learning vs understanding vs applying vs mastery/perfection

[ironsifu]

of techniques (ran out of space.

in shoriKid's post on "intensity" thread he talked about teaching one skill in one class, another skill in another class, etc.

remember i am old fashioned, so my philosophy will be different from most of your guys. but here goes:

there is a "level of learning", i call it that, that many people including teachers do not follow. when a student first learns a technique, they will be able to do it, monkey see, monkey do. i consider this first level "learning level", which most people get at a seminar or in the first 6 months of training. even a kid who cross over from dance or gymnastics (and a lot of the XMA people-- no offense) will have with martial arts technique. this level you can get in one day. or one class. or one seminar, even watch somebody do it and memorize it. videos, youtubes, etc.

in the second level, the student will understand all about the technique, fine points, how to counter it, how to use it against this guy and that guy. you can explain it beautifully, and demonstrate it with a partner who is not trying to hurt or stop you. for many people, this is considered "advanced learning". for me, it is where the beginner level is accomplished.

the third level, application, you put on the gloves and another guy is going to put you on your butt, and you use this technique, and its variations, and against any opponent. most martial artists consider this technique to be their "specialty" because its usually one of a few techniques he does really well, and works against his opponents and he likes to throw or use it. i consider this the advanced level of learning.

last, i call it the mastery of the technique, this is what a good friend of mine called, "the hedgehog". the one thing you do better than 99% of the people around you. you train this technique so much, you can use it against anyone any style any time. with great success. many good competitiors and masters have at least one or two hedgehogs, its what we remember them for. does it mean you are unbeatable? of course not, but it is one of those tricks you have up your sleeve that you know if i pull it out some body is going to get hurt. when you have a mastery of a technique people remember you for years, because very few people achieve it. we remember masters and fighters for years, because they are nice, or well known, write books, make movies, etc. but there is always those few guys that people will say "he is one of the greats" or "no one around could beat him"... seems like. a master would seems like he only loses to another master.

the hedgehog story: a hedgehog is not known to be a great fighter, he is not big, or fierce, or good looking or rememberable. but he has this one thing he can do, ball himself into a ball, stick out his needles and even the wolf will leave him alone. as long as he can do this, he will throw off any wolf. he is still vulnerable, but he is so good at this, no other animal can do it, and as long as he does it no one will eat him.. and most of all, no wolf will try him... twice.

so anyway my theory, and its just a thery so dont beat me up:

1. learning = beginner

2. understanding = adv beginner/intermediate

3. applying/fighitng = advanced

4. mastery / perfection = expert / teachers / black belter

as teachers, we should try to achieve #4 for ourselves, and #4 for our students, and train them until they are equal or better than us.

[KarateEd]

Interesting read, I think your progression pretty much hits the mark. However, I wouldn't define mastery by comparing one's technique to those around him. I think that mastery can be achieved without having to do something better than 99% of the populace. For example, if I developed a special technique that was terribly effective and used it to defeat many opponents then it could be argued that I have mastery of that skill simply because I was the only one to know it. But, if I teach it to others, it becomes popular, and many people learn to use it as effectively as I, have I now lost my "mastery" because more than 1% of the people around me now know how to use my special technique?

[BDPulver]

I'd have to disagree on the mastery. Even now with 30 yrs under me I am still learning aspects of my art along with others. There is always something to be learned no matter what rank you might attain.

It follows a old chinese proverb I think where a student asked the master if he was to train one day a week how long till he became a master? Master replies 15 yrs.

Frustrated at that the student then goes what if I train 3 days a week, Master replies 30 yrs.

Furiated the student goes what if I practice every day of the year from sun up till sun down. THe master says with a smile 90 yrs.

Quietly the student reflects on this after a week and comes back to the master why would it take so long to become a master training harder then ever. The master looks at the student and says cause no matter how much you learn a skill to master you are still learning like I am of you.

Remembering this, we must remember that even though we want to achieve master. Do we ever truly achieve it ?

Even practicing on my own I discover techniques in a technique and try to write them in my journal. Its a circle of life we all face though.

[tallgeese]

I see the point of deliniating across these lines. I'm sure most of us have some form of heirarchy built into our teaching, even if it's very informal in nature. There are probibly some developed ones out there already.

My quibble is, as always, witht the mastery part of the equation. This is such a loaded work in ma circles it's almost not worth using.

If we do use it, I think it has to be looked at on the basis of a complete fighter, not just a single techinque. This is kind of how your post read, you might not have ment it that way. Any sort of "mastery level' would have to be based around all aspects of a ma-ist's skill set. No single movement or even sub-skill set should be enough.

It should also included all those intangables that a highly trained combatant uses to win fights. Mindset, ect. I leave out all that personal development stuff, but if a system is into that then it'd have to be considered as well.

It all goes in to making a competent fighter. A single movement that one can do well backed by no other skills appraching that one is just a side show in my mind.

[bushido_man96]

I think the heirarchy makes sense. I wouldn't use the work "perfection," for the fact that we just can't be perfect. Like tallgeese mentions, the term "mastery" can be difficult to describe, as well. It comes in so many forms, that it is hard to discern at times. Ali was a master fighter. But he may not have been a master trainer. However, in relation to the approach that you use as an example, this may be alright; its just a matter of finding what it is you can master.

However, there are different ways to come into this mastery. Presentation of techniques will usually follow a level of difficulty; simpler techniques before the tougher ones. Kind of like mathematics, though, the tougher techniques should build off of the simpler ones. For example, side kick, back leg side kick, spin side kick, jump side kick, etc. You probably shouldn't be doing a back leg side kick until you get your front leg side kick down, and on and on. However, I don't think that it is necessary to master the front leg side kick before moving up to the back leg side kick. I think that once you get to the understanding level, then you can begin to build on the skill learned, but you still continue to revisit the previous skill(s), in order to continue your improvement.

[ironsifu]

Interesting read, I think your progression pretty much hits the mark. However, I wouldn't define mastery by comparing one's technique to those around him. I think that mastery can be achieved without having to do something better than 99% of the populace. For example, if I developed a special technique that was terribly effective and used it to defeat many opponents then it could be argued that I have mastery of that skill simply because I was the only one to know it. But, if I teach it to others, it becomes popular, and many people learn to use it as effectively as I, have I now lost my "mastery" because more than 1% of the people around me now know how to use my special technique?

careful not to confuse "knowledge" with "skill", or even to confuse "skill" with "good skill". there are people who think you can "well round" your martial arts skill just by learning to grapple. just knowing is not good enough, the idea is to be better at what you do, than he is at what he does.

therefore, i can teach somebody my eskrima, who doesnt know my style, he still will not be able to whip me unless he is better at my own art than me. we become a master of a technique when our knowledge, skill and experience, catch up to each other. when skill deteriorates (from age or unuse), you are still a master, but i would call this a "political" master. the same way a teacher who sucks is treated as a master because he is old and has a lot of generations of students.

the "knowledge is skill" philosophy is a very new idea, and is the idea of young, inexperienced martial artist. remember when ninjitsu came out? people thought, "if i learn this, no one can beat me!" they said the same thing about Jeet Kune Do, Muay Thai, BRAZILIAN Jujitsu, Aikido (blame Steven Segal movies), Muay Boran (blame Ong Bak), and every other fad. sounds like some kid who still believe "american greatest hero suits" can be found in the local dojo...

[tallgeese]

There's certainly more to being a well rounded ma-ist than just learning to grapple, espically if you're talking about a pure sd realm. However, learing to grapple is a good tool thing to spend time in towards the advancment of being well rounded. As is learning weapons, small joint, ect.

I agree, skill is optimally important in being well rounded. However, knowlege is the forerunner of skill and an important step in the line.

Also, it's the concept of being well rounded that overcomes the fact that a guy wiht less experiance can stand with someone who has more in a certain area. I certainly wouldn't stay at a range where someone could outclass me. But it that's the only range you're practiced in, then you're losing that fight.

Now, if you spend time training in other avanues, then you can utilize a range of your choice and not your opponants. You don't need to beat a guy at his own game, you have to be able to impelment a game that he's not as good at as you. Hence the high value of cross training. The catch, to my mind at least, is that you have to learn to survive his game long enough to implement yours. This again, leads us back to cross trianing heavily to allow for this.

That's why I don't have a problem looking at what ever the new treand is. The thing is, you have to be able to realistically evaluate the effectivness of whatever it is and be able to implement it into your principles of conflict control. Time and repetivive experimentaion will show some to be very useful (bjj, jkd principles) and others to be less useful (most of what i've seen of ninjutsu) in a modern era.

It's not to beat all comers, it's to broaden your horizons of skills and hone your specific game to it's upmost.

[KarateEd]

careful not to confuse "knowledge" with "skill", or even to confuse "skill" with "good skill".

I think you missed my point, Ironsifu. I believe that mastery isn't really based on what those around you can do, but that it is criteria based.

For example, a fictitious Bob enters a local shooting contest. He shoots a tight group at 200 yards. In fact he sets a tournament record. Everyone considers him a master at that distance with that type of firearm because of his shooting skills. However, Bob moves onto the next highest level of competition. Now there are several people there capable of shooting just as tight a group as Bob did back at the local competition. Does Bob no longer have mastery of his skill because he is in the company of others that posses equal capability? I would say he still does, because he is able to shoot a group (i.e. meet the criteria) that is considered to be the mark of a master.

Mastery is often based off a predetermined set of objectives or goals, that, while being tweaked and adjusted over time to compensate for a general increase in skill among all competitors/practitioners, do not constantly change. Comparing one's abilities to another person's means that the measuring stick for mastery is constantly moving, not always for the better, based on what the majority of people can or can not do.

[bushido_man96]

Mastery is often based off a predetermined set of objectives or goals, that, while being tweaked and adjusted over time to compensate for a general increase in skill among all competitors/practitioners, do not constantly change. Comparing one's abilities to another person's means that the measuring stick for mastery is constantly moving, not always for the better, based on what the majority of people can or can not do.

I think this is what causes the main confusion, and thus is the biggest problem with using the term "mastery" in the Martial Arts. Taking your shooting example, there are scores established that determine your skill level; marksman, etc. In the Martial Arts, we don't have that. It becomes much more ambiguous. Sometimes, it is based off of an achieved rank, or years in service, so to speak. At other times, it can be related to competition skill level, like the Lopez's in Olympic TKD. So, we don't have a determining factor when it comes to "mastery" of the Martial Arts.

It would be easy to take someone like Bruce Lee, and use him as the measuring stick. But not everyone is going to be, or can be, Bruce Lee. It would also be like saying that every soldier that comes out of every society should be like the Spartans. It just won't happen, based on cultural biases and what is important to them or what they do.

[joesteph]

Taking your shooting example [Ed], there are scores established that determine your skill level; marksman, etc. In the Martial Arts, we don't have that. . . . Sometimes, it is based off of an achieved rank, or years in service, so to speak. At other times, it can be related to competition skill level . . . So we don't have a determining factor when it comes to "mastery" of the Martial Arts.

This is why I like using the terms "proficient" and "proficiency." The martial arts are subjective to an extent, and when the strong term "master" is used, it can more open to disagreement.

I believe that greater agreement can be reached in referring to someone as proficient in takedowns, joint-locks, sparring, forms, etc., than in referring to someone having mastered a technique. For me to receive a promotion to green belt, I have to prove in testing that I've achieved not a degree of mastery, but a degree of proficiency, in different areas expected of a green belt. I don't believe it's semantics; I believe there's more "wiggle room" when "proficiency" is used instead of "mastery."