This is incorrect
Originally Posted by artard
Knowing is not enough, you must apply...
...Willing is not enough you must do
Iunno, are spider guard, x guard, gogoplatas and bicep sliders bullshit techniques just because a lot of coaches wont' teach them to their white belts?
Originally Posted by jdinca
What about heel hooks and other techniques that are very easy to injure your partners with if you don't have a certain level of skill?
Originally Posted by Logicattax
you one of those weirdos with a fixation for matt thornton?
hai! i haz surprise: everybody loox stoopit in slomow!
Well exactly. In Judo beginners only do easy throws and pins. You don't see whitebelts doing uchi matas on each other and chokes and subs come in above orange belt level. All to stop the kiddies crippling or killing each other (they have to wait until they get their green belt for that).
Originally Posted by selfcritical
His statement was "the first part of your training". Take that for what it's worth.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
My opinion is this: Fundamentals ARE taught at the beginning of your training. No matter what you learn in addition to that, the fundamentals are the key to success. You may learn techniques that are advanced forms of those fundamentals, i.e., heel hook to spinning heel hook, to jump spinning heel hook, to flying spinning heel hook but if the basic heel hook is no good, none of the others will be either. Now build on to that. If your spinning heel hook is no good, then whatever spinning heel hook you try in the air will be no good. It's a progression that can't all be taught to the "beginner" student.
In addition, there may be techniques that will not be successful when taught to a beginner, if they don't understand HOW the fundamentals work and that the additional techniques are based in some way on the fundamentals.
What I get from Thornton is that anything taught other than the fundamentals in the first part of your training is bullshit and you're being lied to. I wholeheartedly disagree with that premise with the caveat that it all depends on what the underlying purpose of having beginning, intermediate and advanced techniques is.
It all depends on what the underlying purpose of designating a technique "advanced" is. In many instances, it is a bullshit training methodology but if you look at the analogy I just posted in reply to IIF, you'll see where I'm coming from. You learn the basics and then build on the basics, while never stopping your training on the basics. If your basics are not good enough to build upon, then why do it? Wait until the student is better at the fundamentals and then build upon them. Wouldn't that be considered as being more advanced techniques?
Originally Posted by ronaldk
Yeah, I've already posted in it. Not quite the same topic though, and surprisingly I've actually been thinking about posting this thread for probably a week now.
Originally Posted by Lebell
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO