Tradition v Progress

OK ... where did this "godan" requirement come from? I don't see this mentioned previously in the thread by Bob or anyone else.

That aside, though, having a particular rank doesn't necessarily mean someone can teach. I've met some godan (and above) who are excellent at what they do but aren't very good teachers. They do teach but they're not very good at that aspect. Their students struggle a lot. In some ways this is good because the students, due to all the work they've put in to learn it, end up being *very* good ... and usually better teachers than their instructor. On the other hand, it's not good because the instructor loses a lot of students who are unable (or unwilling) to overcome the limited teaching capabilities of the instructor to learn the material. (This can also be seen as a "good" thing, I suppose, as it may be considered "separating the wheat from the chaff").

What I think is important when it comes to being "qualified" to teach is the ability to communicate the material and give the students their own foundation. Some people are better at this than others and I don't think there's any standardized method of evaluating it across the board. It can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

I believe it's important for instructors (or aspiring instructors) to try to learn what they can about teaching ... but I'm not sure a formal approach to this is necessary. Personally I try to better myself as an instructor by watching other people teach. When I'm in a class or at a seminar, I watch how the instructor teaches. How does he/she get the point across to the students? Does it seem to work well? Would it work well for me? If not, is there a way I can modify it to work for me?

Sometimes I learn what *not* to do ... but that's valuable too. At this point in my development, my focus is on becoming a better instructor. If I pick up new material along the way, great ... but even if I don't learn anything (material-wise) at a class/seminar, I feel it was worth my time (and money if there was any) if I learned something that can help me teach.

There are also many effective ways to teach ... but what works for one teacher/student combo may or may not work for another. I've heard a lot of stories about some of the legendary masters in the Filipino arts whose idea of teaching was, "I'm going to beat you with this stick until you stop me from beating you." What students they kept wound up being excellent martial artists and, often, excellent teachers. This model won't work for many (most?) ... but it has been proven to be a viable method for some (and, I'm sure, every art/system/style has similar stories about various masters throughout the evolution).

Mike

 

Hi Andrew,

Hi Bob,



quote:

Yes, but the point was that after training for 15 years a person should have a pretty good idea of what they are doing, even if it doesn't match up exactly with any other established style.

The point is what are they doing? Teaching some one else's system without knowing the big picture.. they can instruct but not teach. There is a difference.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In old-style Shoto, it is not realised that Chinte is a lead in to Gojushiho. Many kata in Shotokan and other styles are taught as stand alone kata because the big picture is unknown.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Kyan lineage also teaches Gojushiho, but not Chinte. I really don't think this makes any difference, a kata can serve as a lead in to another, but that is a teaching methodology question, not something that is part of the kata.

Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

!0 years in karate is a relatively short time if one has been stuck in the Shu of Shuhari. Hardly anyone seems to get out of the Ha stage and very few are suited to teaching.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who said he was, let's assume a good student, good physical shape, can apply things well, and has the ability to innovate. I never really liked the shu-ha-ri way of looking at things myself, perhaps we could adapt Bloom's taxonomy to the martial arts instead?

When you ass u me : ) Shuhari is well understood in the MA. If you need Bloom's taxonomy.. go for it!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone can call numbers but very few can teach the art IMO.

Regards,
bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Should this person not be teaching based solely on qualifications? Let's just assume they have the ability to teach, sufficient knowledge of thier own hybrid system and every other prerequisite you want to stick in, but only ranked nidan in an art they haven't taught or studied in 5 years, a shodan in something more recent, and a couple of kyu grades. They certainely don't meet the godan or higher requirement. But I would venture a guess that you started teaching before Godan as well...

I do care who teaches because we all get tarred with the same brush. If you make up your own system after 3, 5, 10 or 15 years, just be honest about it and don't try and pass it off as something it is not. I started teaching at 5th Dan, I did instruct before then. After 31 years of training I know how much I need to learn. I also know that I thought I knew a lot after 15 years but realize now that wasn't the case. Hindsight is one advantage of age and experience.

Regards,
Bob

 

What big picture, they have trained in martial arts for 15 years, the things they learnt at various times from various people has become integratted into there understanding. They teach martial arts based on there understanding, not on some established tradition.

So Kyan and all his students missed the big picture?

No, Shu-ha-ri is well understood by specific groups, some understand it to mean different things. And when it comes to though experiments, which this is, you have to assume things.

Of course you should care who teaches, and after 15 years training in various arts many people are ready to teach. As I said lets assume this person is both knowledgable and a competent teacher, should he, based solely on rank related issues , be disqualified from teaching.

 

Hi Andrew,

You said: What big picture, they have trained in martial arts for 15 years, the things they learnt at various times from various people has become integratted into there understanding. They teach martial arts based on there understanding, not on some established tradition.

# There in lies the problem to me.

You: Kyan lineage also teaches Gojushiho, but not Chinte. I really don't think this makes any difference, a kata can serve as a lead in to another, but that is a teaching methodology question, not something that is part of the kata.

I said: Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.

You: So Kyan and all his students missed the big picture?

# Straw man argument.

You said: I never really liked the shu-ha-ri way of looking at things myself, perhaps we could adapt Bloom's taxonomy to the martial arts instead?

I said: Shuhari is well understood in the MA. If you need Bloom's taxonomy.. go for it!

You said: No, Shu-ha-ri is well understood by specific groups, some understand it to mean different things. And when it comes to though experiments, which this is, you have to assume things.

# Shuhari is very clear to me. What experiment? You speculate I give an opinion, you try another way, I stick to my opinion.

You said: Should this person not be teaching based solely on qualifications? Let's just assume they have the ability to teach, sufficient knowledge of thier own hybrid system and every other prerequisite you want to stick in, but only ranked nidan in an art they haven't taught or studied in 5 years, a shodan in something more recent, and a couple of kyu grades. They certainely don't meet the godan or higher requirement. But I would venture a guess that you started teaching before Godan as well...

# What are they teaching? I instructed under the guidance of a National and International instructor for around 18 years and taught as an independent for around 9 years now.

I said: I do care who teaches because we all get tarred with the same brush. If you make up your own system after 3, 5, 10 or 15 years, just be honest about it and don't try and pass it off as something it is not. I started teaching at 5th Dan, I did instruct before then. After 31 years of training I know how much I need to learn. I also know that I thought I knew a lot after 15 years but realize now that wasn't the case. Hindsight is one advantage of age and experience.

You said: Of course you should care who teaches, and after 15 years training in various arts many people are ready to teach.

# Teach what exactly.. how to teach the physical moves? Is there any more? What about an understanding of how it all ties in together? How about all of those that dropped kata because they didn't last the distance?

You said: As I said lets assume this person is both knowledgable and a competent teacher, should he, based solely on rank related issues , be disqualified from teaching.

# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!

Regards,
Bob

 

OK ... so where's the cut-off? If 15 years isn't long enough, then what about 20, 25, 30? If after 30 you realize how little you knew at 15, then don't you think that at 60 years you'll realize how little you know at 30? So then why should someone with 30 start teaching rather than wait until 60 years?

It seems entirely possible that someone could have a complete system to teach based on the criteria laid out in the theoretical situation put forth by Andrew.

But I still say it's impossible to take a theoretical situation and paint a black & white generalization from it. I think it's entirely possible that the theoretical person would have plenty to start teaching his/her own blend. I also think it's entirely possible that the person might not have the necessary foundation ... depends on the person.

Mike

 

No, yours was, I follow a Kyan based system and have learnt a few extra's not within my system from other kyan based systems. I learnt Gojushiho, never Chinte and really have no desire to do so. You claimed that if I did not know both I missed the big picture. Considering Kyan only taught one (Gojushiho), and I'm not sure if he even knew the other, it seems fair to conclude based on your criteria of needing both to get the big picture, he too, missed it.
[/B] [/QUOTE]

And many things are likely clear to me and not you based on different experiences. Shuhari as a concept does not exist in all groups, only a few.

The thought experiment of this theoretical person and there right, or lack thereof, to teach material learnt from multiple systems and multiple teachers who lacks the rank generally thought neccessary to teach.

and your experience is relevant to what they are teaching how?

They are teaching the martial arts as they have learnt and come to understand it through a variety of teachers and styles.

You are trying to make a strawman out of my case, I covered that, they have a decent understanding of what they are doing, they teach kata, some from one system, some from another.

To be perfectly honest someon with crosstraining will likely have a better understanding of "The Big Picture" whatever that is then someone who only trained with one person in one style and never innovated or adapted anything.

All styles are ecclectic, even Shotokan. All of your kata do not come from just one source. Most instructors and style founders did not spend 30+ years training under the same person.

 

Of course it is, but the question was is a person with this sort of training capable of teaching despite the fact that they lack the rank generally required to start teaching on your own.

It's never black and white, some might be great teachers in less times, others may never be ready to teach. But what it can show is that you can't just automatically disqualify a person because they teach an ecclectic style and never got a high rank in any established style.

 

Couldn't agree more. I'm very much a "proof in the pudding" kind of guy.

The only way to prove one's "qualifications" as a fighter is in a fighter. The only way to prove one's "qualifications" as a teacher is to see them teach.

If a person honestly feels (and a person's honesty with him/herself can be a problem) that he/she is ready to teach ... then they should try to teach. If they are honest with themselves then they should have some idea of whether they are doing a good job as an instructor or not.

Again, the issue is whether the person is honest (and others) with him/herself about their abilities and experience.

If they can teach then the issue becomes, "Do they have a complete foundation to teach students?" If they can honestly answer yes, then they should do fine teaching their own system (regardless of what ranks they may or may not have).

If they can't honestly say that they have a complete foundation to teach then they shouldn't try to start their own system ... but if they honestly feel they are a good teacher and want to teach then maybe they should assist (or apprentice to) someone else while rounding out their skills.

So I think that the bottom line is the person's honesty with him/herself and others about his/her skills, abilities, and background ... not what color belt or piece of paper they have.

But that's just my opinion ... and it has worked for me. I don't really care what rank someone is. If I think they have something to teach me (or that I have something I can learn from them ... not always the same thing) then I will train and work out with them.

This attitude, for me, comes from having seen both sides of the coin. People with all the rank and certification and proof of legitimacy ... who are, at best, mediocre martial artists and teachers. On the flip side, people with nothing but limited training and a lot of experience and, hence no rank or certification, who are excellent martial artists and techers.

I think, Andrew, that you and I are on the same page.

Mike

 

Andrew,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ozebob

I said: Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.

You: So Kyan and all his students missed the big picture?

# Straw man argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, yours was, I follow a Kyan based system and have learnt a few extra's not within my system from other kyan based systems. I learnt Gojushiho, never Chinte and really have no desire to do so. You claimed that if I did not know both I missed the big picture. Considering Kyan only taught one (Gojushiho), and I'm not sure if he even knew the other, it seems fair to conclude based on your criteria of needing both to get the big picture, he too, missed it.
[/B] [/QUOTE]

I was referring to the fact that you, Andrew, did not understand my reference to how Chinte links in to Gojushiho if you did not know bothKata. You invoked Kyan into the discussion though you cannot know what kata he knew or did not know. The big picture is seeing how everything links in together.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: No, Shu-ha-ri is well understood by specific groups, some understand it to mean different things. And when it comes to though experiments, which this is, you have to assume things.

# Shuhari is very clear to me. What experiment? You speculate I give an opinion, you try another way, I stick to my opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And many things are likely clear to me and not you based on different experiences. Shuhari as a concept does not exist in all groups, only a few.

# It exists as a concept but may not be known to all I agree.

The thought experiment of this theoretical person and there right, or lack thereof, to teach material learnt from multiple systems and multiple teachers who lacks the rank generally thought neccessary to teach.

# You continue to mention rank, not me. I talk about those that have 10 years in karate then a year and a half in jujutsu and a couple of years in something else you mentioned.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


# What are they teaching? I instructed under the guidance of a National and International instructor for around 18 years and taught as an independent for around 9 years now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and your experience is relevant to what they are teaching how?

# You are putting two sentences together than were answering two different questions.

They are teaching the martial arts as they have learnt and come to understand it through a variety of teachers and styles.

# So they are teaching Martial Arts? Which ones? Karate and Jujutsu and something else.. oh well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Teach what exactly.. how to teach the physical moves? Is there any more? What about an understanding of how it all ties in together? How about all of those that dropped kata because they didn't last the distance?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are trying to make a strawman out of my case, I covered that, they have a decent understanding of what they are doing, they teach kata, some from one system, some from another.

# You don't know what a straw man argument is then.

To be perfectly honest someon with crosstraining will likely have a better understanding of "The Big Picture" whatever that is then someone who only trained with one person in one style and never innovated or adapted anything.

# you say that after saying a number of times that you didn't know what the big picture was..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All styles are ecclectic, even Shotokan. All of your kata do not come from just one source. Most instructors and style founders did not spend 30+ years training under the same person.


# The problem with flawed systems today was started by those who became instant karate instructors and started teaching when they should have been learning.

# Funakoshi developed quite a decent system, it wasn't followed by those that carried on Shotokan. I know that styles were created by Okinawan and Japanese Instructors with less than a decade of training under their belt.

Regards,
Bob McMahon

 

Crikey, man goes away for a weekend and the debate takes off without me! Right so we're no longer talking about tradition v progress and 'arguing' about whether someone is qualified to teach.

When you say teach I'm thinking about generally passing information to others, so I think I started teaching when I was a 5th Kyu and my sensei said "Look after the lower grades while the seniors and I do some training, come get me if there's something your not sure about."

So, in this system I had about five years experience (we graded slow compared to the majority of schools), should I have been 'teaching'?

How many of you do this? getting senior grades to look after the class for you?

Thanx

 

Hi Freeform,

That is acting as a tutor or assistant instructor. I think of a teacher as the one that is responsible for passing on the system.
Instructors are usually those that take classes under the direction of a principal teacher.

Regards,
bob

 

Who should Teach?

Bob and Andrew,

Are you simply saying, that in a perfect world, no one should teach unless they posess certain qualifications, but no one should be able to stop them if they don't?

Or,

Are you saying that there should be some agency that would act on behalf of our respective governments, using the force of law, to prevent or stop someone from teaching the martial arts without certain technical qualifications?

If the latter, I'd have some great reservations.

Rob

 

In the UK, there was increasingly the opportunity, to turn your syllabus into an NVQ ( National Vocational Qualification ) course. Has anyone here pursued this type of scheme?

This would be one way of restricting Cowboy Instructors.

It is near impossible to hire a hall in my area without some form of Insurance for teaching MA. This is as a result of the Sports Councils missives to the local government. I don't know if this is progress or not!

I think all the groups and bodies are one of the obstacles to standardisation

 

Modernist: I think based on my own experience, martial arts success can be greatly hindered by the lack of knowledge and experience. I incorporated a couple different styles together to get in my current rhythm, AM TRAD Kickboxing (American Traditional), Muay Tai Kickboxing, and TDK. Although i am not truly "skilled" in two of these styles, i find that the knowledge one can possess from limited exposure to different styles helps you develop the rate at which you learn.
Just a thought

:woo:
Lamonte (Navsealus)

 

American Traditional Kickboxing? Pardon the naivete, but what's that?

Rob

 

Ah. Now there's a question!

How long does a sport have to be around for to become a Style?

Or how long does a Style have to be around for to become Traditional?

Ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Fifty? How long has your Traditional Art been around?

 

Re: Who should Teach?

I'm not saying either.. I'm saying one should support the most experienced teacher in their area.

Regards,
Bob

 

Great question Andy,

Firstly sport has nothing to do with style. The term 'Traditional' according to my little Oxford pocket dictionary means "oral transmission of a body of knowledge that has prevailed or been accepted from generation to generation"

While Shotokan is one of the first modern or eclectic styles of karate, it's founder, Gichin Funakoshi had trained for forty odd years under the top karate masters of his generation before he introduced karate (toudi) into mainland Japan.

Shotokan-Ryu is abetter term for modern shotokan karate and I and others use Shoto-Ryu to describe what we do as we include both the pre-JKA and post-JKA type kata and associated drills.

Regards,
Bob

 

I've had it explained to me, with regard to a traditional vs. modern kata, that a traditional kata was in existence prior to WWII. It's an arbitrary cut of date for the purposes of discussion withing the WKF, I gather.

Rob

 

Hi guys, me again

I was reading Lamonte's post, then I saw Kosokun reply, which is why I brought up, the style, sport, Trad thing. My wording was perhaps poorly phrased, but I thought you would all get what I meant, as the words 'style, sport and Trad' were Lamonte's, not mine.

Ozebob. By your dictionarys definition of Traditional then, would you say that any Father teaching their son a system, makes it Traditional, as it is passing from one generation to the next. I just got a vision of MurrayKanDo temples being setup all over the country by my daughter.

You heard it hear first!