Using Teaching Progressions When Appropriate

[bushido_man96]

This little rant stems from what I was seeing happening at the Traditional Class I was helping with earlier this week. A little background....

We have to kid orange belts that are likely going to be testing this weekend. They have to do one-steps. In the orange belt one-steps (rant on one-steps to be discussed at a later date) there is one that involves stepping in to take the attacker down. My understanding was that years ago, this was taught as a reap. When I learned it coming up, it was taught as a step behind the lead foot, and then taking another step while coming to the shoulder with the free hand, facilitating the takedown. More of a trip, but still effective, and you could feel how you get the attacker off balance and make it work. It finishes with a follow-up strike.

I had always seen it with the two steps into the takedown, until at my 3rd dan testing (I think) I had a guy do a full blown reap on me. I'm pretty good at breakfalling, so even though it caught me by surprise, I wasn't hurt by it or anything. I then learned that was the older way of doing it.

Back to present day, our current CI is brining the reap back, having the students learn it. I don't have too much of an issue with this, as far as adults go. I think it's fairly easy to get adults to understand the distance involved, and the mechanics involved in reaping the leg, and controlling themselves in a breakfall that is a bit more aggressive. But the problem I was seeing in class was with these two kids, who don't have a great understanding of setting up the distance, or creating the necessary momentum to do a good reap and takedown, botching this thing over and over. I personally think they would benefit more by doing the two steps into the takedown, and be able to finish the one-step properly, and not get anyone hurt.

This is where my thought on a teaching progression for certain techniques or applications comes in. I think it would be better for these kids, especially at this age AND rank, to learn the stepping version first, and get it down, and do that in a fluent manner. That way, they can do the entire one-step in a fluent manner, and not spend time looking down and fishing around with where their foot is supposed to go. As the kids go up in rank and get better at moving in general, progressing to the more advanced reaping motion would be more advisable.

I expressed my concerns about this to the CI, but he didn't seem interested. He said they were messing up the step/step motion, too. In my experience, teaching this was never difficult. I explained my thoughts on progressing to the more advanced version a few ranks later, but I don't believe it's going to change. I guess some of the schools, or maybe all of them, have gone back to this way of doing the technique, but I'm unsure as to why. Perhaps we have the only students that struggle, I don't know. I do think they can learn how to do it, but the key is, they haven't yet. And testing is this Saturday. I don't see much of an improvement coming, but I have been surprised at testings before.

Anyhow, rant over. That's my thought on a teaching progression. My analogy was that we don't teach a kid that does a crappy side kick to do a jump side kick, and expect it not to be crappy, too. Same as this; if they can't get the step behind and trip right, why are we expecting them to reap properly?

[Zaine]

Sounds like a clear lack of pedagogical standards. Something that I have noticed is that a lot of Martial Arts gyms lack pedagogy. The teacher is good at karate, and even good at teaching, but they lack the pedagogical foundation that helps students learn. There is a reason we don't start teaching kids algebra in Kindergarten. They have to learn the foundational skills first. The same is true for karate. It doesn't help a kid to start with a reap if there is an easier technique that will build up to it. You have to scaffold skills.

[sensei8]

Definitely a perfect example of being caught between a rock and a hard place with the CI being dead set on one way or another; a Catch-22.

Traditional teaching VS Progressive teaching is the choice of the CI, and therefore, the Student Body AND the Instructor Staff will have to make their own decision as to which method best suits them.

I choose the Traditional teaching method. Why? Throwing the student into the deep end without first teaching them how to swim is irresponsible to the Nth degree. There's a process when it comes to teaching any method.

Teaching means to teach not only the how but the why. If not, then teach whatever rank any whatever technique no matter the befallen results.

Baby steps not gigantic steps in teaching AND learning any MA techniques, well, in teaching and learning anything. Like John reminds us..."There is a reason we don't start teaching kids algebra in Kindergarten."

[Wastelander]

I'm assuming that the reap is o-soto-gari (major outer reap), judging by your description. For what it's worth, this is taught in Judo to children on a regular basis, and all of my instructors have taught it to children, as well. The trick to it is training the entry extensively, and you would likely need to remove it from your one-step drill for that. I generally start them with practicing it in the air, then on a person, but only the entry, then work the entry 3 times before doing the sweep, and then they can go straight through from entry to sweep. At that point, it could be put back into the drill.

Now, I don't know if the double-step trip would work better for getting students prepared for the reap, but I can say that it doesn't sound like there is really a learning phase for the technique outside of the drill, and that, to me, is probably the biggest issue. They're kids, and they're trying to remember an entire drill that ends with a completely new technique--that's a lot, all at once. If they were more familiar with the technique in isolation, it would be easier to put into the context of the drill.

Just my two cents, anyway

[aurik]

I'm assuming that the reap is o-soto-gari (major outer reap), judging by your description. For what it's worth, this is taught in Judo to children on a regular basis, and all of my instructors have taught it to children, as well. The trick to it is training the entry extensively, and you would likely need to remove it from your one-step drill for that. I generally start them with practicing it in the air, then on a person, but only the entry, then work the entry 3 times before doing the sweep, and then they can go straight through from entry to sweep. At that point, it could be put back into the drill.

When I trained in Judo many years ago, o-soto-gari was the very first throw we were taught, and you're right, it all comes down to the entry and the kuzushi (off-balancing). We do 3 different versions of that throw in Uechi-Ryu -- one where you step behind the opponent and then trip them over your leg, one is a proper o-soto-gari, and one where you kick the leg out from underneath them with a soktuto-geri (blade of foot kick). I'm not sure if I would call one throw harder than the others - they are just *different*. Maybe though it's because I generally work with more advanced students (as opposed to yellow belts).

When I was training in Judo, most of our training would involve the off-balancing, entry, and right UP to the moment of execution. So for o-soto-gari, we'd do the off-balancing, entry, and bring your leg to tap your opponent in the calf. Then your partner would do the same to you. Then lather, rinse repeat. You can get a lot of reps in that way without having to wait for each other to get up off the ground.

[DarthPenguin]

Yeah, i have also observed the above - the very first throw my son learnt at judo was osoto-gari (he was 4 at the time). They were taught it in the same manner as others have mentioned (working the entry, the off-balancing etc mainly, lots of reps of these).

When i learnt it at adult judo classes it was taught the same way : we worked about one completed osoto to the mat to about 10 uchikomi reps.

What i would say though is that if kids (indeed anyone) is going to be taught/practicing throws then they should be taught the appropriate breakfalls first.

I don't think it is reasonable to revert to a potentially more impactful method for the takedown without making sure that the uke can safely receive it first.

The response to your raised concerns seems a little sketchy though. I can't think of many instructors who would have responded with (in essence) "yeah but they do X and Y wrong too". Maybe they would say yes they do these parts wrong too but we are going to work on improving X first, then Y, then Z etc etc until it is right

I do agree with your side kick analogy here but i would say here it would be more like : if they can't do an osoto gari don't show them uchimata. Plus the trip if executed wrongly can sometimes lead to a knee injury for tori

[bushido_man96]

All good responses, thank you.

To the last three posts above in regards to osoto-gari; that I probably what I would liken it to, but not set up in the same way.

The problem starts in that the one-step begins with a step back and knife hand block to a stepping punch; the step back puts the kids out of range, and then they have to step in and perform the reaping motion. What is typical for our kids is that they start too far away on the one-steps (afraid of being too close to strikes), and that ruins everything from there forward.

Perhaps sometime I can do a video that would show both examples of the one-step and post a link for you all to view. It might help make more sense.

At any rate, it's not that I don't think these kids could learn how to do it. I think they can. But they aren't, and that comes down to the instructor. And I do think showing it with the step behind, which basically blocks the leg and facilitates forward motion into a trip, is a way to build up to the reap.