. They get to hold the pieces in their hands, but they never get to play a game.
• Four of them play the game. While their coach may demonstrate the rules and various tactics during the game, these four are learning the game by playing the game. They are being required to intuit the rules from observation, and trial and error.
• Four of them are in the hybrid. They get a brief explanation of the general rules on day one, and then play the game. After each game, they talk about what went right and wrong, ask questions, and then play more. They play a lot of chess, but the mentors are able to explain their actions and coach in real time.

At the end of 30 day interview, who's doing well? I'd argue that out of the gate, the hybrid group is doing best. Applying skills right away puts them into context and helps build a framework so that they remember nuance. The death through training group will talk a good game, and the sink or swim group will appear to be mostly sinking.

As the year progresses, the hybrid group, who is training and also applying their training in context, will excel. At the end of the year, I would expect each of the four of them to easily win matches against the other two models, and the real competition would be among themselves.

Second, though, would be the sink or swim group. Initially, they would lag behind everyone, because they're having to figure it out. But over time, they're going to be creating a structure for themselves and just by logging the hours playing with someone who is competent, they will become proficient.

Lagging far behind would be the death by training folks. Never actually applying the techniques, they would plateau very quickly, and their skill progression will stall.

All of that said, there is an instructional design model that's been around for a decade or so, that's sort of a "sink or swim" with a life vest model. I could get more into it, but the gist is that you are essentially thrown into the pool on day one, and if you start to drown, you're given a pool noodle. But the struggle is an essential part of the model.

Thanks that clears it up for me

 

[Flying Crane]

Agree! I have learned how to swim by just jumping into river without any instruction.

First of all all jumping into a river, with a current, without knowing how to swim, is a deathwish. I’m guessing that if an adult threw a minor into that situation, there might be an arrest for child endangerment. Some people might have actually survived such a stupid incident and therefor might be tempted to brush it off as a fine way to teach swimming. I suspect the law might see it differently because most reasonable people now would recognize how dangerous that can be.

A similar, but more controllable situation, would be to do that in a swimming pool. In this case, I seriously doubt that someone would learn to swim any better than dog paddle. Which is a very inefficient form of swimming. Without actual instruction, it is unlikely said person would ever progress beyond that.

That’s what you get when you try to jump over the foundation and technical aspects of good instruction. Yes, you can become functional quickly. But you remain at a low level.

 

[Flying Crane]

I strongly believe the other way around is more correct. I believe foundation can be a distraction for application.

I teach all beginners on their 1st day class to against

1. All punches - Use front kick to counter all punches.
2. Straight line kick - Deflect front kick, jam leading arm, and punch.
3. Circular kick - Catch a roundhouse kick.
4. Leg shooting - Use downward pulling to counter leg shooting.

I want to tell all beginners that MA training is to solve problems. Today, our problems are:

- Boxer's punch.
- Kung Fu guy's front kick.
- TKD guy's side kick.
- MT guy's roundhouse kick.
- Wrestler's leg shooting.

After a student has learned the application of "downward pulling",

I then teach him how to develop pulling power by using the weight pulley.

So I 1st teach someone how to apply a technique through the partner drill. I then tell him how to develop foundation for it. This way a student can see the goal. He will spend time to build foundation to reach that goal.

So what you are really saying is that you teach application and foundation simultaneously. Which is pretty close to what I’ve been saying all along.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Thanks that clears it up for me

I think we have sidetracked a bit here.

We are not talking about how to start sparring without knowing how to kick and punch. We are talking whether one can develop foundation through partner drill (application) or not.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think we have sidetracked a bit here.

We are not talking about how to start sparring without knowing how to kick and punch. We are talking whether one can develop foundation through partner drill (application) or not.

Is that what we are talking about? The title of the thread had me believing that we were talking about whether or not shadowboxing is the same as kata.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Is that what we are talking about? The title of the thread had me believing that we were talking about whether or not shadowboxing is the same as kata.

We were sidetracked into jump into water without swimming knowledge (or sparring without learning kick/punch).