Testing (squared)

[skribs]

I'm not talking about belt testing. I'm talking about testing your belt testing. For those who have made their own curriculum, or else created your own tests for an already-existing curriculum, what was your process for evaluating the test?

Did you run through the tests yourself? Did you have beta testers who were higher level run through the content to check if it works? How did you verify that your test was:

• Appropriate length of time (not too short or too long)
• Appropriate difficulty (not too easy or too hard)
• Appropriate comprehensiveness (didn't miss out on any techniques you wanted to test)

On top of that, how was your first live test (or couple of tests)? Did you get feedback from your students or fellow instructors on how to better execute the tests? Did you realize things you could have done better? How did you approach evaluating and making these adjustments for future tests?

 

[dvcochran]

The first thing I would do is compare against your own belt testing experiences. In all the dynamics you mentioned, time, difficulty, comprehension, etc... I would assume this gives you a good foundation to build upon. Typically in TKD, color belt testing's are incremental in all three dimensions. There are exceptions such as for adults, exceptionally athletic, or people with prior experience. We have never been one to 'break down' a persons abilities first. One thing we always do is show/use a persons experiences/differences and discuss them. Always a good way to break up the monotony of testing day.
As Gup ranks get higher (lower, you get it) testing's get more about Applying skills. More testing under pressure and less critical about 'perfect' technique. This is where you, and the instructor, must be able to assess and quantify any variance as acceptable or unacceptable. Always another good chance to discuss the differences, good or bad. So in this respect it would be more specific to where an individual shows weakness in a certain skill. Not sure how you write a standard for this. If you write the standard of testing X kick and the tester is great at X kick then you may completely miss a weakness in another area.

In short, I can definitely see needing to have parameters met for each belt level as a must have. But trying to put everyone in the same box is one of the shortcomings of many schools systems. People have to be pushed commiserate to their potential or at least their desired level of 'push'. I have never really liked the idea of trying to put a MA program down on paper in a hard rigid method. Too many things can be lost in translation and you as the instructor loose some of your flexibility in teaching/methodology.

In the triangle of time, difficulty, comprehension, I feel time can be more consistent and repeatable for the lower belts where it is typically all technique driven. I would expect very few exceptions here. So all three can be close to a written testing standard. Somewhere around green/blue for adults and red/brown for kids testing must become more individualized, throwing a hard written standard out the window to a degree. But you can still develop a general standard for how testing is performed, usually in the context of forms, pressure testing, sparring, breaking or other style related material.
You will likely find that even things like physical location and access to resources will affect your decision making. Low ceiling? Jumping kicks are a problem, Limited space? Testing dates may have to be spread out. Few people of the same size? Limited pressure testing/sparring. It goes on and on. So you will likely have to make some things up on the fly. I would say it happens more often than not.

You know I do not care for the Taegueks. That said we strongly encourage people to be thoughtful and 'creative' with them, often asking where/how certain sections of a form have application during testing and to display the application. This has always been our method regardless of form set. It is the best way I know of to make/keep forms applicable in modern training.
If you get away from forms all together it would be a true paradigm shift in teaching/testing TKD. It would completely change class structure, intent, and method so it would be a huge change. So obviously this would greatly affect your triangle of testing criteria. Can you identify the hard sections like those mentioned? Forms, pressure testing, sparring, etc...?

 

[skribs]

As Gup ranks get higher (lower, you get it) testing's get more about Applying skills. More testing under pressure and less critical about 'perfect' technique. This is where you, and the instructor, must be able to assess and quantify any variance as acceptable or unacceptable. Always another good chance to discuss the differences, good or bad. So in this respect it would be more specific to where an individual shows weakness in a certain skill. Not sure how you write a standard for this. If you write the standard of testing X kick and the tester is great at X kick then you may completely miss a weakness in another area.

I do intend to cover a wide range of things on the test day.

Although one thing I was considering (and still am, to some extent) is to do the stereotypical: forms, sparring, breaking. The other things I want people to learn can be pre-tested (i.e. I check their knowledge in class).

In short, I can definitely see needing to have parameters met for each belt level as a must have. But trying to put everyone in the same box is one of the shortcomings of many schools systems. People have to be pushed commiserate to their potential or at least their desired level of 'push'. I have never really liked the idea of trying to put a MA program down on paper in a hard rigid method. Too many things can be lost in translation and you as the instructor loose some of your flexibility in teaching/methodology.

This is why I'm looking to move away from my Master's curriculum, in which everything is memorized, to a curriculum based on teaching techniques and concepts, and letting the students put those together in different ways. The way I see it, if you teach 10 rote combinations, then you've taught 10 things. But if you teach 5 techniques and 5 concepts, you've taught 25 things. If I teach 1 more technique and 1 more concept, then I've taught 36 things. By teaching 2 things, I've taught 11 at that point. The math won't perfectly work out (many concepts only apply to a subset of techniques), but that's the general principle.

With that said, I do have a list of techniques and concepts I would like to teach at each level. I have a few reasons for this:

• Some techniques build on others
• Some techniques require more experience do be done correctly and safely
• To break up what I know into more manageable bites

In the triangle of time, difficulty, comprehension, I feel time can be more consistent and repeatable for the lower belts where it is typically all technique driven. I would expect very few exceptions here. So all three can be close to a written testing standard. Somewhere around green/blue for adults and red/brown for kids testing must become more individualized, throwing a hard written standard out the window to a degree. But you can still develop a general standard for how testing is performed, usually in the context of forms, pressure testing, sparring, breaking or other style related material.
You will likely find that even things like physical location and access to resources will affect your decision making. Low ceiling? Jumping kicks are a problem, Limited space? Testing dates may have to be spread out. Few people of the same size? Limited pressure testing/sparring. It goes on and on. So you will likely have to make some things up on the fly. I would say it happens more often than not.

I'm going to disagree a bit on pressure testing. I personally would rather see pressure testing in class, and more of a demonstration testing on testing day. The reason for that is if I ask a student to do X technique, it's going to be very difficult to do X technique on a resisting opponent. That's why we learn different techniques: so that when our opponent resists Technique A, we can transition into Technique B. If I ask the student to do Technique A, and he has to do Technique B to be successful, that does show his ability to adapt, but it doesn't show his ability with Technique A.

Similarly, if Fighter A is partnered with Fighter B, and Fighter C is partnered with Fighter D, and Fighter D is much better at defending these techniques, then Fighter C will look worse than Fighter A, even if both have the same level of technique. For example, in my Hapkido class, we have a couple of bigger, stronger guys. One of them is very tough to apply the techniques on. The other is a Pro Wrestler, and so it's very easy, because he's conditioned for showmanship. As soon as you get any leverage on him, he complies. In class, I can see how Fighter A and Fighter C handle a variety of opponents.

I do agree that access to resources is a consideration. Another consideration for time is how many people can do what. For example:

• Board Holders
• One-Step Partners
• Sparring Partners

It can take a lot longer if only one person is holding boards at a time, vs. if I have several lines going. I imagine that for the lower belts (especially kids) I would have instructors be the partners for one-steps, but at the advanced level it would be the students.

You know I do not care for the Taegueks. That said we strongly encourage people to be thoughtful and 'creative' with them, often asking where/how certain sections of a form have application during testing and to display the application. This has always been our method regardless of form set. It is the best way I know of to make/keep forms applicable in modern training.
If you get away from forms all together it would be a true paradigm shift in teaching/testing TKD. It would completely change class structure, intent, and method so it would be a huge change. So obviously this would greatly affect your triangle of testing criteria. Can you identify the hard sections like those mentioned? Forms, pressure testing, sparring, etc...?

If I were to get rid of forms, I'd call it Hapkido instead. But I don't have the rank to have any authority there. I'm wary of making my own art, because I know for every person that makes their own and is successful, there are hundreds, if not thousands that fail. And I know the reputation that comes with that, so if people ask "is Skribs-Ki-Do legit?" then the response most people will have is "never heard of it, so probably not."

 

[wab25]

I personally would rather see pressure testing in class, and more of a demonstration testing on testing day. The reason for that is if I ask a student to do X technique, it's going to be very difficult to do X technique on a resisting opponent.

It depends on how you do the pressure testing. In karate when one student is testing, he spars with students who are not. The students he spars with however, are not random. They are very much part of the test. So, Sensei will say "I want to see you using X technique when sparring." The opponent needs to hear that, and needs to know how that technique was practiced in class. Then, during sparring he needs to feed in opportunities for the testing student to apply X technique. For example, if they work frequently on doing X technique when the other guy lunge punches... then during sparring, you need to throw some lunge punches at him. Personally, I will spar and then combo into the lunge punch a couple of times. If the testing student doesn't see it, I will combo, then pause, then lunge punch. If they still don't see it, I may just pause, take a proper stance and then lunge punch. Sensei sees all of this, and can grade according to the student. But, this allows the testing student to at least succeed in what he is being asked to show, and also gives him the opportunity to excel, by catching it in the combo at first. In this way, you could pressure test during the test itself... which applies a different kind of pressure than regular sparring does.

 

[skribs]

It depends on how you do the pressure testing. In karate when one student is testing, he spars with students who are not. The students he spars with however, are not random. They are very much part of the test. So, Sensei will say "I want to see you using X technique when sparring." The opponent needs to hear that, and needs to know how that technique was practiced in class. Then, during sparring he needs to feed in opportunities for the testing student to apply X technique. For example, if they work frequently on doing X technique when the other guy lunge punches... then during sparring, you need to throw some lunge punches at him. Personally, I will spar and then combo into the lunge punch a couple of times. If the testing student doesn't see it, I will combo, then pause, then lunge punch. If they still don't see it, I may just pause, take a proper stance and then lunge punch. Sensei sees all of this, and can grade according to the student. But, this allows the testing student to at least succeed in what he is being asked to show, and also gives him the opportunity to excel, by catching it in the combo at first. In this way, you could pressure test during the test itself... which applies a different kind of pressure than regular sparring does.

That seems to be the opposite of pressure testing, to me. I could see it being useful, but it's not how I would run a test.

 

[wab25]

That seems to be the opposite of pressure testing, to me.

Why would this be the opposite of pressure testing?

I said nothing about how hard you hit them, or how fast you hit them. As it turns out, you can pound on someone pretty good, and mix the setup for technique X into it. If they miss the first bit, you finish your combo or at least land the lunge punch. When testing is done this way, the idea is to bring up the pressure beyond a normal sparring session. Then see if they can use technique X, when they don't know its being fed to them or when they will need to use it. Sure, the setup gets slowed down until they can get it... but its not like thats all they see in the sparring session... they still have to survive the sparring session.

In TKD terms... if I were testing and you were asked to spar with me... you could spar however you wanted, and you would be asked to pressure me pretty hard, depending on what rank I was testing for. After round 1, the instructor asks to see me use the technique where I catch the others guys front kick and sweep his leg. As my sparring partner, you could simply never throw a front kick, in which case it gets very hard for me to demonstrate the technique I was asked to show. You would not be used for test sparring again. But, instead, you could make sure that you threw front kicks. You could mix them in with your normal set of moves and combos that you would use for sparring. In this setup, you would be really trying to nail me with your front kick. You might whoop me up a bit, then throw a 5 kick combo, ending with a strong front kick... If I miss my technique you kick me hard. If I don't see it, maybe next time you only do a 3 kick combo, after pounding on me. If I still don't get it, forget pounding me first, just do the 3 kick combo. If I still don't get it, just front kick me hard, until I get it. Note that the freebie at the end, only comes after you have pounded on me quite a bit... so if I need to use the freebie version I have taken some punishment and you are still trying to kick me for real. This gives the instructor and me plenty of information. If I catch the kick on your first setup (after the pounding and at the end of the 5 kick combo) then, you get to turn it up a notch. Put it in the middle of the combo. Feint the kick and do something else. Or just continue sparring.

How would there be no pressure when doing it this way?

 

[skribs]

Why would this be the opposite of pressure testing?

Because if they're giving you the opening, it's not pressure testing. That's testing to see if you recognize the opening. Pressure testing is to check if the technique works, or to check if the system works.

If your opponent is giving you the opening, then it doesn't prove anything about using the technique against pressure. Especially if you tell the student to use the technique, they know which technique to look for an opening in.

I'm not saying it isn't useful. But it's not pressure testing.

 

[wab25]

Because if they're giving you the opening, it's not pressure testing. That's testing to see if you recognize the opening. Pressure testing is to check if the technique works, or to check if the system works.

I guess where we differ is that I think you can do both at the same time. See if they can recognize the opening and see if they can do the technique when they are going to get hit if they screw up, against a person who is in fact fully resisting. In fact, I think it puts more pressure on the student, when they have to recognize the opening this way, when they will get hit hard for missing something. They have to spar hard, while looking for the opening that they do not know when or where it will show up, during a test, with people watching and grading. Once they recognize the opening, and go to apply the technique, their opponent is fully resisting. The only give away is that if they are asked to counter a front kick... is that there will be front kicks given.

What is you definition then of pressure testing? In BJJ how would you pressure test a guard pass, if the opponent never gets you in their guard?

 

[skribs]

against a person who is in fact fully resisting

If an opponent is giving you openings, how are they fully resisting?

What is you definition then of pressure testing? In BJJ how would you pressure test a guard pass, if the opponent never gets you in their guard?

I'll put on my imagination hat for a moment, because I have 0 experience with BJJ. Well, maybe 0.1 experience, if you count a former blue belt showing me a few things. Here's the question: are you pressure testing a specific guard pass, or are you pressure testing the concept of passing the guard?

Since I don't know much about BJJ, I'm gonna bring it back to something I'm more familiar with - hand grabs and wrist locks. Is the pressure test:

1. Opponent grabs your wrist, and you have to take them down and make them tap.
2. Opponent grabs your wrist, and you have to take them down with a Z-Lock and make them tap.

If it's the former, then that makes sense for pressure testing. But if it's the latter, if my opponent knows I'm going for a Z-Lock, about the only way I'm going to get it is if they're compliant or only passively resisting. If they're actively resisting, I shouldn't be able to get it. (However, a V-Lock will be a lot easier if they're resisting the Z-Lock, so that should be doable).

Going back to the former, this can work if you want to see how well a student can handle a specific situation. But if your goal is to check that they know a Z-Lock and a V-Lock, I think it's better to test both of them. And once you say "do a Z-Lock", then they most likely can't, at least not if it's being pressured.

 

[wab25]

I'm gonna bring it back to something I'm more familiar with - hand grabs and wrist locks. Is the pressure test:

1. Opponent grabs your wrist, and you have to take them down and make them tap.
2. Opponent grabs your wrist, and you have to take them down with a Z-Lock and make them tap.

If it's the former, then that makes sense for pressure testing.

So, if the student is asked to do technique X during sparring, that is a counter to a lunge punch... its not pressure testing, because the the opponent is going to throw a lunge punch?

If the student is asked to counter a front kick, it is not pressure testing because he knows the other guy is going to throw a front kick at some point?

But, if the student is asked to turn a wrist grab by the opponent into a take down and tap... how is that any different? The opponent has to grab his wrist. If you want to pressure test, using your #1 above... during sparring, and the opponent never grabs the wrist... does the student fail the test?

Sorry, but I don't get the difference... aside from two are my examples and one is your example. I get that I am always wrong and you are always right... so help me understand. Person A has to do technique X for student B to do technique Y. When technique X is a lunge punch, and technique Y is a counter to a lunge punch, this is not pressure testing because Person A is not fully resisting, but using technique X. When technique X is a front kick, and technique Y is a counter to a front kick, this is not pressure testing because Person A is not fully resisting, but using technique X. However, when technique X is a wrist grab, and technique Y is a counter to a wrist grab, this is pressure testing... Why the difference?

If an opponent is giving you openings, how are they fully resisting?

If I fight a TKD guy, or a karate guy... I would bet I will see a front kick. Every time a front kick is thrown, creates openings. The setup I was suggesting meant that if the instructor wanted to see the testing student counter a front kick in sparring, his sparring partner throws a few front kicks. That does not mean that the sparring is not with full resistance.

 

[wab25]

And once you say "do a Z-Lock", then they most likely can't, at least not if it's being pressured.

As you say, transitioning to the V lock would be easier... then use a twist lock, to transition to an armbar take down, this will switch the hands... now relax the arm bar, so they stand up into the v-lock.

If I asked a student to demonstrate a v-lock against a guy trying to resist it... and he did the above flow, ending in the v-lock... I would say he understood the v-lock.

Note that the above flow, was used when a Judo green belt joined our class to cause trouble and show that you could not apply the v-lock on him, as it was too easy to defend. Locks don't come at you one at a time...

 

[skribs]

So, if the student is asked to do technique X during sparring, that is a counter to a lunge punch... its not pressure testing, because the the opponent is going to throw a lunge punch?

If the student is asked to counter a front kick, it is not pressure testing because he knows the other guy is going to throw a front kick at some point?

But, if the student is asked to turn a wrist grab by the opponent into a take down and tap... how is that any different? The opponent has to grab his wrist. If you want to pressure test, using your #1 above... during sparring, and the opponent never grabs the wrist... does the student fail the test?

If the test is "counter a lunge punch" then that is pressure testing that he can counter a lunge punch. But you're not testing any specific technique. If the test is "counter a lunge punch by blocking, grabbing the arm, and executing a hip toss", then you're not going to be able to pressure test the hip toss. Because if the opponent knows that "when I lunge punch, he's going to hip toss", then he's going to do so in such a way to counter the hip toss (or he won't be resisting).

If the student is asked to counter a front kick, it is not pressure testing because he knows the other guy is going to throw a front kick at some point?

You can pressure test the response to a front kick. But if you say "I want you to catch the leg and then use a sweep to take them down", then the opponent is going to be hop-stepping over every sweep attempt and make it much harder to pull off.

---

The next question is: why is this important? If your goal is to check if they have the capability of responding to X attack, then you can accomplish that goal. But if you want to make sure they're learning the techniques, then this may not cut it. For example, let's go back to the wrist locks. Let's say Bill has a killer V-Lock. But his Z-Lock sucks, and he really has no clue how to enter into any of the other techniques.

If Bill's only test is to counter a grab, he may use a V-Lock and do very well. But that doesn't mean he knows the other techniques. And if he passes the test with a V-Lock, and someone starts asking him questions about the Z-Lock, he may give them advice...bad advice. And they'll listen, because he's passed the test past where Z-Lock is learned.

If I'm testing my students, I want to make sure they've learned what I've taught them. If they've passed a test, I want the other students to assume they know what was expected of them to learn. I don't want a situation where someone is really good at one technique and uses that to blitz through the test. I don't want a Bill to be able to go through a test knowing only one technique for any situation. I want to know that if Bill gets his belt, that students who see Bill with that belt know they can ask Bill for advice on techniques below that point. He may not have all of the answers or know all of the details that make it work, but he'll likely be on the right track.

 

[skribs]

As you say, transitioning to the V lock would be easier... then use a twist lock, to transition to an armbar take down, this will switch the hands... now relax the arm bar, so they stand up into the v-lock.

If I asked a student to demonstrate a v-lock against a guy trying to resist it... and he did the above flow, ending in the v-lock... I would say he understood the v-lock.

Note that the above flow, was used when a Judo green belt joined our class to cause trouble and show that you could not apply the v-lock on him, as it was too easy to defend. Locks don't come at you one at a time...

While this makes a good point about locks coming at you more than one at a time, why go away from the twist lock and armbar if it was working? Once you find something that works, you should sink it until it won't.

 

[wab25]

The next question is: why is this important? If your goal is to check if they have the capability of responding to X attack, then you can accomplish that goal. But if you want to make sure they're learning the techniques, then this may not cut it. For example, let's go back to the wrist locks. Let's say Bill has a killer V-Lock. But his Z-Lock sucks, and he really has no clue how to enter into any of the other techniques.

If Bill's only test is to counter a grab, he may use a V-Lock and do very well. But that doesn't mean he knows the other techniques. And if he passes the test with a V-Lock, and someone starts asking him questions about the Z-Lock, he may give them advice...bad advice. And they'll listen, because he's passed the test past where Z-Lock is learned.

Turn it back to TKD. The student is taking the test that shows he has learned a round kick. The student should be able to demonstrate a round kick solo, showing technique. He should be able to hit a heavy bag to show power and accuracy. He should be able to demonstrate it in sparring.

When I ask my student to spar and use the round kick... I call that pressure testing, as he is trying to use the round kick on a resisting opponent. For some reason, you feel that by asking the student to show the round kick in the same sparring session changes it from a pressure test to something else. Fine. You are correct... its something else. But, what ever you want to call it... having students apply their techniques during a fully resistant sparring session is a valid test. Asking the student to use more than his favorite techniques during the sparring test is fair game... but I guess takes the pressure off, according to you.

When Bill takes my test that certifies him as knowing the v-lock and the z-lock... Bill needs to be able to use both in sparring, and get the one I ask him to get in sparring. I expect his sparring partner to make appropriate attacks during the sparring session so that Bill has the opportunity to do what he is asked. Example: if Bill is asked to show a v-lock his sparring partner better not dance around and only throw kicks from a distance... he has to mix in some punching and grabbing. If Bill does well, then he can mix in feints to draw out and counter the v-lock. Or he can try setting up the counter to the v-lock or he can continue kicking him from a distance. This is the same as expecting a TKD student testing on round kicks to use round kicks in sparring.

 

[wab25]

While this makes a good point about locks coming at you more than one at a time, why go away from the twist lock and armbar if it was working? Once you find something that works, you should sink it until it won't.

In this context, it was about being asked to show a z-lock on a resisting opponent. Sure he can resist it if you go for it straight away... but if you really know it, you should be able to set it up.

In the context that I used it in, I was the instructor teaching the class how to do a z-lock. The trouble maker was insisting that the z-lock could not be applied to him. Which means I had to get back to the z-lock and get his tap from the z-lock.

More importantly... people don't just stand and take your lock. They move and adjust and counter... you need to be able to move and transition to other locks until you get one to stick. In training, I will often light up the other guy and transition on before he can tap, so as I can practice transitioning further. Sometimes its a way to look closer at what you are doing... how do I get from technique A to technique B? Sometimes, its easy... sometimes you have to play around a while before you get from A to B. Sometimes, you can't find a good way from A to B... but you can find paths from A to other things you would not have originally looked for... trying to get to B took you to new places.

 

[dvcochran]

This is why I'm looking to move away from my Master's curriculum, in which everything is memorized, to a curriculum based on teaching techniques and concepts, and letting the students put those together in different ways. The way I see it, if you teach 10 rote combinations, then you've taught 10 things. But if you teach 5 techniques and 5 concepts, you've taught 25 things. If I teach 1 more technique and 1 more concept, then I've taught 36 things. By teaching 2 things, I've taught 11 at that point. The math won't perfectly work out (many concepts only apply to a subset of techniques), but that's the general principle.

I cannot fully buy into the exponential idea since there is a very heavy amount of subjectivity in MA learning and the exponent normally gets harder as skills get more advanced. Part of the subjective element is that learning over time does not translate across people.
That said the 'building blocks' idea is very good and relevant. And skill testing should be individual, since each person is going to do things slightly different; and the onus is on the instructor to verify whether the skill is proficient or not. Pressure testing can be more compound, like you mentioned later in your post concerning a person using technique 'B' because 'A' did not work. And that puts back to the subjectivity of testing.

Definitely, testing should be a formality, predicated off of rigorous class time. But there is nothing wrong with it being a confirmation as well.

 

[skribs]

In this context, it was about being asked to show a z-lock on a resisting opponent. Sure he can resist it if you go for it straight away... but if you really know it, you should be able to set it up.

In the context that I used it in, I was the instructor teaching the class how to do a z-lock. The trouble maker was insisting that the z-lock could not be applied to him. Which means I had to get back to the z-lock and get his tap from the z-lock.

More importantly... people don't just stand and take your lock. They move and adjust and counter... you need to be able to move and transition to other locks until you get one to stick. In training, I will often light up the other guy and transition on before he can tap, so as I can practice transitioning further. Sometimes its a way to look closer at what you are doing... how do I get from technique A to technique B? Sometimes, its easy... sometimes you have to play around a while before you get from A to B. Sometimes, you can't find a good way from A to B... but you can find paths from A to other things you would not have originally looked for... trying to get to B took you to new places.

That's just something I'd rather see during class. Pressure testing is something I'd rather see during class.

I cannot fully buy into the exponential idea since there is a very heavy amount of subjectivity in MA learning and the exponent normally gets harder as skills get more advanced. Part of the subjective element is that learning over time does not translate across people.
That said the 'building blocks' idea is very good and relevant. And skill testing should be individual, since each person is going to do things slightly different; and the onus is on the instructor to verify whether the skill is proficient or not. Pressure testing can be more compound, like you mentioned later in your post concerning a person using technique 'B' because 'A' did not work. And that puts back to the subjectivity of testing.

Definitely, testing should be a formality, predicated off of rigorous class time. But there is nothing wrong with it being a confirmation as well.

I understand it's not perfect, but that's the general idea. For example, most concepts that can be applied to a back kick can also be applied to a tornado kick or spinning hook kick. But if you only ever practice a combo that has the back kick, you may not connect that concept to tornado or spin hook. Similarly, if all you do is rote combos, you need to memorize 3 combos to get that concept for all 3 kicks. If I teach the one concept, and that it can be taught with all 3 kicks, then you can drill one kick to focus on the concept, or all 3 to expand on it.

 

[dvcochran]

That's just something I'd rather see during class. Pressure testing is something I'd rather see during class.



I understand it's not perfect, but that's the general idea. For example, most concepts that can be applied to a back kick can also be applied to a tornado kick or spinning hook kick. But if you only ever practice a combo that has the back kick, you may not connect that concept to tornado or spin hook. Similarly, if all you do is rote combos, you need to memorize 3 combos to get that concept for all 3 kicks. If I teach the one concept, and that it can be taught with all 3 kicks, then you can drill one kick to focus on the concept, or all 3 to expand on it.

The concepts are what I would want to see solidify in regular classes. And then confirmed through skill practice/resistance training and finally in sparring if applicable. The reason for both is for the techniques & concepts that cannot not always be practiced at speed. Yes, I know someone will bash on this but it is what it is. I think this is part of the 'concept' area you speak of. Strike X can be used XXXX ways in XXXXXXXXXX scenarios, etc.....

In this train of thinking, it could make for a Very long testing it you tried to test everything. So that circles back to a 'fixed' set of criteria for each belt, with the exceptions I mentioned before. We really push the concept that testing is as much for the tester as the person being tested. Nothing is more satisfying than seeing someone display an exceptional skill. It is always conditional but we always try to show limits to even the exceptional. This has led to some Great sparring sessions or very competitive and fun to watch resistance training drills.
There is much method and structure to our testing's but we always make room for great moments to unfold during testing day. That kind of stuff is everlasting for the school and the student.
I hope we all have memorable moments from some of our testing's.

 

[skribs]

In this train of thinking, it could make for a Very long testing it you tried to test everything. So that circles back to a 'fixed' set of criteria for each belt, with the exceptions I mentioned before. We really push the concept that testing is as much for the tester as the person being tested. Nothing is more satisfying than seeing someone display an exceptional skill. It is always conditional but we always try to show limits to even the exceptional. This has led to some Great sparring sessions or very competitive and fun to watch resistance training drills.

That's why you contract it. For example, if you teach an entry to 4 different grabs from 4 different positions, you can do 4 tests to cover all of them.

• Grab A from Position A
• Grab B from Position B
• Grab C from Position C
• Grab D from Position D

In training, you might drill Grabs A-D in Position A, and then Grab B in Positions A-D, and so on. Focus on one factor in each drill.

This keeps it from getting too overwhelming at once. It also keeps you from a situation where you're only drilling Grab A, or only drilling Position A, or only drilling one grab per position (for the entirety of your training).

 

[dvcochran]

That's why you contract it. For example, if you teach an entry to 4 different grabs from 4 different positions, you can do 4 tests to cover all of them.

• Grab A from Position A
• Grab B from Position B
• Grab C from Position C
• Grab D from Position D

In training, you might drill Grabs A-D in Position A, and then Grab B in Positions A-D, and so on. Focus on one factor in each drill.

This keeps it from getting too overwhelming at once. It also keeps you from a situation where you're only drilling Grab A, or only drilling Position A, or only drilling one grab per position (for the entirety of your training).

Do you require people testing to verbally explain the techniques? Very informative for both sides.