what would 'impress' you more?

[Red J]

I prefer a teacher that can explain something and then show it. That way all the verbal people get instruction to their strength, and then all the visual people get theirs. With this type of approach, everyone benefits. The next step of course is feeling it and doing it which is kinesthetic which covers the hands-on people.

 

As Delta1 said, balance. This way everyone's learning preferences are covered and the concept is being presented in a multitude of ways which will provide for higher retention.

Edited December 12, 2004 by Red J

[White Warlock]

both on both accounts.

 

Not going to pick. Sorry, homey don't play dat.

[jarrettmeyer]

I agree with delta and WW.

 

It has to be a balance of both. You can't have the body without the mind. You can't have the mind without the body.

[Red J]

Not going to pick. Sorry, homey don't play dat.

 

Homey the Clown.....I think I baited myself into picking. Now with 20/20 looking backwards, the use of the edit button comes into play.

[SevenStar]

Hmmm....

 

Quite interesting. A student should know enough to use a proper technique, rather, know enough to avoid using an improper technique. And the teacher should teach that way.

 

not necessarily. Theoretically, yes, but realistically, no. Take kata as an example. The student knows the individual techniques. Add the footwork of the kata and what happens? they step too wide, too shallow, punch out of allignment, etc. same while sparring. they know to keep their hands up, but habitually, the right hand may drop (for example) They know how to sidestep, but under the pressure of an attack, they block and stand still. Knowing how to do something and actually being able to do it are quite different and are not mutually exclusive.

[SevenStar]

I agree with delta and WW.

 

It has to be a balance of both. You can't have the body without the mind. You can't have the mind without the body.

 

that depends on what you are calling "mind". If you're merely saying the body can't function without the brain, then yes. If you are saying that you can't fight without having proper instruction, then I disagree.

[delta1]

jarrettmeyer wrote:"It has to be a balance of both. You can't have the body without the mind. You can't have the mind without the body."

 

that depends on what you are calling "mind". If you're merely saying the body can't function without the brain, then yes. If you are saying that you can't fight without having proper instruction, then I disagree.

 

I think what he's saying is that you can learn to fight better with proper understanding. If that's the case, I agree. So, I think, do the Gracies, the Russians, the Greeks, the Japanese, ...

working it out on your own is great, but there's really no need in reinventing the wheel. Same applies to cross training. A perfect exammple is the CMA who say things like "grappling is in the system if you work with the standup techniques and practice applying them on the ground..." whatever - just go train with a grappler. he's training soley grappling and has the answers that you need. Why spend time trying to piece together how to do the technique - quite possibly getting it wrong - when you can train with one experienced in it and ask questions?

 

I agree with you somewhat, but I think you are missing the point here. The idea isn't to reinvent grappling. It is to look for the similarities with what you already do and make them work together better. That's far easier to do if you have some good grappling training in a system like BJJ that focuses a lot on the concepts involved in their art, and if your standup style also focuses on understanding principles and concepts. Another option is to find a teacher who knows both and train under him.

 

Another thing to consider is that working standup techniques on the ground may not prepare you adequately to deal with a grappler on the ground. As you point out, he's a specialist at it, and you're playing his game. But it will give you a much better chance if a street situation goes to the ground.

From a teacher, just tell the student. the whole "figure it out on your own, grasshopper" attitude is part of what's wrong with MA today... there are too many secrets. 1. this stagnates learning 2. knowledge gets lost

 

If that's all he does, then yes, it is wrong. But if he gives you the tools and has you work it out on your own, and helps to guide and assist and critique, then it is the best way to learn anything. Show me something,and it is really cool for that specific situation. Help me figure it out for myself, and I've internalized the knowlege and the physical technique. I understand it well enough to instinctively use it in any similar circumstance, regardless of variations. Figureing it out for yourself involves both physical and mental training and discipline. You are training a method of thought as well as a system of motion to an instinctive level. Just going through the moves you are shown is no better than just walking through a kata. I doubt that is the way you train. But it is too easy to assign that fallacty to others. We tend to think in terms of absolutes when assessing what the other guy does, while we see the intricacies of what we do. This of course reinforces our tendencies to exocentrisim(*).

 

I agree with you, and have said so to you in a few discussions here- if you want to get humbled, get on the mat with a good grappler. But I'd expand that to say get on the mat with any good practitioner of any system- especially if it is one you disrespect. Sometimes, it can almost give you a zenocentric(*) viewpoint on the arts!

 

*exocentrism is the tendency of people to believe that their culture or way of doing things is superior to all others. zenocentrism is the (unhealthy) view that others are better than your own. I think the best way to view life, and the martial arts, is that I like my culture and my way of doing things- but the other guy's culture and the other arts are interesting and effective. Often I can learn more about myself from their perspective, or better methods from their areas of strength- both culturally and artistically. Not bad for an ultra conservative, ornery, striking ( ! ), huh?

[Kaminari]

I prefer a teacher that tells me what to do, and lets me do it on my own, but is there to show me how to fix my technique, etc. A bit of both, but more of me working it out on my own so I can get used to my body going through unfamiliar movements.

[SevenStar]

I think what he's saying is that you can learn to fight better with proper understanding. If that's the case, I agree. So, I think, do the Gracies, the Russians, the Greeks, the Japanese, ...

 

if that is what he's saying, then I agree as well.

I agree with you somewhat, but I think you are missing the point here. The idea isn't to reinvent grappling. It is to look for the similarities with what you already do and make them work together better.

 

Nah, I'm not missing the point, you just haven't seen the quotes I'm talking about. There are people on this forum and others. they tend to say "the grappling is in the system if you look for it." They are referring to trying to apply standing locks on the ground - many of them don't directly apply, and they are going through trial and error trying to figure out something that a grappler could've told them right off the bat.

 

 

Another option is to find a teacher who knows both and train under him.

 

agreed.

Another thing to consider is that working standup techniques on the ground may not prepare you adequately to deal with a grappler on the ground. As you point out, he's a specialist at it, and you're playing his game. But it will give you a much better chance if a street situation goes to the ground.

 

maybe. I've noticed that when people teach themselves, they sometimes do so badly. When I was training longfist, we took that approach. My friend and I had a copy of the fighter's notebook and would compare it to what we were doing in class - we could school all of them just based on corrections we were getting from the book. That became more apparent once I started bjj and judo. Basically, they taught themselves bad basics.

 

 

If that's all he does, then yes, it is wrong. But if he gives you the tools and has you work it out on your own, and helps to guide and assist and critique, then it is the best way to learn anything. Show me something,and it is really cool for that specific situation. Help me figure it out for myself, and I've internalized the knowlege and the physical technique. I understand it well enough to instinctively use it in any similar circumstance, regardless of variations.

 

application does the same thing. I show you, you apply it repeatedly in various situations. Once the prinicple is ingrained, you will be able to work it spontaneously. traditional arts take longer to master by design...partially because they are designed to work the way you described.

Figureing it out for yourself involves both physical and mental training and discipline. You are training a method of thought as well as a system of motion to an instinctive level. Just going through the moves you are shown is no better than just walking through a kata. I doubt that is the way you train.

 

that's where more advanced drilling and also sparring come into play.

I agree with you, and have said so to you in a few discussions here- if you want to get humbled, get on the mat with a good grappler. But I'd expand that to say get on the mat with any good practitioner of any system- especially if it is one you disrespect. Sometimes, it can almost give you a zenocentric(*) viewpoint on the arts!

 

what I say is nothing is more humbling than a good butt kicking - regardless of style. I completely agree that it should be expanded to any good practitioner of any system.

[delta1]

SevenStar- as usual, we're not that far apart. It's just that I'm a ( ! ) and you're a @#^* !