More non-constructivism

The last post brings to mind another point where martial arts is not always constructivist. Constructivists seem to have an aversion to the idea of a teacher teaching the student. They want the teacher to be a help-mate, not an expert who gives good information.

Fact is, there are good ways and bad ways to punch, to kick, or to do any other basic move. The practitioner must have proper body alignment, must engage the body in the right way, must understand where the power is coming from, have the coordination to use power well, and have excellent targeting and an understanding of how each strike will affect the bad guy. All of this requires good teaching. There are tricks and methods to make the teaching part more interactive, but the fact is, in the end, the instructor needs to teach the students how to do the basic moves effectively, and test the results. The work may be physical, but it still means the teacher serves as an expert imparting vital information -- a sort of moving lecture where everyone ends up sweating, including the teacher.

Students could try to develop proper technique themselves, but talk about reinventing the wheel! It might take years to get basic moves right, and the students may develop less-than-effective moves that work kind-of right, and never figure out the really effective moves. This is particularly true for the moves that include locks, holds, and throws. It is interesting to spend a bit of time, sometimes, letting the students try to come up with the best way to, say, put on a center wrist lock, but the teacher will still have to step in and demonstrate the lock.

Peace,
SGB