Should you start 2 men training or solo training first?

[PlumDragon]

EarthDragon,

Thanks for offering that detail about your curriculum. It sounds like you have a well structured curriculum that is implemented well and yields positive results.

Personally, Ive spent many many years in similar setups, admittedly many probably not implemented as well as yours; but some were very similar and very good.

I dont think this type of training is counterproductive, but my biggest personal dilemma with these types of programs is that while time spent working on solo material is worthwile for getting better at developing attributes associated with solo material, my experience is that it reduces the speed at which many people learn to handle the pressure and stress of a partner/attacker attempting to do harm.

One of my teachers likes to say, "Who are you under stress"? For me, the byproduct of training solo is being good at solo drills, ie its a great time to focus inward, work on posture, movement, etc etc. But when stress is applied in a 2-man situation, things that may be well refined in solo work become more sloppy and the mind tends to forget some of the lessons it has learned, so these things must be re-programmed under the domain of stress.

These 2 domains of training, while having some important traits in common, are somewhat exclusive from a neurological/neuromuscular perspective. What I am ultimately talking about here is efficiency of the training method; I personally feel that working on 2-man drills (from day-1) with pressure will yeild faster results than splitting time between the 2, or working just solo drills, because of specificity of training.

Now, with that said, I just want to follow it up with the fact that I dont discount your curriculum or what youre doing. We all do our training differently and as much as some may argue, many of us get great results despite others saying it is wrong, etc. What Im saying, is that I respect your method of training and hope I dont come across as saying there is not value in it...here, friendly conversation, sharing of ideas and seeing value in other regimens by gaining an understanding of other methods; thats what its all about! =)

a quikc outline of our system is set up like this....

sash levels
10 body cordinations,
8 of each.....fists, palms, elbows, blocks, hands and stances.
8 of each kick high, low knees and kick blocks.
5 forms.

these are all solo to train the self.

then the next 5 silver levels take these solo techniques and add the element of a partner for fighting application. the 5th silver is throwing appication.

then the next 5 gold levels take the the application and add throwing and joint locking.


as you can see you take the orginal solo training and add 2 person application then add higher level 2 person application and finally finishing techniques.

for this to be executed properly YOU MUST HAVE YOUR SOLO TECHNIQUES PERFECT FIRST.. or the 2 person application wont work correctly.... this is why it is necessary to perfect your solo's first before you add the element of a partner.
This is not to be confuSed with working with someone in class i.e blocking drilling forearm and shin conditioning.. push hands etc etc.

most the the experiecend Martial artists that see how our system is set up compliments it constantly as it makes the most sense, and again is a constant buiding of the previous level while adding things as you go. I have seen a lot of cirriculums and styles out there that are all over the place and dont have a constant upward direction.. they go from 2 person back to solo, teach forms without application, teach weapons after 2 man application and so on....

[EarthDragon]

plum dragon.
I see your point and it makes sense in many ways
.
I have found that when students rush into 2 person training before they have a good solo foundation they tend to spar very sloppy with swinging arms, no footwork and blocking outside of thier body with is a waste of time and energy.
I agree that training withsomeone is a must for timing and distance but this should be done after your body has correct movement.

I still look at sparring as not real combat and it can do more harm then good and instill horrible habits esp if they dont have a godo sefl foundation fo movment.
I sparred a top ranked TKD BB and when he came at me with a kick and shot in foot swept and took him to the ground. he said youy cant do that its illegal.. I had to laugh. I asked him to just cross hands no feet...... he declined....... I asked him to start on the ground....... he declined. I said if you cant fight what are you teaching at your school... he said sparring is fighting..... I said the next time i fight i will have to tell my assaliant that..

So while i find 2 person drills a must thier is a time and place.. plus with the longer cirriculm it weeds out the weak and the guys who just joined wanting over night results. I am too busy for these undedicated students

[PlumDragon]

EarthDragon, I think we may have found our common ground:

Sloppy sparring as you spoke of is definitely rampant; and youre right, a great deal of it is a direct result of sloppy, unpolished basics. What I think many of these sorts of schools lack, is a set of training controls that allow the student to enter the 2-man settings and still maintain proper structure, control, etc. and this, I must admit, is very difficult to find. But there is a method that allows it to work...

So, optimally speaking, you have 2 ways of approaching training:

- Train all the solo stuff so that it is well-refined, then re-train it as 2-man drills.
- Train 2-man but start with only the simplest and most basic of moves/techniques/concepts and incrementally add to that structure only when the student can properly execute each piece properly.

I suppose its possible, and even likely, which way is quicker may boil down to the individual...

This has been a good discussion, glad to have bene a part of it!

[sanjuro_ronin]

EarthDragon, I think we may have found our common ground:

Sloppy sparring as you spoke of is definitely rampant; and youre right, a great deal of it is a direct result of sloppy, unpolished basics. What I think many of these sorts of schools lack, is a set of training controls that allow the student to enter the 2-man settings and still maintain proper structure, control, etc. and this, I must admit, is very difficult to find. But there is a method that allows it to work...

So, optimally speaking, you have 2 ways of approaching training:

- Train all the solo stuff so that it is well-refined, then re-train it as 2-man drills.
- Train 2-man but start with only the simplest and most basic of moves/techniques/concepts and incrementally add to that structure only when the student can properly execute each piece properly.

I suppose its possible, and even likely, which way is quicker may boil down to the individual...

This has been a good discussion, glad to have bene a part of it!

How do you explain MA that have no solo drills other than those that involve "conditioning" or attributes building?

[PlumDragon]

Hi sanjuro,
Im not sure I understand your question: My position throughout this thread is that I AM an advocate 2-man drills and I feel that most schools that train solo often are not maximizing growth. I think you and I speak the same languge here: Specificity of Training...

However, I felt that it was important, not knowing anything about Earth Dragon, to not attempt to discount his methodology, and try to find the common ground.

[EarthDragon]

sanjuro
How do you explain MA that have no solo drills other than those that involve "conditioning" or attributes building?

I would consider these more of a sport than an art. ie kickboxing, judo but i would have to say every martial art must have to train the self at one point. I dont know of any martial art that has no solo training...

I have just seen to many people out there that think they can fight in a class room siutation but not in the street.. this comes from not have a good understand of what your doing befoe they try sparring. in a contriooled environment this can instill bad habits.....I feel this gives people a false sense of confidence.

ie balance is something that needs to be done on your own solo training. distance and timing are something that are 2 man.. without balance distance and timing are useless. the cart before the horse syndrom.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hi sanjuro,
Im not sure I understand your question: My position throughout this thread is that I AM an advocate 2-man drills and I feel that most schools that train solo often are not maximizing growth. I think you and I speak the same languge here: Specificity of Training...

However, I felt that it was important, not knowing anything about Earth Dragon, to not attempt to discount his methodology, and try to find the common ground.

I agree, mine was just a simple question, that's all.

[sanjuro_ronin]

sanjuro
How do you explain MA that have no solo drills other than those that involve "conditioning" or attributes building?

I would consider these more of a sport than an art. ie kickboxing, judo but i would have to say every martial art must have to train the self at one point. I dont know of any martial art that has no solo training...

I have just seen to many people out there that think they can fight in a class room siutation but not in the street.. this comes from not have a good understand of what your doing befoe they try sparring. in a contriooled environment this can instill bad habits.....I feel this gives people a false sense of confidence.

ie balance is something that needs to be done on your own solo training. distance and timing are something that are 2 man.. without balance distance and timing are useless. the cart before the horse syndrom.

Art is subjective, one man's art and all that, to say that Judo is not an art is, well, presumptious, but lets not go there for now.
While boxing and KB and MT and Wrestling and BJJ and many other systems have "solo drills", the vast majority is trained, as soon as possible, with a partner.
Most solo training is equipment based.
Fact is, practioners of these systems tend to have a "faster learning curve" in there systems in terms of functional fighting, would you agree ?

[CFT]

I would consider these more of a sport than an art. ie kickboxing, judo but i would have to say every martial art must have to train the self at one point. I dont know of any martial art that has no solo training...

I think s_r was asking your opinion on arts that teach the core skill via 2-man interactive drills rather than say solo forms work. I would say wrestling, grappling, judo, etc. falls under this banner. The solo training in these arts would be along the lines of strength and conditioning exercises.

Personally if I was in a training environment I would prefer to spend the majority of the time with interactive drills. A smaller proportion to be spent in "setting up the homework".

EDIT: ooops ... looks like s_r has beat me to it.

[EarthDragon]

Sanjuor,
Art is subjective, one man's art and all that, to say that Judo is not an art is, well, presumptious, but lets not go there for now.
While boxing and KB and MT and Wrestling and BJJ and many other systems have "solo drills", the vast majority is trained, as soon as possible, with a partner.
Most solo training is equipment based.
Fact is, practioners of these systems tend to have a "faster learning curve" in there systems in terms of functional fighting, would you agree ?

I would say that aikijitsu and jujitsu is an art and judo is the sport version of that art . I dont think that presumptious.

I totaly agree with what you saying. and If you consider the sport side or versions of these arts then yes. I would say that learning a complete system obviuoulsy would be different.

But you must realize that while the learning curve may be faster... faster is not usually better. ie learning the anatomy before learning joint locks gives you a far better understanding of how to manipulate the joints to properly lock.

call me a traditionalist but I have found that my students, in the long run need to have a have a more defind and solid understanding of themselves first before they understand others....

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would say that aikijitsu and jujitsu is an art and judo is the sport version of that art . I dont think that presumptious.

If you don't see that art in Judo, that's fine, to each their own, no hard feelings.

I totaly agree with what you saying. and If you consider the sport side or versions of these arts then yes. I would say that learning a complete system obviuoulsy would be different.

Define complete.

But you must realize that while the learning curve may be faster... faster is not usually better. ie learning the anatomy before learning joint locks gives you a far better understanding of how to manipulate the joints to properly lock.

call me a traditionalist but I have found that my students, in the long run need to have a have a more defind and solid understanding of themselves first before they understand others....

I can see your point and it can be valid.
In regards to your example of a joint lock, I have never seen anyone taught it without being taught the "why's" of how it works.
Not sure how you are gonna learn a joint lock solo though...

[lkfmdc]

I would say that aikijitsu and jujitsu is an art and judo is the sport version of that art . I dont think that presumptious.

it doesn't make you presumptious, it just makes you wrong in the sense that Judo is not designed for "sport"... ie you are confusing "randori" and "shiai" with sport

[taai gihk yahn]

when I first started studying FMA stick-fighting, I did everything solo for quite a while before partnering with someone else; similarly, when I started teaching it, that's how I did it at first - inevitably, I'd spend a lot of time correcting people's "form" in the air; and then, when we got around to partner work, I had to re-correct it all over again; and it wasn't painless - more like pulling teeth; then, at one point, I started right away doing partner work with people - I mean, from the first #1 strike; and lo and behold: not only did their form improve in general, it did so more rapidly and with less regression; and they learned more in a faster time, and didn't need re-correction after moving from solo to partner; also, when I would then occasionally have them do something solo "in the air", their form was fine, because it wasn't theoretical, it was based on functional interaction; of course, the caveat is that the partnering was always with me, not another beginner, so they got constant feedback and a relatively correct example to follow;
BTW, most of the people I have done this with with good results have been kids ages ~9 - 13...

I have also started teaching taiji push-hands "cold" to people who never did the form, and have had similarly good results - again, that is partially because I have my hands on them constantly giving feedback and correction all the time...

[sanjuro_ronin]

when I first started studying FMA stick-fighting, I did everything solo for quite a while before partnering with someone else; similarly, when I started teaching it, that's how I did it at first - inevitably, I'd spend a lot of time correcting people's "form" in the air; and then, when we got around to partner work, I had to re-correct it all over again; and it wasn't painless - more like pulling teeth; then, at one point, I started right away doing partner work with people - I mean, from the first #1 strike; and lo and behold: not only did their form improve in general, it did so more rapidly and with less regression; and they learned more in a faster time, and didn't need re-correction after moving from solo to partner; also, when I would then occasionally have them do something solo "in the air", their form was fine, because it wasn't theoretical, it was based on functional interaction; of course, the caveat is that the partnering was always with me, not another beginner, so they got constant feedback and a relatively correct example to follow;
BTW, most of the people I have done this with with good results have been kids ages ~9 - 13...

I have also started teaching taiji push-hands "cold" to people who never did the form, and have had similarly good results - again, that is partially because I have my hands on them constantly giving feedback and correction all the time...

I have found the same things to be true of my chosen MA's.

[EarthDragon]

sanjuro,

Not sure how you are gonna learn a joint lock solo though...

allow me to explian
learn the bone name and its function and type of movemtns. learn what type of joint its is............ hinge, radial, rotational then

1. learn to close the distance
2. make sure the hands are in the correct position to block.
3 Use proper footwork to move in or to the side or behind the opponent
4. Close the opponent with the short hand
5. use the footwork again to get around your invisable opponent.
6. adjust the hands if needed to acomplish the lock.
7. end in the correct position with proper balance...

all ths needs to be correct beofre you can execute the actual lock. once the body has muscle memory or even more so celluar memory then adding the opponent is easy.............. the body already knows how and where to go... so I hope you see which comes first the cart or the horse.

If you cant train the horse to walk, turn or stop on your command you cannot expect the horse to listen when you add the cart.
This is my point. you must have proper solo training first..

While yes it is true you may learn quikcer and faster as others have said what person is in a rush to learn MA? this perhaps might be the problem...impatience is not a virtue............. just a hinder

I have been learning for 28 years and I'm beginning to understand a little....