Dana Sheets wrote:What is the role of a teacher if not to help you identify what to train to improve?
Yes to the "what", but not to the "how". I like to know what am I doing wrong, or could do better, and I also like to see how other people would do it, or have helpful suggestions of "have you tried it this way", or "it might work better if". I also like to know what the move is supposed to accomplish? What is the purpose behind it? But in the end I will have to experiment with it and wathever works best for my body type and my mindset and still be effective is what I going to end up doing. If a teacher insist on doing a move a certain way that doesn't feel comfortable and natural to a student (ie make sense for them) they will never going to learn it to the extend that they can just pull it out of their toolbag in times of need (ie make it their own) and will abandon said technique in favor of something they are more comfortable with.
mhosea wrote:I think the confusion in these things occurs when people think of "my way" as however I naturally tend to do something, anything. I maintain, that "my way" isn't that at all. In fact, I don't often even know "my way", at least not until I've worked on something for a long time. I think of style as a broad context, and the optimal execution of technique, or a way to train for it, as something which is tuned to the individual. The role of the instructor is to shepherd this process.
Exactly! It took me a long time to understand what "punching form the ground" really meant. It was absolutely meaningless when the senseis first brought it up. Believe me it was not due to any lack of effort on their part. There was a lot of instructions, examples etc involved. And I was listening. Honest I was. But it wasn't until after years of practice and experimentation on my part before the lightbulb moment hit And who knows after another fifteen years, maybe "punching form the ground" will have a totally different meaning for me