Teaching Progression for FMAs

[Epa]

Hey all,

I've been thinking about how to develop a curriculum for teaching FMAs and I've been running into some problems. Namely, where to start. So I was wondering what most other people do in laying out their curricula.
Do you teach all of the weapons (including empty hands) at once and try to progress evenly?
Do you start with one weapon and develop a strong skill set with that and then move on to the next?
Do you spend a lot of time doing basic footwork, stick striking to develop a foundation or do you start with teaching more complex techniques and correct the student over time?
Or do you do something completely different?

I'm curious about what everyone else does and why they do it that way so I can get some ideas for a good teaching progression. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

Eric

 

[Cruentus]

First off, what do you train in? I'd start there.

 

[bart]

Hey all,

I've been thinking about how to develop a curriculum for teaching FMAs and I've been running into some problems...

Eric

Hey There,

Really, you have to look at the way that you were taught. Look over your notes and reexamine your own training. I would also suggest going back to your teacher and consulting with them over the format of instruction. Regular contact with your own mentors in the arts will help you much more than the input of people who have no familiarity with your system. Also it will help you keep you in line with the guiding principles of the system itself so that you are genuinely passing on the art. In general all eskrima begins with the stick. In general all eskrima has striking angles. In general all eskrima has basics. Those are generally good places to begin and reinforce often. How you move from there depends upon your system.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Epa-

Seeing that I've known you for years I feel the best place for you to start is with the WMAA curriculum which can be found here. Seeing that much of what you know is Modern Arnis. Using the WMAA program as a template I would work in the rest of what you plan to teach. This is just a suggestion. Feel free to conact me if you have any questions.

716-675-0899

 

[Epa]

The curriculum would be for the Lacoste-Inosanto system, which I'm an apprentice instructor in and have been training for eight years or so. The problem with going back and looking at the way I've been taught is that each instructor I've trained with has done it completely differently. Guro Inosanto encourages each instructor to develop their own curriculum and has no standard curriculum for his system so each instructor teaches very differently depending on their experience. For example, my initial instructor Mick Williams had a background in Modern Arnis so he had a tendency to emphasize the stick work, while my later instructor Jeff Westfall started us with dagger. Some emphasize elements from Pekiti-Tirsia, Lameco, or the Lacoste system depending on their personal taste. So there isn't the same emphasis on stylistic purity that some systems have, but more of an emphasis on the individual. We get guidance from our teachers, but not as much from the system itself. Since I have to make some of these decisions myself, I want to make informed and intelligent ones because I realize that I'm a new and relatively inexperienced instructor. I'm hoping to benefit from the experience of others, besides those that I've been training with for years because I've seen the progressions that they favor.

My goal in asking these questions was to get as broad a range of answers as possible and maybe get some fresh ideas on how to organize material. Regardless of style, I think the issue about what area to begin the training in and how to proceed is fundamental to any style. So tell me what you or your style does because maybe it's better than what I've seen. Sorry for the long winded answer and thanks for the replies.

Eric

 

[MJS]

Sounds like you have a wide background to choose from! I'd go with whatever you felt more comfortable teaching. You are correct in saying that each instructor teaches differently. I see it alot with the Modern Arnis. IMO, I'd get what I can from the various interpretations. Even when going to a seminar/camp, you'll find that when working with the people there, chances are you'll come across a huge assortment of ways to do things.

As for what to start off teaching...I'd start off with the basics of whichever system you decide to teach. If you're teaching students with no background, having them perform the basic blocks, strikes, and footwork to get them accustomed, is probably your best bet.

Mike

 

[arnisandyz]

I had a similar problem, in that each teacher that I had was unique, but one thing they all had in common was that after you have the basics you should "find your own art". As everyone knows, FMA is a very individual art. Thats why all your instructor do it differently, just like how they all walk and talk differently. So the ciriculum you put together will will depend on your experiences and what you have choosen to absorb and integrate. Don't think of it as creating a system but more as how are you going to express YOUR knowledge to your students and to get them to find themselves (or make them replicas of yourself)?

For me, I started in a Largo mano system. Therefore my "foundation" is in footwork, zoning, distancing and angles. Other teachers showed me this too, so the end product for me is an integration of the similarities. Instead of having 5 or 6 different numbering systems, we follow just one. So I use Modern Arnis numbers even if we do Largo drills, or Sayoc or Pekiti even if other people from those groups do not. the reason for this is my friends that do other systems know the 12 from MA. So its like a common language.

After the basics we get into the flow drills. Doesn't matter from what system.. Tapi-tapi, hubad, sombrada, numerada, etc. We also mix in different weapons - single, double, espada y daga, knife, emptyhand. Memorization of patterns to develop the students coordination, stamina and flow and work techniques from them.

The final stage would be to "break the patterns" to deprogram the conditioned responses. We also do Halo-halo (mixing) of flow drills as semi-free sparring, so we may start out with sombrada close in to tapi-tapi then break out to largo. We also do halo-halo with different weapons so we might start with double stick, one person gets disarmed so its 2 on one, then draws a knife so its 2 on long-short. In this stage exploration (and mistakes) are encouraged. We also introduce sparring-free fighting with gear and without.

By following this loose stucture, it has allowed me the freedom to go with the flow of the class and not be too rigid. It allows the students to remember and retain techniques better than doing one technique over and over than moving on to another. It forces them to make a decision on what to remember and build on, so in a sense they are already beginning to create their own art. In a music analogy, we show individual notes (techniques) and we show rythmn, timing, and transitions. its up to the student to make thier own music.

But be warned, this method isn't for everyone. It can be very frustrating for students to have a blank canvas vs a paint by numbers.

 

[arnisandyz]

Sorry to double post, but i couldn't figure out how to edit my post!

Epa, a good place for you to start is to look at each of your teachers and find a common thread. Does your teacher who likes stick use a particular footwork or body movement when defending a #1 strike? Does your teacher who likes grappling use a similar zone or footwork to get his entry for his clinch against a punch? If so, break it down and you may see that they may be doing the same core principle, just in a different context. In which case it may be feasible to do some reverse engineering. I would guess there are more similarities than differences. Its always better to teach one thing to learn many than to learn many things that are not connected.

 

[modarnis]

While it is certainly important to consider your various teachers and influences in developing a curriculum to teach, one often overlooked aspect of martial arts instruction in general and FMA's for certain is :what is the target audience?

If you have a veteran blackbelt from some martial art, obviously you won't need to teach stance and empty hand strikes or kicks from scratch. With a new student, I usually start with basic stance work and our angles 1 and 2 with stick. From there, you can build to basic triangle footwork and evading strikes. For FMA's movement is key. Next I would build to teach all 12 angles, and some basic defenses with footwork to those angles.

At this point people are starting to speak the same language. It makes sense to incorporate drills and derive applications once they are comfortable with the basics. Some padded weapon work is also a great consequence teacher and confidence builder if integrated correctly.

 

[loki09789]

What is your end goal in instruction? Purpose?

What do you want your students to 'know' and be able to do (which are two very different things at times)?

I would say that you should start listing ALL the drills, skills, applications that you want to include. Start organizing them into Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced categories.

Within each of these categories create a chart that you can use to check off which skills/applications will be taught in each of the drills (training matrixs).

From there, you will see what concepts/skills you are focusing on during each phase of instruction and can break it down even more so that you know what progression you want to use.

THe first thing you need to do is get a mental plan of what you want to teach and why you want to teach it. Once that large framework is established, the pieces need to be placed in appropriate places based on that philosophy/mission.

Ask any instructor here and you will get a million different 'right' answers about ordering drills/skills/exercises....AND just about everyone of them will tell you that a curriculum is a living thing that evolves and changes with every examination, every student that 'blows the curve' in some way and forces you to look at your assumptions about what and how you teach.

In the beginning, modeling how and what you were taught isn't a bad thing. As you go, you will discover what you want to change, throw away or add as you clarify your mission/philosophy/goals....just like with your personal art.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Epa

Good thread, interesting points brought out by all. A couple of years ago I had GM Ernesto Presas in for a seminar, at breakfast the one day I asked him to help me set up a curriculmn for teaching Kombatan Arnis (his system) and whipped out my note book. He took one look at it and said "you know it" and basically left it for me to figure out.

Afterward I pulled together as many different curriculmns as I could find to see what other instructors had for their different levels etc. etc. This lead to a lot of examination and change over the past couple of years.

Goal was to teach the FMAs

Method or system was primarily based on Kombatan Arnis and Modern Arnis (since I studied both and both share some same techniques and concepts I have blended the two systems).

Structure
At the begining levels I concentrate the training on double stick, single stick and empty hand. Starting with double stick first and then single stick and empty hand. I relate different techniques from each area to each other so that the students start getting the concept of interchangeability right off of the bat.

In the intermediate levels and advanced levels I teach knife and espada y daga.

I picked drills and techniques that relate to one another to teach the techniques for any given level. So that at first is force to force blocking so those type of techniques will be through out the other weapons as well. Or say thrusting techniques will be introduced than the Sinawali drills will relate to thrusts, or whatever.

Need to go with the wife. I expand on this if you want later.
Mark

 

[KombatanNYC]

I have heard a lot of instructors talk about a similiar progression in FMA. That is, working on single and double stick and eventually moving into espada y daga in the more advanced levels. Personally I am kind of partial to teaching at least the beginings of espada y daga from the very begining. I personally found it a benefit as a student to have a wide base that I gradually built upon. Because I think that every sub system (mano mano, single stick, D.S. etc) ties into every other system, I like giving the student all of the pieces and letting them discover the glue between them.

 

[arnisador]

I am kind of partial to teaching at least the beginings of espada y daga from the very begining.

"If you want to know what the live hand is doing, put a knife in it." I see your point!

 

[ryangruhn]

While I start my students off with single stick I do also have them start in EH training at the same time. My class is broken into thirds:

- Weapons
- EH
- Misc/Cardio

I am also under the Inosanto lineage and in our system it is almost always started off with single stick. However, a class full of single stick gets a little old to the students. I suggest keeping the class moving with new material for you students.


Gruhn

 

[KombatanNYC]

I will say again the importance I place on form. Without form as a foundation, a student can never approach flow. This is at the root, I believe, behind the rationale of training double stick and espeda y daga early... though we must learn slight variations of form, one thing will teach the other. Example, the striking patterns of a sinawali may be practiced with the empty hand, it is just an adaptation of range. Espada y daga is the bridge between these two ranges as it is both and neither.

I find much of the training to be at a subconscious level. We are teaching the body how to move. The sooner we develop a base of form for the student, the better able they are to build upon that base. The techniques of FMA are innumbrable, but only a few guiding concepts tie all of these together. I personally feel that students would do better with fewer techniques but in a wider range of systems and ranges. By the time the student is an intermediate, they will begin making these connections on their own and will end up knowing much more than they realize.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I will say again the importance I place on form. Without form as a foundation, a student can never approach flow. This is at the root, I believe, behind the rationale of training double stick and espeda y daga early... though we must learn slight variations of form, one thing will teach the other. Example, the striking patterns of a sinawali may be practiced with the empty hand, it is just an adaptation of range. Espada y daga is the bridge between these two ranges as it is both and neither.

I find much of the training to be at a subconscious level. We are teaching the body how to move. The sooner we develop a base of form for the student, the better able they are to build upon that base. The techniques of FMA are innumbrable, but only a few guiding concepts tie all of these together. I personally feel that students would do better with fewer techniques but in a wider range of systems and ranges. By the time the student is an intermediate, they will begin making these connections on their own and will end up knowing much more than they realize.

KombatanNYC

I agree with your post. I don't really teach the espaday daga untill the student is in the intermediate level though. While I agree it will help with form, I thought at the begining stages I had plenty of material to cover making the conection between double stick, solo baston and empty hand. EYD I thought would make a good tranistion or bridge to knife. For legal reasons I want to know the student a while before I start them on a knife.

That being said I do like to make the connections between different weapons so while practicing the feeding patterns in solo baston I might give them a different type of weapon i.e. flashlight, raquet ball raquet, training sword, umbrella etc. etc.

Tying GM Ernesto's double stick material to empty hand can be a pretty big chunk of material. Throw in the solo baston work and I believe they have a pretty good base.

Mark

 

[KombatanNYC]

I think what is most important beyond the actual drills trained is to have a cognizance and understanding of how to incorporate and put together a functional curriculum, which it sounds like you do. I don’t think it matters so much when specific drills are introduced as long as the student is enabled to make the connections between while simultaneously learning proper form and flow. Though you may not specifically be drilling EYD, it sounds like you are incorporating all of the necessary elements so that when the student is ready, they will already have a solid foundation from which to build from.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I think what is most important beyond the actual drills trained is to have a cognizance and understanding of how to incorporate and put together a functional curriculum, which it sounds like you do. I don’t think it matters so much when specific drills are introduced as long as the student is enabled to make the connections between while simultaneously learning proper form and flow. Though you may not specifically be drilling EYD, it sounds like you are incorporating all of the necessary elements so that when the student is ready, they will already have a solid foundation from which to build from.

Kombatan
I agree which is part of the reason I chose to teach GM Ernesto's double stick material (at least a decent part of it) at the begining levels. I loaded up more on the double stick, single stick and empty hand so that I could cover more material and allow the student to make the connection between all three. Then they will already have built into their minds that hey this is nothing new just different when I cover EYD or Knife.

Person A feeds a high forehand to B, and B same side blocks strikes A with his other stick. GM Ernesto's force to force blocking response #1.

So if I want to teach the idea of same side blocking and wrapping the stick arm say from the outside, I teach it to the students in the double stick phase. While I demonstrate that this is how you do it with the single stick (L to R or R to R and employing the empty hand), then with EYD, then with knife (again L to R and R to R employing the empty hand) and then maybe with just empy hand. And I tell the students that if the reason why I teach this way is that if you can do this with a two foot long stick in your hand than doing it with a knife or your empty hand is a breeze. And of course they will be doing this material in the single stick and the empty hand level as well. By the time you get to EYD and or knife the student already knows the mechanics in a sense behind the technique but now they get to learn new applications.

However teaching EYD I like because the responses in Kombatan can be taught in bite size pieces (like mini katas) that are easy for the student to learn and can be practiced on their with or without a partner. Also the EYD material covers things like proper form, pivoting with the hips, speed, and you can use the same/similar format for teaching the checking hand as well.

Thanks for your input