MMA Here to Stay ?

[Fudog]

Let me start by saying I am a big fan of the UFC and mixed martial arts and watch it whenever possible. For me it is the greatest sports trend to come along since the Miami Dolphins. That being said, it is disheartening how much it has replaced and nullified "traditional" martial arts as, well , martial arts!

How is it that traditional martial arts have fallen so helpless against it ? Why has everyone seemingly abandoned their arts to jump on the MMA bandwagon rather than search within thier art to learn how or why defenses or attacks against MMA strategies where dealt with or why they where abandoned? How long will this trend last until someone learned in traditional martial arts reminds us why it is that thees are the forms that prevailed and why?

Obviously I am a sentimental fool. I'm just aghast at how a modern trend has erased and nullified so much of what I thought was Martial arts.Obviously I am to old and not learned enough myself to answer this although I have some ideas. Any thougths?

Sincerely,
Edward Sloan

[Scott Sonnon]

Ed,

It's only the cylce of evolution. MMA has been here since the beginning. 2nd gen tries to reproduce the results of the 1st gen. 3rd gen tries to codify the teaching of the 2nd gen. 4th gen is lost in training without meaning. A new 1st gen appears. It will always cycle this way.

There is already the stench of classical "MMA" creating a new generation of stagnation.

Such is the evolution of life. Teaching is essentially a degenerative act of making static and dead what is dynamic and alive.

[Fudog]

I most humbly thank you for this. I expected long winded grandiose diatribes like the ones often found in my head. Instead I recieve an answer that is short, profound, and right on the money. Thank you sir.

Sincerely,
Edward Sloan

[Joseph David]

Ed,

It's only the cylce of evolution. MMA has been here since the beginning. 2nd gen tries to reproduce the results of the 1st gen. 3rd gen tries to codify the teaching of the 2nd gen. 4th gen is lost in training without meaning. A new 1st gen appears. It will always cycle this way.

There is already the stench of classical "MMA" creating a new generation of stagnation.

Such is the evolution of life. Teaching is essentially a degenerative act of making static and dead what is dynamic and alive.

Coach,
I would say this is a mirror as to teaching bodywork, as soon as you can it, it looses its dynamic response to what is presenting itself. If I understand the fundamental premise of Flow Fighting, it would be dynamic tool of engagement to cope with the unique conditions of the competition. I find it amazing the similarity between the two.

[SteveB]

One must also remember that every human being has a different set of priorities when it comes to Martial Arts, or life itself. "Ground and Pound" is absolutely fantastic for a certain type of aggressive, Alpha, athletic personality. These boys want competition, as close to a street brawl as they can get. Bless 'em. Others want MA for military or police purposes. Others want effective street defense on the "Model Mugging" wave-length: a few techniques drilled to a fine edge, then practised in the "berserk" state. Others want exercise. Or health benefits. Or moving meditation. Or a social group. Fat loss. Self confidence. To study a traditional cultural art. On and on the possible motivations go. All martial arts work for some. None work for all. Enjoy what you are doing, understand its limitations, and learn to move in alignment with your own needs and values. Bless the behemoths--man, they're fun to watch. But these guys often came out of other all-out combat sports like wrestling, boxing, or even football. They LOVE to fight. Love it. Thank God there's a place for them to play! Don't think that what they do is for everyone...it's not.

[TNichols]

Such is the evolution of life. Teaching is essentially a degenerative act of making static and dead what is dynamic and alive.

Coach,

How heavily nuanced is "teaching" in that statement? I.e., would you say the same thing about "coaching"?

Edit: ...and if not, why not?

[Scott Sonnon]

Coach,

How heavily nuanced is "teaching" in that statement? I.e., would you say the same thing about "coaching"?

Tim,

Coaching is not the same as teaching. Coaches have a minimalist (and as a result the most difficult) job. They sometimes also have to offer technical instruction, but their primary role is to create a stable containment field within which dynamic quality can flourish.

All authentic martial art regards the improvement of the nervous system's timing and rhythm. That requires facing fully alive resistance: dynamic quality. The coach's job is to ensure that the drills which foster that aliveness are as sustainably safe as possible without impinging upon the necessary lethality of the discipline. People can exercise and fantasize all they want, but if they cannot operate within the containment field of chaos, they ain't practicing martial art. They're rehearsing a dance.

By the time they arrive at the third or fourth generation of rehearsing what the first generation performed during alive drilling, it's just the long-ago petrified bones of a dinosaur, no more remotely resembling the ferocity of its former life. Rehearsal can be fun, interesting, or academic, no doubt. But it ain't martial art.

People love to create the artificial distinction between combat and sport. This is a farce. Sport is not an event. It's a delivery system. You don't need to participate in an "event" but you absolutely must participate in live resistance: in every class to integrate each new skill.

Every generation must reinvent the wheel. Each generation must go through the process of removing the barnacles that have adhered to the once smoothly sailing ship of our individual potential growth.

It doesn't matter WHAT martial art you do, so long as your focus isn't the martial art, but the timing and rhythm which develop as a result of the alive drills therein. Teaching as a degenerative act refers to the fact that in codifying what happens, rigor mortis sets in.

[TNichols]

Coaching is not the same as teaching. Coaches have a minimalist (and as a result the most difficult) job. They sometimes also have to offer technical instruction, but their primary role is to create a stable containment field within which dynamic quality can flourish.


So would it be fair to characterize the distinction you're making in the expression "teaching imparts information; coaching imparts skill"? (With the caveat that I didn't say skills -- making a distinction analogous to your technique/techniques distinction)

[Scott Sonnon]

So would it be fair to characterize the distinction you're making in the expression "teaching imparts information; coaching imparts skill"? (With the caveat that I didn't say skills -- making a distinction analogous to your technique/techniques distinction)

That sounds fair, though I would say that a coach creates the environment in which skill can be crreated by the athlete's dedication, drive and awareness.

[TNichols]

That sounds fair, though I would say that a coach creates the environment in which skill can be crreated by the athlete's dedication, drive and awareness.

Coaching as climate control -- I like it. And I agree that the athlete creates the skill, not the coach. (How could it be otherwise? But it's a point often missed.)

That observation parallels something that happens in an academic setting. When I'm teaching my students how to teach, the way I explain it is that if it takes some arbitrary number of units of effort (say, 10) for a student to acquire command of content A, a lousy teacher might contribute only 1 unit, forcing the students to contribute 9. A better-prepared teacher might find a way to contribute 3 or 4, lowering the threshold and making the content accessible to students who are straining to contribute 6 or 7 (and would never make it to 9). A great teacher might find a way to contribute 5 or 6. But no teacher can contribute all 10 units of work; there is a certain critical minimum of work that the student must do. By contrast, while the teacher can't contribute all 10 units, the student can, if he's sufficiently dedicated and talented.
(By the way, this is the theory that underlies my comment to you after the LA Path workshop -- "Anything that teaches this pretty, prepped really ugly.")
But this only works if the goal is imparting information. When you're trying to inspire problem-solving skills, solving the pupil's problems for him is counterproductive.

[SAB]

How is it that traditional martial arts have fallen so helpless against it ? Why has everyone seemingly abandoned their arts to jump on the MMA bandwagon rather than search within thier art to learn how or why defenses or attacks against MMA strategies where dealt with or why they where abandoned? How long will this trend last until someone learned in traditional martial arts reminds us why it is that thees are the forms that prevailed and why?

Obviously I am a sentimental fool. I'm just aghast at how a modern trend has erased and nullified so much of what I thought was Martial arts.Obviously I am to old and not learned enough myself to answer this although I have some ideas. Any thougths?

Most people learn martial arts for self defense and the ability to fight.
Why search for a lost meaning or a secret teaching in arts that have moved so far away from realisim.
Just shift to an art that will teach you what you want to know.

I do agree with Coach Sonnon that its unfortunate that (and I'm not using his exact words here) the self improvement/enlightenment side of maretial arts appears to have been thrown out in many (or most) MMA/BJJ schools.

[Bobbe]

>"Coaching is not the same as teaching. Coaches have a minimalist (and as a result the most difficult) job. They sometimes also have to offer technical instruction, but their primary role is to create a stable containment field within which dynamic quality can flourish.<"

*Takes a deep breath before committing CST forum suicide*

I liked this post, but I disagree with this definition. But to be frank, I disagree with the clinical definition of "Teacher", "Coach", "Sensei", "Instructor" Etc. I think it's a lot of squabbling over terms that detract from training and the dispensing of knowledge. Unless you are saying something like "Track Coach" or "Jiu Jitsu Instructor" (literally defining the WHAT that you are professing) then it's really all the same: You have a subject with less insight than you, and they are relying on you for accurate information to achieve a specific goal. You are in a feeder-reciever scenario. I think anything else is just window dressing.

A sports coach could be a bad teacher, if we go "by the book". A Sensei might be more inclined more to stylistic tradition than to developing good fighters the way a boxing trainer might. But if you develop yourself and your abilities to the highest and best use of what it is you are trying to relay instruction about, and if you have your subject's best interests at heart (not your own personal agenda) to me that superceeds whatever title you are professing. Call yourself Coach, Master, what have you. For example, I personally TEACH at my school, ADVISE various other Martial Art instructors, and I am COACHING a few WEKAF stickfighters. In that case, I could claim a few different titles, but all I want my students (who are mostly my friends) to address me as is "Bobbe".

No offense was intended in this post, I'm just stating how I see it.

[Ryan Murdock]

*Takes a deep breath before committing CST forum suicide*

LOL why would you think so? this is a useful discussion!


I think it's a lot of squabbling over terms that detract from training and the dispensing of knowledge. Unless you are saying something like "Track Coach" or "Jiu Jitsu Instructor" (literally defining the WHAT that you are professing) then it's really all the same: You have a subject with less insight than you, and they are relying on you for accurate information to achieve a specific goal. You are in a feeder-reciever scenario. I think anything else is just window dressing.

I agree with you in that it's a feeder-receiver scenario in the sense that one person has knowledge to impart, while the other person is coming to them for that knowledge. I don't think that anyone would disagree with you here (though one could of course say that the teacher or coach must be receptive to the student as well, and that they are in fact learning from the learner better ways to teach/coach - but i think that this is inherent in your def'n).

What I think that Coach Sonnon is trying to stress here is that there is a subtle difference in outlook between a teacher and a coach. To my mind, teaching involves transmitting what I want to transmit; coaching involves being responsive to what the individual needs to learn. It’s extremely challenging, and requires you to stand back and listen rather than foster your own agenda. In other words, I see it as the difference between "teaching" a curriculum or set of skills (for example, the 5th kyu requirements, or the shodan requirements) on the one hand, and assessing what the athlete needs to experience in order to develop to their fullest potential, and then drawing on the tools at your disposal (whether that be elements of your curriculum or whatever) in order to create those experiences.

Personally, I see teaching as "instructor focused" and coaching as "athlete focused". Both can be described as "teachers" by definition, but I think there is indeed a subtle difference in outlook between the two.

[Coach Jones]

Great post, Murdock!

Just to echo what has already been said, you could definitely make the argument that it's a matter of symantics. That an Instructor is by-and-large the same as a coach. The key is to establish the language and the definitions from the start so we are all on the same page.

Like Coach Murdock said:



Personally, I see teaching as "instructor focused" and coaching as "athlete focused".


When you look at martial arts in particular. What we see for the most part is people "teaching" martial art. In other words, there's a curriculum to be followed, a pre-designed path that doesn't deviate. A progression from, say, white to black belt. The material for one person is the same as the material for the next.

When we look at coaching, there is an end result that is not based on pre-designed material or a set curriculum but rather on the specific athlete and the improvement of their skills and/or attributes.

One of the reasons that the RMAX Boxing Curriculum is being introduced is that there was/is a need for our athletes (and athletes in general) to have a solid foundation of basics and understand the hows, whens and whys of given skills. Likewise, there are specific methods of conditioning that lend themselves to developing greater attributes that are useful for strikers. When working with people on the material - it is most definitely from a teaching perspective. This is not to say that when they get all the material and can parrot it back that they are "good to go". Instead, it provides an ever-sophisticating "base" or "foundation" from which to build on through coaching.

The coaching aspect comes into play most effectively during the time in which someone transcends from being a "student" to being an "athlete".

So we could look at it like this:

Teacher - Student
Coach - Athlete

Without a good foundation, an athlete is more difficult to coach. Without coaching, the student
will never accelerate and improve their performance.

When we understand this, the differentiation becomes more clear.

The two (coaching and teaching) are two sides of the same coin.

Looking at martial arts today, what we have is a staggeringly high number of teachers of varying skill levels who teach a particular system or method by the numbers in a codified pre-designated order. This order is not based on getting the most out of individual student, but on the student following the progression to "learn" the system.

For the most part, especially nowadays with insurance and litigiousness being what they are, the traditional martial arts have lost much of their efficacy. As less and less dynamic sparring is introduced and applied the students have less and less practical fighting ability. While the students learn the forms, drills and techiniques (as applied in the vacuum of class) and can often demonstrate great command of thier bodies as well as many of the other benefits that come from martial arts, their ability to take what they've learned and apply it when under pressure is vastly reduced.

On the other side, in today's MMA we have the opposite problem in many cases. People who don't want to be students, but want to jump headfirst into the athlete pool and see if they float.

Many of today's athletes in MMA are thrust into competition without a firm enough grasp of the basics so what we see is a lot of flailing, aggression and fear-reactivity. We don't see a "command" of their art for the most part.

A solid progression of...

Student - Athlete - Teacher - Coach

OR

Student - Teacher - Coach

OR

Student - Teacher - Athlete - Coach

Can and does produce results.

You have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run.;)

[Ryan Murdock]

Well said!

This definition is excellent, very concise:



When you look at martial arts in particular. What we see for the most part is people "teaching" martial art. In other words, there's a curriculum to be followed, a pre-designed path that doesn't deviate. A progression from, say, white to black belt. The material for one person is the same as the material for the next.

When we look at coaching, there is an end result that is not based on pre-designed material or a set curriculum but rather on the specific athlete and the improvement of their skills and/or attributes.



I really like your student-athlete distinction, and I think this is a very useful analogy:



Teacher - Student
Coach - Athlete


Great stuff!

[Bobbe]

I appreciate the responses, this is something I struggle with as I try to improve my abilities in teaching. Coach Murdock, your breakdown of the subtle difference in outlook between a teacher and a coach was great, very helpful. Coach Jones, your descriptions of the progressions from "Student" to whatever level of instructorship made alot of sense to me.

>"We don't see a "command" of their art for the most part.<"

Man, ain't THAT the truth!