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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.