Appledog wrote:Over time, it is likely that any belt system will fail to be promulgated and will die due to lack of interest.
Appledog wrote:RobP3 wrote:Appledog wrote:Over time, it is likely that any belt system will fail to be promulgated and will die due to lack of interest.
So once again....why? Or are you just a trollin'?
No I already explained why on this thread, last page. Here's a quick summary of page 2.Appledog wrote:The point is to grade and organize what I know and how I teach it.
This is about how to teach professionally.
To help students:
a) ...tell the difference between (you--quality instructor) and joe blow schmoe.
b) ...explain things to the student in a simple and straightforward fashion.
c) ...how to teach to the level of the student / keeping track of the level of each student.
Creating a ratings system to track performance in sparring (to provide opponents of similar skill)
reduce the amount of daoyin/qigong/jibengong "stuff" that "needs" to be taught to a standard minimum. or perhaps a small collection of options.
On page 1 I also mentioned that a belt system helps ensure quality by preventing people who don't know so much from following through the system. Belt inflation would be controlled by anchoring the upper levels to a ranking system. Alternately the belt system could be used merely as a roadmap for forms and applications knowledge and a separate rating system could be used. I also mentioned both anecdotal and scientific experience from my long teaching career that shows students learn faster if they are given well-defined goals and a pleasant, open teaching environment.
I think in the end I have a good chance of creating something useful, at least within my own school. Which is what this is really all about. When I made the original post asking for constructive criticism, I got a lot of criticism which wasn't constructive, and a lot of people who really didn't read the thread or understand what I posted in the first place. I think that is ironic because it reflects the way in which the "Traditional" Tai Chi world tends to operate, especially with the current state of affairs where everyone has the 'real form' and a set of secret chi kung exercises. A world where people argue about the angle of the back foot in single whip. Frankly I don't have time for those kinds of issue, there are too many positive things to focus on here versus negative. I may fail, but I will try.
I was especially interested in Doc Fai Wong's ranking system. He seems to have gone in the opposite direction I was thinking, but I am guessing his system is working, at least in his own schools. It would be interesting to talk with some of the students who have gone through his system.
Appledog wrote:
On page 1 I also mentioned that a belt system helps ensure quality by preventing people who don't know so much from following through the system. Belt inflation would be controlled by anchoring the upper levels to a ranking system. Alternately the belt system could be used merely as a roadmap for forms and applications knowledge and a separate rating system could be used. I also mentioned both anecdotal and scientific experience from my long teaching career that shows students learn faster if they are given well-defined goals and a pleasant, open teaching environment.
Appledog wrote:
What I got is just a complete system, basically, as complete as it gets minus "all" the martial applications....... I see a really clear path from beginner to fighter in Tai Chi, and thats what I want to share.
Appledog wrote: A world where people argue about the angle of the back foot in single whip.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 98 guests