I was exposed to teachers who just want to roll, so they just teach a drill or two and then, just roll. I also was expised to teachers who actually want their students to learn and get better. Those classes tend to be packed with students.
From your writing, it shows that you are dedicated to your students and I applaud you for that. And that’s the reason I come back to your aubstack.
That lens changes how you view things considerably. I wish more teachers were less concerned with themselves and were more attuned to their students.
Thanks a lot for reading, Alain; really glad you enjoyed the article.
And I think you’re right; students can definitely sense whether a coach is going through the motions/ just trying to work on things they’re interested in vs actually bringing value to their students week in, week out.
I think there are even well-meaning coaches (and I can be guilty of this sometimes) who prepare so much for a class that they just want to get through everything they’ve planned, even if students are struggling to keep up.
I think the word I always keep in mind is relevance. And the only way you can make sure the info you bring to sessions is hyper-relevant is by paying really close attention to your students.
I just came back from a seminar and we ended doing 50 rounds of sparring. Which was insane but awesome.
Before we started, the instructor was teaching us a fee things, a few drills and the like. What was of note was how he was trying to make everyone fight his way. Which is fine to an extent but my mindset and experience has shown me that this doesn’t work.
You don’t want your students to be copies of you.
You can teach some techniques and tactics (even your favorite ones), yes, but you also need to show students how to adapt those and make them their own.
No 2 bodies are the same and inherently, no 2 bodies will spar the same way.
Really cool approach. Danaher and Lachlan both have this way of breaking things down that forces you to think differently. Did you notice a difference depending on belt level?
In terms of belt level - if you mean whether the coach adjusts based on the students' belt level - definitely. I can't speak for how Danaher and Giles do it, but if I'm teaching white belts, I keep everything very concrete and specific while giving them really basic mental maps for positional progression. And I mean stupidly simple. It's anything which gives them a general direction of where they should be going, and positional progression.
As students get more advanced, I feel like you can zoom out a bit more and start talking about broader, abstract concepts like inside position.
I was exposed to teachers who just want to roll, so they just teach a drill or two and then, just roll. I also was expised to teachers who actually want their students to learn and get better. Those classes tend to be packed with students.
From your writing, it shows that you are dedicated to your students and I applaud you for that. And that’s the reason I come back to your aubstack.
That lens changes how you view things considerably. I wish more teachers were less concerned with themselves and were more attuned to their students.
Thanks a lot for reading, Alain; really glad you enjoyed the article.
And I think you’re right; students can definitely sense whether a coach is going through the motions/ just trying to work on things they’re interested in vs actually bringing value to their students week in, week out.
I think there are even well-meaning coaches (and I can be guilty of this sometimes) who prepare so much for a class that they just want to get through everything they’ve planned, even if students are struggling to keep up.
I think the word I always keep in mind is relevance. And the only way you can make sure the info you bring to sessions is hyper-relevant is by paying really close attention to your students.
I just came back from a seminar and we ended doing 50 rounds of sparring. Which was insane but awesome.
Before we started, the instructor was teaching us a fee things, a few drills and the like. What was of note was how he was trying to make everyone fight his way. Which is fine to an extent but my mindset and experience has shown me that this doesn’t work.
You don’t want your students to be copies of you.
You can teach some techniques and tactics (even your favorite ones), yes, but you also need to show students how to adapt those and make them their own.
No 2 bodies are the same and inherently, no 2 bodies will spar the same way.
Really cool approach. Danaher and Lachlan both have this way of breaking things down that forces you to think differently. Did you notice a difference depending on belt level?
Thanks for reading man!
In terms of belt level - if you mean whether the coach adjusts based on the students' belt level - definitely. I can't speak for how Danaher and Giles do it, but if I'm teaching white belts, I keep everything very concrete and specific while giving them really basic mental maps for positional progression. And I mean stupidly simple. It's anything which gives them a general direction of where they should be going, and positional progression.
As students get more advanced, I feel like you can zoom out a bit more and start talking about broader, abstract concepts like inside position.
This was a really good article. I'm going to save it to review later and work to adjust my teaching accordingly.