Drawn Out Explanation!!

[OneKickWonder]

Adjusting explanations to the level of the listener is one of the things an instructor can only learn from experience and it is very often easier said than done. What might seem obvious and straightforward to and intermediate level, might be completely over the heads of novices or those with no prior knowledge.

Some instructors have a tendency to explain a little to much in minute details. It is too easy to forget that it is acceptable to leave out certain details and explain them later when the students reach a level which allows them to understand the finer points. Early on, one simplified or simplistic explanation is sufficient.

I think it's a difficult one.

I think sometimes instructors oversimplify to the point of actually lying. An example be in explaining the simple low block. Fist comes to opposite shoulder before driving down and across. Oh and we twist at the hips too. And our other hand comes across the body in counter motion. Because this generates power. And of course you can do all of this in less than the length of time it takes for a front snap kick to arrive.

All rubbish. I believe instructors explain it like this partly for simplicity and partly to encourage the development of many principles. Our lowly basic low block is so many things, but unless our attacker is delivering the world's slowest front kick, it is not a block.

How you've described a "simple low block", is that how your instructor teaches it?? If not, how does your instructor teach it?? And is how he teaches it, dependent on the student level??

Kind of. As you reach higher grades, gradually more truth is revealed. But what is sometimes frustrating is that the student realizes they're being lied to before the truth is revealed. For example, some of the more mature students have actual life experience to draw from, even if they have no martial arts experience. That's kind of the worst case, because those folks will realize that the blocks they are being taught can't possibly work in the application they've been told, but don't have the martial arts knowledge to see alternative applications yet, so they conclude they're being taught rubbish. I suspect this is probably why many don't stick around that long. Those that make it a couple of grades in generally stay the long haul, because they're either patient enough or because they spot things. Or perhaps just because they're having fun.

"lied to" are pretty strong words!!

The lower block doesn't work!?! Then why have it in the curriculum?? Why teach it, or something similar??

Sorry. I thought I'd already explained this.

The low block is an essential teaching tool in my opinion. There are so many principles involved that are core to the art. It does feel right if posture is not stable, it doesn't feel right of hips don't move right, if you time your breath wrong it will feel bad, it teaches elbow strikes, hammer fist strikes, escapes from various grips etc.

It is an excellent teaching tool.

It is not an effective blocking technique.

[sensei8]

Adjusting explanations to the level of the listener is one of the things an instructor can only learn from experience and it is very often easier said than done. What might seem obvious and straightforward to and intermediate level, might be completely over the heads of novices or those with no prior knowledge.

Some instructors have a tendency to explain a little to much in minute details. It is too easy to forget that it is acceptable to leave out certain details and explain them later when the students reach a level which allows them to understand the finer points. Early on, one simplified or simplistic explanation is sufficient.

I think it's a difficult one.

I think sometimes instructors oversimplify to the point of actually lying. An example be in explaining the simple low block. Fist comes to opposite shoulder before driving down and across. Oh and we twist at the hips too. And our other hand comes across the body in counter motion. Because this generates power. And of course you can do all of this in less than the length of time it takes for a front snap kick to arrive.

All rubbish. I believe instructors explain it like this partly for simplicity and partly to encourage the development of many principles. Our lowly basic low block is so many things, but unless our attacker is delivering the world's slowest front kick, it is not a block.

How you've described a "simple low block", is that how your instructor teaches it?? If not, how does your instructor teach it?? And is how he teaches it, dependent on the student level??

Kind of. As you reach higher grades, gradually more truth is revealed. But what is sometimes frustrating is that the student realizes they're being lied to before the truth is revealed. For example, some of the more mature students have actual life experience to draw from, even if they have no martial arts experience. That's kind of the worst case, because those folks will realize that the blocks they are being taught can't possibly work in the application they've been told, but don't have the martial arts knowledge to see alternative applications yet, so they conclude they're being taught rubbish. I suspect this is probably why many don't stick around that long. Those that make it a couple of grades in generally stay the long haul, because they're either patient enough or because they spot things. Or perhaps just because they're having fun.

"lied to" are pretty strong words!!

The lower block doesn't work!?! Then why have it in the curriculum?? Why teach it, or something similar??

Sorry. I thought I'd already explained this.

The low block is an essential teaching tool in my opinion. There are so many principles involved that are core to the art. It does feel right if posture is not stable, it doesn't feel right of hips don't move right, if you time your breath wrong it will feel bad, it teaches elbow strikes, hammer fist strikes, escapes from various grips etc.

It is an excellent teaching tool.

It is not an effective blocking technique.

To the bold type above...

If not, then the fault belongs to the practitioner, alone, and not of the style!! Albeit, our receive/deflection, to an outsider, might have the appearances of a block...and it's not, if ours is ineffective, then the fault belongs to said practitioner.

[OneKickWonder]

Adjusting explanations to the level of the listener is one of the things an instructor can only learn from experience and it is very often easier said than done. What might seem obvious and straightforward to and intermediate level, might be completely over the heads of novices or those with no prior knowledge.

Some instructors have a tendency to explain a little to much in minute details. It is too easy to forget that it is acceptable to leave out certain details and explain them later when the students reach a level which allows them to understand the finer points. Early on, one simplified or simplistic explanation is sufficient.

I think it's a difficult one.

I think sometimes instructors oversimplify to the point of actually lying. An example be in explaining the simple low block. Fist comes to opposite shoulder before driving down and across. Oh and we twist at the hips too. And our other hand comes across the body in counter motion. Because this generates power. And of course you can do all of this in less than the length of time it takes for a front snap kick to arrive.

All rubbish. I believe instructors explain it like this partly for simplicity and partly to encourage the development of many principles. Our lowly basic low block is so many things, but unless our attacker is delivering the world's slowest front kick, it is not a block.

How you've described a "simple low block", is that how your instructor teaches it?? If not, how does your instructor teach it?? And is how he teaches it, dependent on the student level??

Kind of. As you reach higher grades, gradually more truth is revealed. But what is sometimes frustrating is that the student realizes they're being lied to before the truth is revealed. For example, some of the more mature students have actual life experience to draw from, even if they have no martial arts experience. That's kind of the worst case, because those folks will realize that the blocks they are being taught can't possibly work in the application they've been told, but don't have the martial arts knowledge to see alternative applications yet, so they conclude they're being taught rubbish. I suspect this is probably why many don't stick around that long. Those that make it a couple of grades in generally stay the long haul, because they're either patient enough or because they spot things. Or perhaps just because they're having fun.

"lied to" are pretty strong words!!

The lower block doesn't work!?! Then why have it in the curriculum?? Why teach it, or something similar??

Sorry. I thought I'd already explained this.

The low block is an essential teaching tool in my opinion. There are so many principles involved that are core to the art. It does feel right if posture is not stable, it doesn't feel right of hips don't move right, if you time your breath wrong it will feel bad, it teaches elbow strikes, hammer fist strikes, escapes from various grips etc.

It is an excellent teaching tool.

It is not an effective blocking technique.

To the bold type above...

If not, then the fault belongs to the practitioner, alone, and not of the style!! Albeit, our receive/deflection, to an outsider, might have the appearances of a block...and it's not, if ours is ineffective, then the fault belongs to said practitioner.

Sorry. You are missing the point. It is sold as a block. It is not a block. It is a training tool. But it is not a block. You could, if your opponent is a combination of very slow and very inaccurate, use it to strike his leg while he is attempting, badly, to kick you, but it's not a block. You could use part of the motion to block a roundhouse kick to your jaw, but the actual blocking action is not a block.

I would challenge anyone to show me the bog standard low block, complete with all its setup, being used effectively in full speed sparring or combat. It doesn't happen. That's because it's not a block.

[singularity6]

I've thought the cross-before-block was a bit much... Our instructors claim it's to protect your vitals... I always felt it was for show, and not all that effective. But, I didn't say anything like that to them!

[sensei8]

Adjusting explanations to the level of the listener is one of the things an instructor can only learn from experience and it is very often easier said than done. What might seem obvious and straightforward to and intermediate level, might be completely over the heads of novices or those with no prior knowledge.

Some instructors have a tendency to explain a little to much in minute details. It is too easy to forget that it is acceptable to leave out certain details and explain them later when the students reach a level which allows them to understand the finer points. Early on, one simplified or simplistic explanation is sufficient.

I think it's a difficult one.

I think sometimes instructors oversimplify to the point of actually lying. An example be in explaining the simple low block. Fist comes to opposite shoulder before driving down and across. Oh and we twist at the hips too. And our other hand comes across the body in counter motion. Because this generates power. And of course you can do all of this in less than the length of time it takes for a front snap kick to arrive.

All rubbish. I believe instructors explain it like this partly for simplicity and partly to encourage the development of many principles. Our lowly basic low block is so many things, but unless our attacker is delivering the world's slowest front kick, it is not a block.

How you've described a "simple low block", is that how your instructor teaches it?? If not, how does your instructor teach it?? And is how he teaches it, dependent on the student level??

Kind of. As you reach higher grades, gradually more truth is revealed. But what is sometimes frustrating is that the student realizes they're being lied to before the truth is revealed. For example, some of the more mature students have actual life experience to draw from, even if they have no martial arts experience. That's kind of the worst case, because those folks will realize that the blocks they are being taught can't possibly work in the application they've been told, but don't have the martial arts knowledge to see alternative applications yet, so they conclude they're being taught rubbish. I suspect this is probably why many don't stick around that long. Those that make it a couple of grades in generally stay the long haul, because they're either patient enough or because they spot things. Or perhaps just because they're having fun.

"lied to" are pretty strong words!!

The lower block doesn't work!?! Then why have it in the curriculum?? Why teach it, or something similar??

Sorry. I thought I'd already explained this.

The low block is an essential teaching tool in my opinion. There are so many principles involved that are core to the art. It does feel right if posture is not stable, it doesn't feel right of hips don't move right, if you time your breath wrong it will feel bad, it teaches elbow strikes, hammer fist strikes, escapes from various grips etc.

It is an excellent teaching tool.

It is not an effective blocking technique.

To the bold type above...

If not, then the fault belongs to the practitioner, alone, and not of the style!! Albeit, our receive/deflection, to an outsider, might have the appearances of a block...and it's not, if ours is ineffective, then the fault belongs to said practitioner.

Sorry. You are missing the point. It is sold as a block. It is not a block. It is a training tool. But it is not a block. You could, if your opponent is a combination of very slow and very inaccurate, use it to strike his leg while he is attempting, badly, to kick you, but it's not a block. You could use part of the motion to block a roundhouse kick to your jaw, but the actual blocking action is not a block.

I would challenge anyone to show me the bog standard low block, complete with all its setup, being used effectively in full speed sparring or combat. It doesn't happen. That's because it's not a block.

While I might be missing the point, I believe we've differing opinions, for one reason or another, and that's OK because we're of different styles/methodologies/ideologies...and that too, is quite OK also.

I do agree, that said block or any block for that matter, are "sold" as a block for whatever their reason(s) are. I too, raise an eyebrow when I hear/read the word "block" because in Shindokan we never "block". I've never executed a "block" in 53 years, and wouldn't know how to, nor would I want to.

But, again, "lied to" are very strong words!!

[OneKickWonder]

Perhaps 'lied to' is a bit strong. But I tend to be quite literal in my thinking and if somebody tells me something and we both know it to be untrue, it is a lie.

I should be clear. I intend no disrespect to my instructors or anyone else. I kind of understand why they sometimes lie. Lying provides an opportunity to keep up a simplified pretense which might work for some, especially younger students with no life experience. I guess it's easier to explain to a child that you have to do this and this to generate the power needed to block a kick, than it would be to explain that this technique serves no purpose in itself but trains many different principles that form part of the foundation upon which everything else is built.

So I understand the potential reasons for the lies. But I also wish the custom would be to say 'it's this and more', and maybe introduce more practical applications earlier to keep the interest and to provide an opportunity to train these things earlier in partnered drills, rather than waiting til higher grade, and noticing that this new advanced technique you've just been taught is actually just principles from basics assembled into something simple yet powerful.

Or maybe not. Maybe half the magic and excitement comes from making these observations for ourselves.

[sensei8]

Perhaps 'lied to' is a bit strong. But I tend to be quite literal in my thinking and if somebody tells me something and we both know it to be untrue, it is a lie.

I should be clear. I intend no disrespect to my instructors or anyone else. I kind of understand why they sometimes lie. Lying provides an opportunity to keep up a simplified pretense which might work for some, especially younger students with no life experience. I guess it's easier to explain to a child that you have to do this and this to generate the power needed to block a kick, than it would be to explain that this technique serves no purpose in itself but trains many different principles that form part of the foundation upon which everything else is built.

So I understand the potential reasons for the lies. But I also wish the custom would be to say 'it's this and more', and maybe introduce more practical applications earlier to keep the interest and to provide an opportunity to train these things earlier in partnered drills, rather than waiting til higher grade, and noticing that this new advanced technique you've just been taught is actually just principles from basics assembled into something simple yet powerful.

Or maybe not. Maybe half the magic and excitement comes from making these observations for ourselves.

Quite fair enough!!

Has your instructor ever "lied" to you, especially when it came to what he was/has teaching/taught you??

That drawn out explanation potentially enforces the simplification, in that what a beginner is taught versus what a intermediate is taught versus what a advanced is taught versus what Senior Dan's are taught/teach varies how they are addressed.

[OneKickWonder]

Perhaps 'lied to' is a bit strong. But I tend to be quite literal in my thinking and if somebody tells me something and we both know it to be untrue, it is a lie.

I should be clear. I intend no disrespect to my instructors or anyone else. I kind of understand why they sometimes lie. Lying provides an opportunity to keep up a simplified pretense which might work for some, especially younger students with no life experience. I guess it's easier to explain to a child that you have to do this and this to generate the power needed to block a kick, than it would be to explain that this technique serves no purpose in itself but trains many different principles that form part of the foundation upon which everything else is built.

So I understand the potential reasons for the lies. But I also wish the custom would be to say 'it's this and more', and maybe introduce more practical applications earlier to keep the interest and to provide an opportunity to train these things earlier in partnered drills, rather than waiting til higher grade, and noticing that this new advanced technique you've just been taught is actually just principles from basics assembled into something simple yet powerful.

Or maybe not. Maybe half the magic and excitement comes from making these observations for ourselves.

Quite fair enough!!

Has your instructor ever "lied" to you, especially when it came to what he was/has teaching/taught you??

That drawn out explanation potentially enforces the simplification, in that what a beginner is taught versus what a intermediate is taught versus what a advanced is taught versus what Senior Dan's are taught/teach varies how they are addressed.

Without doubt. On all counts.

[MatsuShinshii]

Sorry. I thought I'd already explained this.

The low block is an essential teaching tool in my opinion. There are so many principles involved that are core to the art. It does feel right if posture is not stable, it doesn't feel right of hips don't move right, if you time your breath wrong it will feel bad, it teaches elbow strikes, hammer fist strikes, escapes from various grips etc.

It is an excellent teaching tool.

It is not an effective blocking technique.

Although you have a point in the teaching of proper mechanics this is not the intent of this technique at it's core. It is a receiving mechanism where by the practitioner is able to deflect/redirect while at the same time seize the attacking weapon and by which is able to control the opponents balance to his/her advantage. That's one.

It is also a means to facilitate a throw/takedown. By which the same mechanics are utilized to take an opponent down to the ground and thus giving you the advantage.

I could go on but I'm trying not to write novels this year. Call it better time management. I would be happy to give specifics if required.

The point is can this be used as a tool to teach proper mechanics/alignment? Yes. However if you study the Kata and it's applications, this is not the core intent of this movement.

And yes it is not a block. However it can be a strike if you understand depth, timing and proper targeting.

There's my 2 cents.

[sensei8]

Perhaps 'lied to' is a bit strong. But I tend to be quite literal in my thinking and if somebody tells me something and we both know it to be untrue, it is a lie.

I should be clear. I intend no disrespect to my instructors or anyone else. I kind of understand why they sometimes lie. Lying provides an opportunity to keep up a simplified pretense which might work for some, especially younger students with no life experience. I guess it's easier to explain to a child that you have to do this and this to generate the power needed to block a kick, than it would be to explain that this technique serves no purpose in itself but trains many different principles that form part of the foundation upon which everything else is built.

So I understand the potential reasons for the lies. But I also wish the custom would be to say 'it's this and more', and maybe introduce more practical applications earlier to keep the interest and to provide an opportunity to train these things earlier in partnered drills, rather than waiting til higher grade, and noticing that this new advanced technique you've just been taught is actually just principles from basics assembled into something simple yet powerful.

Or maybe not. Maybe half the magic and excitement comes from making these observations for ourselves.

Quite fair enough!!

Has your instructor ever "lied" to you, especially when it came to what he was/has teaching/taught you??

That drawn out explanation potentially enforces the simplification, in that what a beginner is taught versus what a intermediate is taught versus what a advanced is taught versus what Senior Dan's are taught/teach varies how they are addressed.

Without doubt. On all counts.

Then why stay his student??

I can't stand thieves and liars; I've no use for them, ever!!