I remember when I first started training Jiu Jitsu in the 90's getting a blue belt was a very big accomplishment. Perhaps it still is today, but it seems to me that the level of ability of many Jiu Jitsu players is not as good as it was ten years ago. I do think that more techniques have evolved, but I also see more higher belts just aren't as good. I see more guys teaching now than ever before and I see a lot of not so good students. Is it the students, the teachers, or am I imagining this?
Its all about the teachers. For the most part if its a loyal and pretty consistent student their jiu-jitsu and approach to jiu-jitsu is usually a good reflection of their teachers. If they value basics and a foundation and drills, reps, creativity, innovation, and all the other good things that define good jiu-jitsu practitioners then thats usually a reflection of their teacher or their associations ideas. Some people choose to try and teach too early or promote too early or a combination of both . But as the quality of teachers dwindles so does the quality of students and competitors. But with the popularity of anything in this world that is bound to happen. The real factor is potential students educating themselves in what to look for in a good school or teacher and that in itself can be deceiving. It took me a long time to be confident in my ability to teach and find out what attributes i needed to teach my students. As a teacher everyone of my students faults (in jiu-jitsu) i see as something i created or didn't correct. I know you can't help every student but like i said the consistent loyal ones every possible attempt should be made to really help. I think if some teachers were responsible in losing their egos and being humble about understanding if that they just might not be ready to teach or/and if the well qualified teachers saw students as a direct reflection of themselves then i think a lot of the problems you mentioned just might be eliminated. For the record i'm not saying i'm a great teacher or that i have a system intact to help deter my students from looking like or making me look like a retard lol but i am trying :-)
i also believe there are alot of people out there now who are claiming they are ranked grapplers to get more people into their school and make more money so they are watering down the system and giving belts early because their guys are fighting and they want to hype up the person and help push them and it becomes a huge cycle, Unfortunate but its true...
Dude, it's like the wild wild west out where I live. Every Kenpo school around slaps an MMA sign on their school and buys an American JuJitsu membership. Many regional MMA fighters are just loaded with poor video techniques and no fundamentals.
I would strongly concur that it's the teaching. I may not know a whole lot about jiu jitsu but I do know quite a bit about teaching and learning. Teaching well is its own discipline and subject matter expertise alone is not sufficient. A teacher has to have a robust knowledge of not only their subject but a good working knowledge of how people learn and how best to communicate an idea or ideas to a mixed group of students. That's not an easy task.
A good teacher/coach has a plan of instruction and prepares a curriculum with intent. It is not a haphazard "Hmm... what should we go over today..." approach. Subject matter expertise is, of course, necessary for the instructor to be able to go beyond the lesson plan when questions arise and to explain the theoretical underpinnings when necessary (e.g. why you do the set up for *this* technique *this* way because doing it *that* way opens you up to such-and-such a counter, etc.). A good teacher has more than one approach to a lesson and he or she is aware that individual learning needs differ and will adjust as necessary.
Jiu jitsu is especially well-suited to a social learning theory approach. Social learning theory utilizes the idea that the environment is a key component of the learning environment in addition to integrating subject knowledge, task knowledge, and task performance. I know Coach Herzog uses primarilly a social learning approach. He has a series planned well in advance and the techniques progress logically through the whole series across the technique classes; meaning if you go to noon beginner class on Tuesday and 7:00pm beginner class on Thursday you're going to see the same series. Not a kimura attack Tuesday and a leg lock on Thursday. Typically, the series will also incorporate both the attack and defense aspects so both partners are getting reps instead of practicing attacking a fish.; In this way, the student learns to attack against a properly defending opponent using proper technique rather than relying on a opponent's lack of knowledge or gambling that he has weaker technique or position knowledge (which is a criticism I have heard of the 50/50 guard). Technique class is for practicing controlled movement and perfecting the muscle memory under close supervision and with frequent corrections and tweaks from coach. At the end of technique class are one-minute drills. During these, coach starts the class in a position that is advantageous to one player. The goal is to resist about 60% or so and to rep the technique(s) we've been working . Some guys get off track and treat it as "one-minute rolling" but that's not the intent. The point is to drill the techniques you just learned against a resisting opponent who knows what you're trying to do. Yeah, that makes it hard but that's why you drill the technique. Then there are always open mat and rolling sessions. So from a social learning standpoint you have planned curriculum in a logical progression, slow technique practice, practice against resistance, and open rolling. The combination and progression is excellent for developing muscle memory, sensitivity, and application against progressively more difficult challenges. Most importantly, all of this is done in an environment conducive to training for competition -- and environment matters when it comes to developing and applying complicated task knowledge in a high-stress environment. Train the way you fight, practice the way you play, etc, etc.
There certainly are other approaches to teaching but because jiu jitsu requires both the mental strategy aspect and the physical application of technique, it is most well suited to a social learning approach. I'd love to hear how some other instructors approach teaching and learning; especially Mr. Green since I know a lot of military training comes from a social learning theory angle.
I also agree with this thread alot of places out here are saturated with "instructors" that say they trained such and such and they know this or that person but when U go check out they ""Gymarage" (Combined the words gym and garage LOL) its a toatal different story, or they see that the whole MMA or Jiu Jitsu thing is whats hot right now and they want a piece of it . . . .
Jason you make it sound as if I have an actual approach to coaching ;).....your gunna set people's expectations to high for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
Jason, that is very interesting! I have not analyzed my instruction to see this, but you describe the way I teach 100%!!! I don't know if I would attribute it to my Military background, or my diverse childhood, and a lifetime of fighting. But this seemed to be the most efficient way to teach. That and I try to focus on each students strengths and weakness's. Separately, but still as part of the current technique/class. Everyone has different learning curves, body types, physical abilities etc... So I guess it should be a pretty complex task, If it were not for the passion I have for fighting! I love helping others discover the wonders of the universe of Jiu Jitsu, once you start to truly understand "Jiu Jitsu"!
Yeah, I have noticed a lot of people who say they can grapple and then turn out to be frauds, mostly due to poor teaching or just wanting to fit in to the new trend.
You DO have an actual approach to coaching, it's just that you've developed it over years of teaching and learning from other excellent teachers instead of going out and getting a degree in education theory. The fact that your experiential teaching conforms so well to social learning theory may be accidental or not entirely on purpose, but the end result is still high-quality instruction -- and that's what seems to be missing elsewhere from what I hear around the interwebs. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Herzog