Perosnalised effectiveness

We've all seen the different systems, with proponents of each claiming that they have found the "best" way to defend yourself, should the need arise. But isn't one person's meat another's poison?

Shouldn't instructors be looking to teach the best methods for each oindividual client, rather than a "One size fits all" mentality?

Agreed! No good me trying to teach a one armed man to kick! It's each to their own.

Of course it's the principles that are important more than the individual technique.

While thats true you cant teach what you dont know, I have not met many communities where cross training is so prevailent within its members, well maybe MMA, but you get my point.

A TMA instructor maybe have some latitude in what they teach, but most places have a syllabus to work through hence everyone has to be taught everything.

In an ideal world things would be taught as individually as possible, but again how can you teach a class, all individually?

I agree that with most places have a syllabus to work to which means everyone is taught everything, but this doesn't mean everyone has to use everything. Each student will use from the syllabus what they are most comfortable with and can apply.

Within my kickboxing class, all the students may practice the same kicks and punches on the pads, but they will all do their own thing when they spar. So although you can't teach a the whole class as individuals all the time, you can allow and assist each person to find the best option for them.

I hope this makes some sense!!

I agree with you Ian, but for eveyone to find the techniques they like they have to be taught things to see what the prefer was my point.

Also I have tended to find that my tastes for what I prefer have changed over time as my mindset has, so perhaps another reason to go wide instead of deep?

Shouldn't instructors be looking to teach the best methods for each oindividual client, rather than a "One size fits all" mentality?

That is okay when teaching on a one to one basis but if you have a class of a dozen students you simply dont have time to devote to each individual, so you end up teach a core skill set, it's then up to each person to isolate the best methods for themselves.

Through regular training you can help them to adapt but it takes time and requires commitment from the student, something that is often lacking.



Alan

From reading these posts again I get the impression we all basically agree with each other.

I think most people start with going broader, adding more techniques etc, then you reach a point where you actually go narrower because you trim certain things off that you wouldn't use or don't like. You then increase understadning and go deeper.

It also depends on whether or not you are learning the art for what it is rather than just for self defence purposes. Half our sylabus would disappear overnight if we only practiced the high percentage techniques.

To me, if it aint high percentage, they why train it? A technique must surely have a good chance of success if it to be considered viable, and if it aint really viable, is it worth learning or spending time practicing it when that time could be better used?

Shouldn't instructors be looking to teach the best methods for each oindividual client, rather than a "One size fits all" mentality?

Personally I think we should be concentrating on the principals that techniques are based on, not the actual technique itself, as the techniques are only an extension of the principals.

If we look at the principals of striking, you can practice numerous different strikes by just concentrating on the basic core movement relating to power generation. If you can hit hard with a fist, it's the same movement being made if you hit with a palm heel or with an elbow.. The principal for power generation doesn't change, only whatever you hit them with!! It's the same for bouncing a ball.. We don't use different techniques depending on what type of ball we bounce, we work with the principal of rebound to differing degrees dependant on the type of ball being bounced and how it rebounds off of the surface..

By concentrating on the principals you are teaching each person on an individual basis, as they then have to find how those principals best fit their body type, abilities etc with help from the instructor of course..

you should really take the initiative your self.

you don't go in for a specific style if you know that style isn't going to suit you and your body type.

but really you should be taught everything then you filter out what you feel you don't need.
at least then you have the knowledge and can make an intelligent choice.

The idea that some method or technique MAY not have the percentage effectiveness making it invalid intraining is a tad short sighted.

I have been teaching since 1974 ish and training since 1961..

In that time I have taught many techniques many times THAT I PERSONALLY DISLIKE.. however that is done because I feel the technique MAY hold some usefulness to someone else.

We have to be careful of 'filtering out' techniques we dislike if that is the ONLY criteria for the exclusion.

I usualyy say something on the lines of " I dont use this move, and am not a fan of it .. but some of you MIGHT do .. so try it "
Then and only then should they dump it

Each move MUST 'fit in' with the principle its trying to convey, if the correct principles are still apllied, then that move is valid.

The 'personalisation' of techniques is an important aspect of progression.. but when the principle/s is getting lost, its no longer a valid move IN THAT CONTEXT.

Think LEFT JAB in the Ring ... Hard straight left on the street.

Similar but done for totally different reasons, hence different principles have been applied

you should really take the initiative your self.

Totally agree with you there... You should be working harder at home than at your place of training as it were. Usually easier said than done right enough..

but really you should be taught everything then you filter out what you feel you don't need.
at least then you have the knowledge and can make an intelligent choice.

Here again I agree with you, if you're talking about principals. To give an example from outside combat. I play the drums and have done for nearly 20 years now.. In all that time I've only ever learnt two principals, but from those two principals I can play pretty much whatever my imagination can conjure up on whatever drum or cymbal...

If we relate that back to combat, we can look at the different methods that we can generate power.. Some people use the drop step type method, others the method of gathering the power, like throwing a stone.. Again, we choose the principal we like, then we can choose whatever tool we want to put on the end of it. I personally like open hand strikes, but to be honest with you, I don't think the actual technique matters, it's the principal behind it. From learning the principal you can create your own techniques spontaneously, just the same way that I would on the drums, reacting to the music and not being bound by the limitations of technique, but expressing myself through the principals...

Hope I made sense!!

Monty, you do make sense.
And I'm a concepts-and-principles guy myself.

However, not everyone learns the same way.
And it takes a certain level of experience and familiarity with a body of techniques before one is comfortable extrapolating from principles.
For myself, I like to say "show me 2-3 examples of that concept", then I'm pretty sure I'm working from it correctly.

As far as personalization:
Fact - different techniques work for different people. And sometimes people take to techniques that you might not expect them to.

A good martial artist has already mentally filtered the syllabus of techniques to the ones that work well for him.

A good teacher keeps all the rest of those techniques in mind so that he can share them anyway, as some of them will work for others.

A really good teacher can teach "around" his preferences and body type.
My Eskrima teacher is about 5'7". One of our senior students is about 6'3"
Guro Jon will often say things like "well, I would do it this way, Gabe would probably want to do something more like this other thing".
Or "someone like me facing someone like Gabe might do X. Gabe, facing someone like me, would try to do Y".

JK

Good point JK.

My escrima teacher is 6'3 and his girl friend/assistant instructor is 5'3... so you get a good idea on how to apply the concepts.

Hi JK.

Good reply mate... I agree with you 100% ....

i used to do judo when i was younger and never rated tomenagi as a throw (roll on your back stick foot in stomach of opponent and flip them over. as seen in many films). anyway i moved to a different area and club and while doing randori i got flipped all over the place by this guy. he specialised in that throw and could do it from literally anywhere even when you knew it was coming!! ok so not a great throw for the street but it goes to show that a technique that i didnt rate highly had me on my ass and scratching my head for a good many sessions.

If you have a class of a dozen students you simply dont have time to devote to each individual, so you end up teach a core skill set, it's then up to each person to isolate the best methods for themselves.

That's one of things I remember from my Pencak Silat classes. They really were one size fits all and most students never ever tried, nor where they encouraged, to field strip the art. Actually, deviating from the curriculum was a big no-no.

Luciano