The Traditional Method

The Traditional Method class structure in martial arts looks like this:

• Warm-ups for 5-10 minutes.

• Technique and drilling for 30-40 minutes.

• Sparring for 20-30 minutes.

Anyone with experience training in combat sports recognizes this as the blueprint, with minor variations from gym to gym and coach to coach. Some coaches put a massive emphasis on warmups, others skip them entirely. There are coaches who believe in the power of endless drilling, and their class structures reflect that.

Where this structure came from is anyone's guess, but it has become the standard. Whether you train in California or Ghana, you're bound to find classes taught in this way. When someone begins training they'll learn this way on day one, and when they become a coach they'll teach in this manner.

Underlying Assumptions

Every teaching method is based on some assumptions about the coach, the student, and how the skill in question learned through their interactions.

Assumption #1: Knowledge & Skill Are Equivalent

Skill acquisition from the Traditional perspective is a matter of knowing things. Whoever knows more wins, and whoever knows less loses. The logical course of action is therefore to turn classes into knowledge accumulation sessions, where the coach shares information about the specifics of a technique or small set of techniques. Students then get better as a result of observing this information sharing.

Assumption #2: Coaches Are Primary Sources of Knowledge

Since knowledge and skill are the same things, coaches are by definition supposed to be the most knowledgeable/skilled people in the training environment. They've accumulated the largest catalog of techniques that they can both articulate and demonstrate in a step-by-step way.

Assumption #3: Students Are Passive Observers

Students in the Traditional Method are viewed as empty vessels, receptacles that must be filled by the knowledge of expert coaches. Their job is to observe their coaches, listen to their detailed instructions, then mimic them as closely as they can. Deviations from these instructions is considered a net negative, since they're not as knowledgeable as their coaches.

Assumption #4: Repetition of Correct Technique is What Matters

Given the other assumptions, skill development must be a matter of finding the most knowledgeable coaches, observing their techniques, then mimicking them over and over again. This is done through regular drilling against opponents who either don't resist, or resist in predictable ways that are part of a chain of techniques.

Assumption #5: Learning Isn't Supposed to Be Enjoyable

Most students enjoy sparring with live resistance far more than sitting and listening to a coach. But if your underlying assumptions align with the Traditional Method, that's not a concern worth addressing. Classes are for absorption of information, and worthy students will sit and absorb it even if they don't like it. Live resistance is for fun and using what you learned during class, nothing else.

Assumption #6: It's Everywhere, So It Must Be Right

The universality of the Traditional Method leads to the idea that it is correct by default. Given the ancient mystique of martial arts in general, it's a common belief that there are certain essential elements of it that are timeless—including how it's taught.

Effects of the Method

If you've ever wondered why there's such a problem with cult-like atmospheres in martial arts gyms, the Traditional Method is one of the core causes. When you're given an authoritative role in an environment that runs on these assumptions, it can inflate an ego to massive proportions. It is, in many ways, why violations of the Coach-Student Contract are so common in martial arts.

Students who learn this way are encouraged to be passive, so they become conditioned to the idea that they are not in charge of their own learning. Personal flourishes and experimentation are tolerated at best, and outright punished at worst. It is a fundamentally disempowering, demotivating way to learn anything, not just martial arts. No wonder the attrition rates are so high across the board!

What's even more unfortunate is that it is still possible to achieve a high level of skill with the Traditional Method. Anyone who disagrees with it can be countered with the competitive success of athletes who have come out of more traditional-style training environments. This is due to the lack of alternatives more than anything else, but the point is still persuasive across martial arts culture.

The human brain and body are both capable of amazing feats of adaptation, and someone with enough talent and an exceptional willingness to tolerate pain can still go quite far even with poor learning methods. However, what should interest coaches and students alike is not what is possible at the top end of the results distribution. What they should care about is what methods on average generate the best results.

Traditional Method-style teaching is based on, as the name suggests, traditions—not science. This pedagogy was born in a time when we simply didn't know any better, so it's not entirely the fault of teachers in past generations. You don't know what you don't know. But now that we live in a time where we have a more empirically-grounded understanding of learning, there aren't any excuses to continue down the Traditional Method path.