Tradition v Progress

Perhaps I was mistaken, I thought you'd mentioned something about only higher ranked instructors should be teaching.

Does it matter?

Taking an argument, reducing it to a weaker form, and then attacking the weaker form.

The case I put forth was a person with a good understanding of what he was doing. Yet you keep trying to stick people who don't in (ex. Dropped kata because they didn't understand it)

No, I can't be perfectly sure what you mean, this is an abstract term for which you did not provide an adequate definition. However, whatever it is you are refering to when you say "big picture" would be likely be something best learnt looking at multiple sources, not just one.

Define complete system. After 15 years is it not possible that they have studied a complete system, one encompasing weapons, striking and grappling. Much more then many "pure" karate instructors have studied.

15 years is not an instant instructor.

Funakoshi has been gone along time, someone most have carried something on, or you would have nothing. A good chunck of the Okinawan styles where formed with less then 15 years training under an instructor. Some of them are highly respected styles. I would suggest that this train 20-30 years under one person in one style is a fairly recent demand placed on students, it doesn't take that long before you're better off experimenting on your own.

 

Andrew,

Straw Man argument is arguing against something not said by the other side.

Bob

 

Andrew,


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

# 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.

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



Perhaps I was mistaken, I thought you'd mentioned something about only higher ranked instructors should be teaching.

# I qualified that later in this drawn out saga.

Bob

 

Andrew,

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

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

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



Does it matter?

# Not to me. My point is and will remain, that students should support the most experienced teacher.

Bob

 

Andrew,

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

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..

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



No, I can't be perfectly sure what you mean, this is an abstract term for which you did not provide an adequate definition. However, whatever it is you are refering to when you say "big picture" would be likely be something best learnt looking at multiple sources, not just one.

# I did define the 'big picture', if it was inadequate then I'm sorry you did not understand.

Bob

 

Andrew,

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!

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



Define complete system. After 15 years is it not possible that they have studied a complete system, one encompasing weapons, striking and grappling. Much more then many "pure" karate instructors have studied.

# The entire style that one has begun to study. In the case of a karate style, that would mean their entire kata syllabus.

Bob

 

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

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

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



15 years is not an instant instructor.

# I was talking about those that started some of today's traditional styles.

bob

 

# 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.

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



Funakoshi has been gone along time, someone most have carried something on, or you would have nothing. A good chunck of the Okinawan styles where formed with less then 15 years training under an instructor. Some of them are highly respected styles. I would suggest that this train 20-30 years under one person in one style is a fairly recent demand placed on students, it doesn't take that long before you're better off experimenting on your own.

# Yes, some did carry on Funakoshi's kata. Others went in different directions. I agree that 20 - 30 years is too long under one person. I think one should teach classes under supervision, then move to a branch dojo and one day go their own way. The time frame depends on the person. Dojo hopping is not a good method to me though.

Bob

 

As to all this quoting, reverse quoting, strawman grappling who has the biggest bulge in their GI stuff...........

Is this Tradition or Progress???

 

Personally I would say it is confusing..... I got lost on page 3

 

Gentlemen,

I agree it has become silly.

Regards,
Bob

 

I wouldn't so much say silly.... Just overly argumentative. I see alot of good information and points, I just can no longer keep track of what is an informative point and what is an argumentative ego shot lol.

 

Magnanimous as always Bob. Pommie for Decent sorta cobber.

 

No it isn't, web search link:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Unless this link and every Philosophy prof I had are wrong, otherwise you are.

I think one should get a good base in one style and then look into others and incorporate things from that training into their own, teach and experiment, and go off on your own path.

Then most styles of karate could fully be studied in a matter of months by an experienced practitioner.

In my style, Isshin ryu, all of the hand kata are typically done for ikkyu. Sometimes some of the weapons kata are too.

Well I would say support the most knowledgable and most capable of passing that knowledge on. If another instructor has 20-30 years more experience that doesn't matter, what matters is who knows their stuff

 

Hiki wake

Bob

 

I have to agree with some of that, in respect to what experience really means. Personally I not only want an instructor who has encountered situations where they have had to use their knowledge of their training, but I want one that "survived" it. In most ways time is the best teacher, and it makes a difference, but it's not an automatic qualifier.

Rob