Hi Hannu Leinonen ,

Yes, I do believe that martial arts pedagogy could be greatly improved. Many martial arts schools/gyms/dojos still teach in the 'traditional' demonstration and then massed practice approach that you described. I think TGfU could be used in martial arts, but it might be challenging to get instructors willing to change their instruction style.

Regards,

Matt

Hello Hannu Leinonen

There is some discussion on this point in our book The Science of Judo, in the chapter, 'The skill acquisition process for judo - building to a constraints-led approach' by Darren Warner and Yusuke Kanamaru. (Link below)

Also Phil Kearney is knowledgeable in this area.

I suggest that you contact Darren and Phil to have a discussion about this topic.

Kind regards, Mike

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780815349136

Thank you all for replies. Maybe a little more explanation is in place. My challenge is to describe tactical problems for learners in teaching combat skills. Even though my background is in karate, I am excluding punches and kicks from the experiment. So combat game or learning of skills is more related to wrestling and judo.

I've found some unified theories, but still not really a hierarchical progression of skills to teach from standing to mat/ground: starting - clinch - take down and pin sequence.

The explanation I like the most at the moment comes from BJJ. (Rob Biernacki (ITT) and Matt Thornton (SBGi).

- You need balance and good posture and you are trying to take a way opponents balance and/or good posture.

- You use connection, frames and levers to get to your goal.

- It's a fight for range and using opponents force against him.

Then it goes in to more details about concepts and principles.

I don't know if combat can be addressed as simple tactical problems at it's high end level, but it should be possible for teaching fundamental skills.

In my test game I proposed a tactical problem - how do you unbalance your opponent with a collar tie. It's very easy, if opponent is not resisting, but in fighting sports resistance - or unvoluntary is what the game is all about. So how do you get a collar tie and don't open your own neck for an attack.

It made a very nice game!

But it is not a hierarchical system of tactical problems - more like a nice drill.

Ofcouse I can go forward with a hypothesis that user will create new tactical problems and by solving them we will eventually create a system.

But it would be nice to have atleast something to compare the user generated end result to.

Hi Hannu,

Very interesting question and examples. I really like your idea of designing progressive learning games that gradually evolve to the full game. I've used something similar when introducing Gaelic football. You might be interested in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApmonGnfoqM from Dave Bright of the University of Chichester and DojoTV which I think highlights some similar comments on typical martial arts instruction; Dave would possibly be a good person to connect with on this.

Have you come across Richard Light's Positive Pedagogy: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315443713, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13573322.2015.1015977?journalCode=cses20? Given its emphasis on the application of a games-based approach outside of team sports, it may be useful. It also contains a specific chapter on applications in Karate. However, that example doesn't include the specific "hierarchical system of technical problems" (great phrase) that you are looking for.

The game you describe above sounds like an excellent starting point. Hopefully some of the above will prove useful to you.

Phil

Thank you for support. I'll try to connect with Dave Bright and start reading Richard's book. Your comments have been very helpful. It's alway good to get a push.

br Hannu

I'd be interested to hear how you get on with it; please get in touch if you have further questions as your ideas evolve.

Having trained in several combat sports and traditional martial arts, I’m of the opinion that the traditional arts are very much stuck in the rut of “this is the traditional method and need to get as close as possible to this, regardless of your body type”.

This tends to be the case for gradings - in taekwondo, for example - but this has very little, if any, bearing on how the person performs in sparring.

In more ‘modern’ arts such as Brazilian jiu jitsu or sports such as MMA, the focus is much more on finding how the techniques fit your body type and athletic capabilities. This has allowed the practitioners in these to progress much faster whilst also allowing the arts to evolve and improve much more rapidly. This cannot be said about karate, taekwondo, etc., where the teaching and learning style is very much stuck in the past. Just my thoughts.

Christopher Kirk I share your opinion. In FInland in 1980's we had a short period when major karate clubs joined to develop karate sparring. It was called Finn Karate Do. Afterwards it has been slammed by traditional karate for not being real karate. I do understand that competition changes technique, but you have to remember that also basic training with out realistic feedback changes technique.

So judo, taekwondo, karate, wrestling, boxing, BJJ, submission wrestling, MMA.. all sports have a different technique compared to "kata" or basic form.

Most competitioners have their favorite technique (tokui waza) which they understand very well. It might be unconscious as they have lots of reps on it.

If you understand how compat sports techique and tactic works, can you find your favorite technique faster? Maybe it's even more fun to wrestle when you are problem solving situations on the fly? You can problem solve only if you have some basic theory.

Phil Kearney Thanks for your interest. It has been a little challenging to find functional theory on how close combat works against resisting opponent. Coaches have ideas, but very few are documented. BUT ... it will be possible to design small games to focus on timing and space issues.

Mimicry of the teacher early on in the training to understand the technique(s), and learn them. However, technique execution by itself is wrought with problems. Sparring and live training need to be combined so the student can discover what works, and does not work for their body type, flexibility, movement patterns, strength, etc. The teacher cannot, in my opinion, limit a student through dogma, over-systemization, or insistence upon mass producing replicas of themselves. The martial 'art' comes from the student reaching a sufficient skill level to embody the style, and make it their own. They will discard techniques, and modify others to fit their modality.

Randy Brown Very true. One might need some understanding from beginning - like you write - mimicry and at some point we need resisting opponents to learn to imply our techniques. Some say you need to know the rules so that you can break them. For me the dilemma is that technique as a form, is not a logical "rule". There is so much more to what makes a technique work. Just rolling and sparring is not enough, because you can learn skills with out understanding what is behind the effectiveness. Understanding is important when you need to adjust or modify your technique.

So I am much on the same page with you.

Hannu Leinonen exactly! A series of guiding principles is helpful to run alongside the system of techniques. These offer diagnostic tools for students to be able to correct failures, and measure success.