Coaching approach.

Open to public view.

How should students be instructed.

A) Wrap the student around the repertoire.
0
No votes
B) Wrap the repertoire around the student.
7
100%
 
Total votes : 7

Coaching approach.

Postby scholadays » 15 Mar 2006 11:29

I thought I'd give this poll thingy a go...

The martial arts I have engaged in have coached their techniques in a manner that lay somewhere between these two extremes.

A) The repertoire is king and the practitioner must be bent precisely around the repertoire for them to be able to execute it effectively - the pupil shall be wrapped around the techniques to create a uniform population.

B) The repertoire is a guidline or outline that will allow the practitioner to discover how they can perform the discipline well - the techniques shall be wrapped around the pupil like an old coat.


For example, during my Jui Jitsu days I experienced the first approach - technique will be executed exactly how it is demonstrated else it will fail and you will fail.

My Sport Fencing days presented me with the second - here are a techniques that will help you prevail upon the piste, as everone is a little different you must go and learn how you must personally apply this repertoire to make it work for yourself.

So the poll is this, of these extremes which approach do you think is most fruitful to achieve 'success' in HEMA?

And if, as anticipated, the answer is somewhere in between how should they be weighted?
User avatar
scholadays
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 9194
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:17
Location: Both ducked and covered.

Postby Anders Linnard » 15 Mar 2006 11:48

Actually it is impossible to give exact instructions in my class. First of all, I do not know how to interpret Ringeck with any certainty, I can only draw on my own interpretations. Secondly the system is based very much on principles. Thirdly I have a hard time telling students that vary from being left handed, 40 cm shorter than me, with a lot more/less muscles or partially blind or with a prosthetic arm (all examples from my group) that they must perform techniques the way I do them.
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby Fab » 15 Mar 2006 12:05

Same as Anders, except for the prosthetic bit. Though we do have Kurso.

Besides, every other session we get newbs or just people passing by, and it would be hard to have a precise curriculum to follow.

Of course, with a given technique there are do-s and don't-s ; though most of them are based on my own physical (un)abilities, as most of the interpretations of the techniques were kinda 'processed' by me.
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby Anders Linnard » 15 Mar 2006 12:08

Fab wrote:Same as Anders, except for the prosthetic bit. Though we do have Kurso.

Besides, every other session we get newbs or just people passing by, and it would be hard to have a precise curriculum to follow.

Of course, with a given technique there are do-s and don't-s ; though most of them are based on my own physical (un)abilities, as most of the interpretations of the techniques were kinda 'processed' by me.


We have a very precise curriculum, but there is some give in the interpretations and I try to look at strengths and weaknesses of each student. Not always and easy thing to do though.
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby scholadays » 15 Mar 2006 12:08

But is option B not implicated in accusations of merely teaching a 'grab bag' of techniques?
User avatar
scholadays
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 9194
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:17
Location: Both ducked and covered.

Postby Anders Linnard » 15 Mar 2006 12:19

scholadays wrote:But is option B not implicated in accusations of merely teaching a 'grab bag' of techniques?


I don't know what that means.
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby scholadays » 15 Mar 2006 12:27

Well, there are folk out there who place great emphasis upon their opinion that the texts provide a thorough and perfectly integrated system of fighting.

Thus, if you let folk work out how to apply, say, Fiore in a way that personally suits them, then are you simply not allowing them to pick and choose the bits of the system they like?

If so, I've seen folk get quite disparaging of coaching methods that suggest folk are permitted to pick and choose repertoire that 'works' from a 'grab bag' of repertoire presented to them.

Does option B not suggest such an approach?
User avatar
scholadays
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 9194
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:17
Location: Both ducked and covered.

Postby J Marwood » 15 Mar 2006 12:29

Anders Linnard wrote:
scholadays wrote:But is option B not implicated in accusations of merely teaching a 'grab bag' of techniques?


I don't know what that means.


I think it means - are you teaching a propper curriculum or are you just teaching a handful of techniques which you like?

Personally, the approach one follows (A or B) depends on your goal. If you are looking to recreate an art in the purest form possible then A is the answer. If you are looking to win competitions or have effective 'street' skills then B is what you want.
User avatar
J Marwood
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:45
Location: Laahndan

Postby scholadays » 15 Mar 2006 12:39

J Marwood wrote:Personally, the approach one follows (A or B) depends on your goal. If you are looking to recreate an art in the purest form possible then A is the answer. If you are looking to win competitions or have effective 'street' skills then B is what you want.
But does 'purest form' in this instance not simply mean, the techniques as they are writ and no more? As such a 'pure form' would it not simply be an empty shell? An illustration of the text, and no more?

Indeed does Fiore work at all if one simply executes it precisely as it is writ? Or does it actually need some personal interpretation or style of one's own to make it work for oneself?

Much like and aeroplane without a pilot does not fly.
User avatar
scholadays
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 9194
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:17
Location: Both ducked and covered.

Postby Fab » 15 Mar 2006 12:49

scholadays wrote:Indeed does Fiore work at all if one simply executes it precisely as it is writ? Or does it actually need some personal interpretation or style of one's own to make it work for oneself?

Much like and aeroplane without a pilot does not fly.


That's the idea.

Though I can change my mind.

Fab
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby J Marwood » 15 Mar 2006 12:49

Good point.

I think for most groups they are looking to build a martially effective system upon the treatise. Hence ending up someway between A & B.

Looking at what we do and what I have seen of groups like Dave's, Phillippe and Ander's, most appear to have extrapolated principles from the treatises and then use the illustrated techniques and others to show these principles.

I haven't seen anyone doing purely what is in the manual with nothing else as I think this would a singularly unfulfilling exercise - like building a plane and then doing nothing with it.
User avatar
J Marwood
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:45
Location: Laahndan

Postby scholadays » 15 Mar 2006 12:58

J Marwood wrote:I haven't seen anyone doing purely what is in the manual with nothing else as I think this would a singularly unfulfilling exercise - like building a plane and then doing nothing with it.
Oh, I agree.
However, I sometimes get the feeling that this is in fact the goals of some - to exercise the repertoire as it is writ and no more. The interpretation and illustration of the manual the utlimate goal of their studies.

As fulfilling for them as this may be, I find that approach makes the whole endevour a rather flat and boring one for me, and does not result in truly martial skills.
User avatar
scholadays
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 9194
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:17
Location: Both ducked and covered.

Postby Anders Linnard » 15 Mar 2006 13:02

Well, looking at the german tradition my interpretation is that the techniques are manifestations of principles. If that is the case then we are following the manuscripts precisely as they were intended. Döbringer states that you always msust seek the closest opening. Ringeck often makes comments like: then you can hit him in the head, thrust him in the chest or what you like. Many of the techniques are applicable if you end up in a given situation, no matter how you got there, and they are repeated in different chapters (based on the cuts). Besides there are so many different takes on basic techniques that I find it dishonest to say to the students that they must perform the techniques exactly the way I do them.

Our curriculum is very precise, we practise Ringecks longsword from beginning to end during the timespan of approximately a year. The parts that require more training we stay with longer and less important parts we tend to rush through. We follow the text as closely as we can and I instruct my students in angles, footwork, attack lines and so on, but I do not do it out of my own physical abilities, but rather from their own. And since the manuscript really isn't that detailed regardin a lot of things, it is almost impossible to say that one way is right and the other is wrong. And of course, since I think Ringecks art is ment to be foremost in earnest, it seems silly to teach something that wouldn't work in a real situation for someone who has a ver different physique than me.

/Anders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby J Marwood » 15 Mar 2006 13:14

That sounds exactly like what I was describing. If you just did what was writ you would not have a complete picture as the manuals are not designed to be used in that way - despite what some seem to think :)
User avatar
J Marwood
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 10560
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:45
Location: Laahndan

Postby Anders Linnard » 15 Mar 2006 13:19

J Marwood wrote:That sounds exactly like what I was describing. I


It was.

/Anders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby Abomination » 15 Mar 2006 14:02

I think there has to be some of both. Yes,every student is different and those differences have to be taken into account. But if we are trying to re-create a period specific art as we will in Schola's dirty secret. There is the danger of using frog DNA from later periods. Techniques changed & evolved. Sometimes due to changes in technology & society but sometimes just down to expediancy or even fashion.

So if you just want to be a bad arse swordsman then yes B is the way to go. If on the other hand you want to fight in the manner of Fiore, Ringeck, Silver or whoever you must be quite certain that any training approach or technique you might use is applicable to the age.

For example Fiores grappling & dagger seem to bear a close resemblance to modern combatives & where used in similar situations. Since we don't know how Fiore trained his pupils it is a reasonable appraoch to introduce some of the training techniques used for a similar but more modern system.

On the other hand there are Silver interpretations which clearly owe much to C18th backsword & C19th sabre. While these are in themselves excellant fighting methods which work well, they don't sit comfortably in Silvers system.

Cheers, Nigel
Last edited by Abomination on 16 Mar 2006 11:22, edited 1 time in total.
The Abomination is dead. Long live the Abomination.
Image

http://www.londonswordanddaggerclub.co.uk/
User avatar
Abomination
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 5647
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 12:19
Location: Back in his freaky arse castle in the himalayas

Postby scholadays » 16 Mar 2006 11:15

Abomination wrote:I think there has to be some of both. Yes,every student is different and those differences have to be taken into account. But if we are trying to re-create a period specific art as we will in Schola's dirty secret. There is the danger of using frog DNA from later periods. Techniques changed & evolved. Sometimes due to changes in technology & society but sometimes just down to expediancy or even fashion.
Righty ho, so it looks like folk seem to prefer to take approach B, but tempered by the original context, aims and objectives of the actual discipline they are studying.

But if folk are presented principles and technqiues the precise application of which they then wish to literally play around with and experiment upon, then it is not the precise application of the period principles and techniques that must be controlled but this process of experimentation itself.

Thus I suppose this is why we find ourselves consumed by endless arguments over steel/wood/bamboo/to drill/to spar/when to spar/when to drill in efforts to create representative contexts within which folk can perform.
User avatar
scholadays
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 9194
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 15:17
Location: Both ducked and covered.


Return to General Historical Martial Arts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron