How often you updated your curriculum?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

Question, how often you updated your curriculum?

I ask, because I noticed in other profession that it is recommended to update themselves every few years, especially with the latest developments.

For example, in the days of Bruce Lee, a patting hand (paishou/paak sau), standing fist (liquan/lahp kyuhn), and Side-Of Thread-On Leg (cechuaitui/jak chaai teui) was sufficient for average assailant, who possess a western boxing background; however, with the advent of MMA the playing field has changed radically; being proficient on upright fighting isn’t enough.

Again, this notion/question is being asked to individuals, who trained self-defenses, competitive fighting, or tactical fighting. However, do instructors who focus more on set way (taolu/tou louh), changed their method of teaching them, by adding new sport science methodology?

2

I seek to make sure my knowledge of what I do is strong and improving. While I work here and there on additional things like ground work, katana, etc, I tend to recommend good teachers for those additional things, not teach them myself at this stage.

3

research, research and research

updated as frequently as needed from research, active feedback, direct experience–

ongoing process

–

even wushu curriculum, including tao lu are evolving all the time.

in 1970s, they started with long fist.

at the time, “new” forms were encouraged every gathering.

some how, they took a turn to “compulsory” or gui ding tao lu.

you may only have a few “new” moves and need to do “compulsory” moves.

tai chi was next, and then more styles in 1990s.

they did not fly

except for nan quan, tai chi and a few other

for other styles compulsory did not fly–

–

4

Thanks for sharing Taixuquan99; it is great trait, because we aren’t the old mighty as sadly some shifus think they are.

5

Therefore, we can say CMA or MA in general is organic; always growing?:o

6

I’m in a convenient position. My class is free, most of the handful of students I have have previous experience, and I respect that. I make clear that I’m going to teach them what I know as best I know it, it’s not a judgment call on what they know.

The major updates the last year:

-A student was thinking about doing a SC comp. He had previously fought a couple mma bouts(before studying with me), but was not strong on throws and takedowns. He asked for my help, so I geared class around throws for two months, figuring it would help everyone. i constantly researched in order to give him the best chance I could, and it was a great experience.

However, he did not end up having the shirt aand belt he needed to do the bout, so he decided to do a push hands comp instead. I hadn’t trained him in that, he went against a really nice chen style guy who beat him. He came back and asked me to show him how to do push hands. This was good because many of my students also study under the guy who taught me the system I do, but the two of us use two different footwork styles. The chen style guy used the same style I do, so my student wanted to learn this(it’s more stable for throws).

From there, we worked push hands drills as clinch and throw setup and striking.

Currently, while all students are working push hands for three minute rounds, I work with one student on either a throw or applying leg techniques, then, next round, another student. In push hands, they use the setups for the throws they learn among their other moves, and pick up from having the move done on them.

Shortly, my goal is to incorporate two man stick drills for part of the three minute rounds(the people are far enough apart that the sticks ma hit each other, but not their opponent, one person’s stick is to be considered either a target or an attack to parry, this trains basic strikes and defenses in a relatively unscripted manner).

Thus, each class will have a clinch/push hands component, a throwing component, a legwork component, and a spear component, every class, every time, which is my current goal for a curriculum.

2 hours, split entirely into 3 minute rounds with 30 second breaks, it breaks up chatter and allows people to work more kung fu more often. The first few rounds are nice and soft push hands to warm them up, then ramped up slightly. I constantly invite guys who know the whole system to come and play push hands so that the students get more resistance from experienced people and pick up their tricks, and I base judgment on a student’s progress on what they can use, and I encourage their strengths first and foremost.

Most times, the class is between 4 and six guys. I really don’t want more than seven at the moment.

Or, the short version SPJ already stated, constant research and change.:smiley:

7

[QUOTE=Mulong;1126024]Therefore, we can say CMA or MA in general is organic; always growing?:o[/QUOTE]

I suppose it is. I only know that I enjoy working on improving at it and some people seem to want to pick up what I’m doing.

8

40 years ago, if you can just jump kick and break the light ball that hanged from the ceiling as Bruce Lee did in his TV serious Green Hornet, you will have a lot of students. I still remember one guy walked into my school and asked, “Can you kick the ceiling?” After I had shown him, he signed up for my class rightway.

Today you have to be able to deal with:

  • boxer’s hook punch,
  • MT guy’s roundhouse kick,
  • wrestler’s single leg, and
  • BJJ guy’s pull guard.
9

Not to mention the fine glutes of the copoiera women.

Copoiera has the best thing going. You may not care if what you’re doing is effective or not when the girl in the circle is to die for.

10

Kudos Taixuquan; few instructors see out of the box and take into account his/her students needs or wants and switch their curriculum to suit them.

Typically old school shifus weren’t able to adjust their teaching format to fit the need of their students; they expected their students to do it exactly the same and not taking into account the difference in psychological makeup and physicality. That is why I chuckle when I hear some individuals stating that teach exactly like their shifu; indeed, you can teach the same curriculum as your teacher, but technically it isn’t the same, because at the end we aren’t the same.

11

Yes, and I’ve seen more than a few martial arts teachers whose student decided to do events, and their teacher didn’t prepare them well, they did badly, felt bad, and the teacher sort of blamed them, or were nice, but never recognized the teacher’s part in it.

I don’t want to be that guy. If my student has problems, I better be helping find solutions. If a teacher is gonna take the reputation of having a good student succeed, he better have helped him succeed, and he better recognize when that student fails if the teacher could have done more.

Most of all, I just think it providess good excuses to broaden the training. While one three month span we may be working on a number of things consistently, it might be good to switch gears and focus on something else, then incorporate it all.

12

Martial arts is hardly a profession in the same sense that being a physician, lawyer, therapist, or college professor is.

Also, how much a curriculum is updated really has to do partly with how realistic it was in the first place.

13

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1126039]Martial arts is hardly a profession in the same sense that being a physician, lawyer, therapist, or college professor is. [/quote]

How so?

Also, how much a curriculum is updated really has to do partly with how realistic it was in the first place.

The more realistic it is, the more likely that there is broad territory to switch gears and focus on other things.

14

To use an example, one could make the argument that it would be perfectly traditional to see, every wing chun class, students drilling a parry using the butterfly knife against an incoming padded stick or some other reasonably safe practice item.

Yet, if you saw this every time, most would consider that class quite interesting compared to most wing chun classes. It currently would be an innovative approach, yet it’s perfectly traditional.

Methods executed by people who have entrained them realistically are realistic, but you have to vary things greatly and often to entrain such.

I’m not using that example to pick on wing chun, it’s true of all traditional schools.

15

Taixuquan, give you utmost credited; I’m glad to read your response, because we need more individuals like yourself out there…

Indeed, it is easy to blame others for your short coming; trust me, I have personally experienced that in the past. “Hey, why didn’t you do that?” ‘Because, you never taught me.’

HumbleWCGuy, why do you state that? Honestly, we should be, because our knowledge or lack of knowledge can endanger our students.

16

Also, how much a curriculum is updated really has to do partly with how realistic it was in the first place.

HumbleWCGuy, maybe I didn’t express myself correctly in the beginning of the post; however, fighting has involved greatly from a hundred years ago; therefore, the needs have changed and our understanding of our body has also; don’t you think?

17

[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1126039]Also, how much a curriculum is updated really has to do partly with how realistic it was in the first place.[/QUOTE]

In response to this, and not picking on you, just arguing points.

Traditional kung fu open hand and weapons was trained certain ways, but it always included people whose experience included using those methods as gangsters, bodyguards, police, soldiers, etc. Using those weapons, those techniques, etc.

That cannot happen in the modern age. Even if working as a bodyguard, the gun changes the entire approach, and regardless, most traditional weapons are right out as far as options.

So that, to not replace this with something is to fail to be traditional. Form was never intended to suffice in weapons or empty hand, it’s the vocabulary and principles, but it does not have the context of an opponent.

A swordsman trains their sword techniques in relation to an attacker every time they train.

A fighter trains their moves on another fighter every time they train.

Modern traditional schools train throws once in a while, weapons once in a while, and generally, in very static ways. This is fine, but it does not mean it is traditional.

I firmly believe that a traditional kung fu class should look the same most classes, kicks, throws, weapons, strikes, seizing, all the time, every time, everyone to their ability. Two weeks between working throwing is almost not working throwing at all, it’s such a subtle skill, imo.

18

[QUOTE=Mulong;1126045]Taixuquan, give you utmost credited; Im glad to read your response, because we need more individuals like yourself out there[/QUOTE]

I’m still working on achieving my curriculum goals, I suspect I’ll be working on that a long time.

I think a counter point is that many assumptions have been made about moves that seem wrong, and those assumptions have become standards. When every move somehow turns into a defense against a lead hand punch a la sterotypical applications practice, odds are something is being miscommunicated. So actually knowing the system is majorly important for kung fu now, for it to survive. Judo books generally have much more detailed knowledge of the moves they are working than kung fu books. That needs to change.

Also, I do feel stance work has become stylized beyond its main purpose, so it is not the newer stance work that seems to match what other fighters are using sucessfully, but the older. Just my opinion.

19

In the beginning, I was taught the fundamental of self-defenses; however, I realized my knowledge was dreadful compare to an experience karateka/kickboxer that I had to learn to fight within that arena. Years later, I was taught that those skills were valid within a tactical situation; hence, I had to grow again.

For example, I usually teach my students knife fighting beside classical training, because the time calls for it. At this time, I’m wondering if I should include gun training too. (A competitive magazine has a good article on this particular situation.)

Ironically, it was one of my shifu, who took out the time to teach me the art of firearms, because he felt that it was relevant that I knew this as a modern day martial artist, and this individual is trenched in pre-20’s century CMA.

20

CONSTANTLY updating (twice on Wednesdays!)

2004 went to Oregon to train at TEAM QUEST

2006 training CHUTE BOXE with the Rua brothers

2008 Trained with Erik Paulson

2009 Jiu Jitsu legend Prof De La Riva at the school

2011 training with BOTH Erik Paulson and Greg Nelson

Keep moving, keep evolving