Teaching strategy in MMAs

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/10/05 02:46 PM

Just wondering what overall teaching strategy you'd give a newbie to your Art... in other words, would you first build on a new student's strengths?, or would you mostly work on their weaknesses?...or just keep to a curriculum without worrying much about body type, strength, etc.?

or maybe even a combination of all...I guess an easier way to ask the question would be...at what point in training at your gym would that training become 'individualized'? and is there any set curriculum where you train?

Thanks.
Posted by: Dereck

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/10/05 03:48 PM

I'm not a teacher but in our system everybody is taught the same curriculum. Being a newbie your strengths would not be apparent as of yet so it would be hard to work on these, plus individualizing workouts would take up too much time in class that would take away from others.

I've only had the opportunity to work with one Instructor and recently with another in a class of about 30. In my current training I found I worked mainly on my strengths for years and now am at a point where I realize I need to work harder on my weaknesses. Both have to be developed and each person I believe has to work in what ever manner they can. It is kind of like arm bars, or a finishing move … these are strengths and they say once you find one that works you work on it to make it better. Once you have accomplished this then train on other ones. But equally weaknesses are just that and must be improved on so that you can become better. Mine is from the bottom. I don't mind being there but I need to work a whole lot more from this perspective if I truly ever want to become a balanced grappler or more then one dimensional.

I believe the Instructors with more then a few students have to teach as whole the basics that everybody can understand. If they see something in you then they can point things out easier later … or may ask you to stay late … or invite you to join other classes to better improve on your skills.
Posted by: MattJ

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/10/05 05:24 PM

It seems to me that most MMA training is taught in a similar manner to traditional style arts (ie; starting with a given skillset working the basics).

Where a say, Shotokan stylist may work stances as a beginner, a MMA beginner may work groundfighting positions. As the Shotokan stylist learns more advanced footwork, the MMA may learn "circuit drills" (going from being in the guard to passing to sidemount to mount, etc).

But the overall strategy is the same. Build a good foundation, and expand on that.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/10/05 05:33 PM

Quote:

Just wondering what overall teaching strategy you'd give a newbie to your Art... in other words, would you first build on a new student's strengths?, or would you mostly work on their weaknesses?




I’m assuming that a “newbie” is someone that doesn’t have a lot of skills to begin with. Natural proclivities not withstanding, I’d still teach the basics of standup, clinch and ground fighting. You can never work the basics too often.

Teaching people how to fight is not the rocket science that MANY people try and make it out to be, Swing your arm to hit, swing your leg to kick. No, I’m not saying it’s quite THAT easy but I’m sure you get my point.

Teaching someone to throw straight punches and to sprawl isn’t that much to ask. Nor is basic guard work for defense when the objective is getting back to one’s feet. Focus on those few things and build on that as skill increases.


Quote:


...or just keep to a curriculum without worrying much about body type, strength, etc.?




Always. And that is because it’s all just basic stuff to begin with. Fundamentals HAVE to be in place regardless of body type and natural proclivities anyway because everything is built on them. The individual can and will then develop his own natural style of applying those fundamentals.

Quote:


or maybe even a combination of all...I guess an easier way to ask the question would be...at what point in training at your gym would that training become 'individualized'? and is there any set curriculum where you train?





I think I’ve answered this already but, it’s individualized when as people master the basics. And it’s ALL basic - even the ground/submission game (which is admittedly more sophisticated technically) is basic in terms of what you can apply within an MMA format.



-John
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/11/05 03:18 AM

ditto what JKogas said.

It is not rocket science. Everyone starts off with basics.

Basic Striking, Basic Blocking and Covering.

Basic Clinching.

Basic Takedowns, Basic Counters.

Basic Ground Offense, Basic Ground Defense.

Only after students have a solid understanding of the basics and have a need to specialize and focus on an area, do they do so. Otherwise, everyone improves at their own rate and everyone else helps.
Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/11/05 10:54 PM

Thanks for your answers.
Thats one of the things I like, less formality. I'm pretty sure if TMA's incorporated a more casual system of instruction, it would benefit - I was never really a fan of curriculum in the way it is generally thought of. curriculum to me is just a way to remember a list of things to teach, not as a checklist for the student.

With a published curriculum, the students tend to focus on the items on the list instead of the principals. 'lets see, I need to know kata X and techniques Y&Z for my next color belt'. seems flat.

Thats the kind of answer I'd get if I asked a commercial TMA this thread's same question. I'd get a curriculum list of techniques. what you guys answered is with principals... Striking, Blocking, Covering, Clinching, Takedowns, etc.
makes sense to me.

Thats the kind of observation I was hoping for in this thread... thanks again.
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/12/05 04:07 AM

I think the main reason for principles over techniques is the element of "Game". In MMA or BJJ programs, the goal is not so much an accumulation of techniques or moves as it is getting better at the "Game" and seeing tangible proof of their improvement in a competetive environment. Performance above all else.

The worst thing you could do to MMA/ BJJ is take away the sparring/ alive element. It would become just another syllabus of techniques.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/12/05 09:16 AM

Fletch is right ON with his last post!

In martial arts (FAR too often) people become so focused on learning "more", trying to accumulate and learn the techniques for their next belt or whatever. I believe this focus on obtaining rank (particularly through ‘static testing’) is the very downfall right there of so many martial artists.

Learning techniques is not the same as developing skill (game). As sparring and rolling against resisting partners is so heavily emphasized (as it should be), if you’re NOT focused on developing your game and are just learning techniques instead, you’ll fall behind VERY quickly and everyone will bypass you in ability.

Many of the better fighters don’t KNOW a bunch of techniques but are instead masters at controlling a fight and moving toward their area of skill. In MMA for example, a good wrestler with an excellent double leg takedown can beat guys easily with that one technique. Once they get their opponent down, they can then maintain that control and simply beat their opponent relentlessly.

Its always better to be good at a little than to suck at a lot.


-John
Posted by: BrianS

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/12/05 06:47 PM

Quote:

In martial arts (FAR too often) people become so focused on learning "more", trying to accumulate and learn the techniques for their next belt or whatever. I believe this focus on obtaining rank (particularly through ‘static testing’) is the very downfall right there of so many martial artists.






Yep! So sad,but it's about money. The more techniques,forms,belts,etc,the more money.

Quote:

Its always better to be good at a little than to suck at a lot.





Too true. Most of the good fighters I know of use a handful of techniques they do well,everyone's is differen't. When we learn a vast of array of techniques we find that some are great at some and suck at others,but we have more to choose from that way.
Posted by: rideonlythelabel

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/12/05 08:21 PM

Quote:

Its always better to be good at a little than to suck at a lot.





Balance is the key here. If you only know a handful of technique, you limit your options. You may end up having to use the wrong tool for the job if you don't know many different techniques, because another technique would have been better suited for that particular situation, but you didn't know it. Of course I agree there's no point in learning a kazillion techniques if you can't do them properly in a live environment, I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Too much isn't better than too little, and that door swings both ways.
Posted by: Fletch1

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/13/05 03:30 AM

My toolbox analogy is as follows:

As far as the right tool for the right job? If you knew that you had to fix something in a hurry and your safety or life depended on it, I'm betting that you would use a Hammer and/ or a Pair of Pliers, because either you are going to hold something really tight and try to twist it off or you are going to pound it. Maybe a little of both.

You won't have time to pull out that 11/16 socket from a drawer full of parts. Learn to do more with less. fighting and defending yourself against real aggression is less about precision and more about leverage balance and pressure.
Posted by: JKogas

Re: Teaching strategy in MMAs - 11/13/05 12:24 PM

Fletch is the man.... (if you guys haven't figured it out yet)



-John