Student(s) That Argue!!

[sensei8]

What do YOU, the instructor, do when a student(s) argues with YOU against sound and proven technique(s) that are universally tactical and effective?

I hope that nobody will suggest to me that there's no such thing as a universal technique(s). I'm quite certain that YOUR style of the MA has a numerous technique(s) within the curriculum that's unquestionably universal in both the stand-up and ground venue/arena. This is what I'm referring to in my question.

Here's what I do...

I'll remind them that it's ok to question everything, but it has to be done in a respectful tone, and not in a demanding and/or demeaning tone. Why? Because I'm the Sensei, and they're not!! I want my students to support their assumptions with an open mind because one of us might be wrong. I'll calmly explain it/them to my student in a clear and understandable description, and as many times as necessary. I don't attack my student with disrespectful words, but, the student and I will address the problem together until the student starts to have their AHA moment, no matter how long it might take.

Then when that doesn't work and my student still want to argue with me in a disrespectful tone, then I'll SHOW my student just WHY this proven effective technique works. I'll guarantee that my student at that point will come up baptized a believer. No, I won't embarrass my student, nor will I hurt my student, no, I'll just SHOW my student just how effective 'it' is because actions speak much louder than words.

What might you do?

[DWx]

Haha often that student is me in our classes although a respectful heated discussion is probably a more accurate description and me and my instructor tend to argue the finer points where there might be variations on how to do it.

Having said that, if it's something that is most definitely done only one way for a specific reason, actions speak louder than words so I'd give them a hands-on demonstration.

[darksoul]

When a student argues with me about a technique? If it's an adult, I tell him to punch in and I demonstrate with slightly less restraint

[JusticeZero]

I don't think i've had to deal with that. I think part of this is because I already disclaimer all of the things I demonstrate; after all, I can't actually ensure that they "will" work in practice, only that they are valid techniques that work as advertised given the inputs that we have as part of the exercise.

I show them "This is how we WANT it to work and what we are doing to their balance and ability to move; this is how it will still be fairly useful if not everything goes according to plan, here's how if you just whiffed through the movement and missed completely, you're still in an advantageous position and here are a few nasty things you can do from there.."

All my students know, either through practice or watching me do some impromptu improvisational tweaks in the middle of a drill when the attack wasn't quite as expected or because I tell them now and then, that there is no surefire 100% technique. We show techniques that can work pretty well and that leave you able to react when things get changed up on you.

I hope that nobody will suggest to me that there's no such thing as a universal technique(s). I'm quite certain that YOUR style of the MA has a numerous technique(s) within the curriculum that's unquestionably universal in both the stand-up and ground venue/arena.

Could you give an example of what you do (or do not) mean by referring to these "universal techniques"? Do you mean "core", "bread and butter", "always works" or what? (All three of those have different meanings.)

[sensei8]

I hope that nobody will suggest to me that there's no such thing as a universal technique(s). I'm quite certain that YOUR style of the MA has a numerous technique(s) within the curriculum that's unquestionably universal in both the stand-up and ground venue/arena.

Could you give an example of what you do (or do not) mean by referring to these "universal techniques"? Do you mean "core", "bread and butter", "always works" or what? (All three of those have different meanings.)

First of all, I'm of the opinion that NOTHING always works!!

Yes, I'm referring to CORE...Kihon. I've no idea what "bread and butter" indicates away from the dinner table.

[JusticeZero]

Core is closest to fundamental principles, bread and butter is a staple, but may not be the most theoretically central technique. For instance, if you emphasize a slip and sweep in your forms and try to build your tactics toward slipping and using it to lead into a sweep, then that is core. If in practice you throw a lot of jabs while you are trying to get an opportunity to use one of your slips and sweeps, then the jab is "bread and butter", but might not be "core".

What sort've techniques are you encountering disagreement on? Do people argue about basic punches and kicks, or is it, as I have seen so far, mostly limited to "finishing" takedowns and manipulations?

[sensei8]

Core is closest to fundamental principles, bread and butter is a staple, but may not be the most theoretically central technique. For instance, if you emphasize a slip and sweep in your forms and try to build your tactics toward slipping and using it to lead into a sweep, then that is core. If in practice you throw a lot of jabs while you are trying to get an opportunity to use one of your slips and sweeps, then the jab is "bread and butter", but might not be "core".

What sort've techniques are you encountering disagreement on? Do people argue about basic punches and kicks, or is it, as I have seen so far, mostly limited to "finishing" takedowns and manipulations?

Nothing particular, and over the years, students will argue over just about anything; runs a wide gambit.

Funny thing is that I never get any arguments over Tuite, and that's because...to learn Tuite, one has to "experience" Tuite first hand and up close...this eliminates arguments dead in their tracks.

[AikiGuy]

I tend to explain things repeatedly to avoid these types of arguments so I don't get this much.

Although if/when it does happen, the first thing I do with a loud or disrespectful student is to tell him in a very calm voice to lower his tone or something similar. I insist on keeping things calm and civil and I will not even entertain the idea of a disrespectful or heated debate in my class.

If the student continues, I cut him off and repeat the request for him to calm down and tell him that it's the only way we can talk about it. I would never give him an answer until he asks in an acceptable way. This is a great way to show the rest of the class how questions should be asked and it prevents other students from doing things the wrong way in the future.

Of course as others have already stated, I find that showing the technique the proper way on the non-believer always stops the questions right away. When he/she tries his idea on me and I stop it in seconds, it speaks volumes.

[Groinstrike]

Questioning in our group is encouraged. Usually if someone has an argumentative attitude about something, they are thrown in for a couple rounds of sparring and then they seem to be much more respectful.

[bushido_man96]

I think any technique offered up should be able to pass a "bull" test. However, not every student should challenge every technique at any given time.

I think its important as an instructor to take into consideration when the argument is made, and by whom. If its a newer student that perhaps hasn't been able to get it down yet, then it may take more time to convince them to see it, because they may not be doing quite right yet. If its someone with experience, and does not like or trust the technique, then that opens up opportunity for discussion and application.