Been awhile. So, I've been thinking about my approach to training/teaching martial arts. I've started to see some things that are evolving and it's making me question the traditional programming. Traditional in this sense being the typical, modern dojo experience that is expected to impart the skills a student needs to become competent. Competent? I guess I should start from there.
My definition for competency is going to be "having and being able to apply a skill". This quick definition leaves a lot of gray area now that I read it again. It's hard to really nail down a clear meaning because there are different levels of competency. At the ideal level it would be "having an understanding of and the ability to apply a skill in a real-world situation." Maybe. Good enough for now.
So, how does the traditional model make one competent? Next we have to ask, "competent at what?". If you want to test your skill at throwing the perfect front kick it could work. Kata tournaments? Possibly. What about application of martial arts for the purpose that they were intended?
As martial artists (as people in general!) we want to believe that the time we have put in and the program we have bought in to is THE WAY. That it will prove to be effective if we just pursue and don't give up on our goals. Approval from those of higher rank is there to provide positive feedback for this theory. We are trying to fit the mold. That's fine as long as the mold is the end product you are after.
All of this brings me to my recent evolution. I'm not a big fan of kihon. Basics. Drills that teach you to perform perfect techniques in the air with no context of reality. There's probably a better way to say it. I see them as a necessary training tool but in this traditional model we see students that are years in doing the same floor exercises in rows of forward stance, step in reverse punch. Why? Because that's how it's done and because there is no meaning to the movement other than it's value within the walls of the dojo.
Nobody 'out there' cares what your zenkutsu dachi and gyaka zuki looks like. And if they did, would they be qualified to judge it? Nope. So, the entire value of your kihon techniques exist within the dojo. Unless there is more to it. I believe that there is.
We have factual, performance-based evidence of what makes a good punch. A history of people hitting each other in various ways has proven that certain ways are better. This is difficult to argue with. Good form, proper structure, power generation, connect with good range and speed and that's it. And there are a hundred ways to do it wrong. The karate punch IS a very effective punch with all the qualities I listed. It exists, not to be our finished product but, to show us what is needed for a good punch. Foot placement, body weight forward, hip load and unload, it's all there but you can't just leave it in the package and expect it to be useful.
The best analogy I can think of is learning the alphabet. No one learns the letters so that they can become an expert on letters. You learn letters to create words. And words to create sentences. The end goal is to be an effective (or expert) communicator of the written language. Literary scholars don't spend time practicing the alphabet. They write. In doing so, they are constantly using the alphabet and it becomes thoughtless.
I'm not trying to imply that there's no point in ever brushing up on your kihon. In any learned physical skill you sometimes need to go back over the basics. Pro athletes do it constantly. But they also know the context. It's more than just catching a ball in an idealized way. It's about doing something with it when it's caught.
My point, I think we should be using our punches more than we practice them. There is a big, sloppy, messy, powerful difference.
