MatsuShinshii

I personally love one of the Marine Corps sayings that kind of goes in line with your post. " We promise you sleep deprivation, mental torture, and muscles so soar you'll puke, but we don't want to sugar coat it".

You don't. You just sound passionate. And for what it's worth, I teach math for a living... I've had people be "much more direct" in their manner when speaking to me! I appreciate that. I tend to be very direct and speak my mind and this sometimes comes off... well jerkish or as a know it all type. I'm really not that way, in fact I am a student in every sense of the word. But you're right I am very passionate about my art. And I respect anyone that is willing to teach math or any other subject to children as a profession. I personally would love the teaching part but would not have the patience to put up with some of the parents and frankly some of the students as well. One of the reasons I only teach adults.

Cut your hair! If the hair is the problem then cut it.

Sounds like your making a good decision for yourself. Good luck and keep us posted as to your progress.

Wait, you're supposed to train outside of class? I must have missed this memo! Oh boy there are a whole lot of couch potatoes rethinking starting a MA right now.

A - pull them aside and explain that they are loosing half of their students and instruct them in how to pass on the knowledge in a clear and concise manner. B - How did they become an instructor in the first place? This falls on their instructor or the organization itself for advancing them to instructor. Just because you wear a certain grade (Shodan to Judan) doesn't mean you can teach. It's like anything else. Some can and some can't. It can be taught but I really think the best teachers come by it naturally. They can sense the level of their students and can teach on that level. Others can't. I think A fit's into this category. You can't take anything away from them because they have the knowledge but they don't understand how to pass it on. B - Again how did they ever get to this position/grade in the first place?

To the bold - I understand where you are coming from but the way I was brought up is that the parent is the first teacher and has more responsibility towards their child's learning than anyone else. I feel that most parents, as you are pointing out, think that it is others responsibility to teach and make sure their child's growth is on track. I do not share this sentiment. The parent is the beginning and the end to the child's growth both physically and mentally. The problem is that most parents check out and leave others to raise their children. Its the new PC. Don't question the child's teachers or what they are teaching and don't pay attention to the man/women behind the curtain. I on the other hand think that questioning everything and taking an active role in your child's education is the parents responsibility not the teachers. I am not of the mind set that it takes a village. To the underlined - I can see where you are going with this and I understand. My point is that I will not bow down to the needs of a insolent spoiled brat that was told all their lives that their way is the only way. In my class my way is the only way. I do not make concessions for laziness, back talking, disrespect or know it all's. I am not perfect and never claimed to be but I have knowledge that the student doesn't have. I have paid in blood,sweat, tears and many many years to acquire said knowledge. Having said that the student is a mushy mess of no skill/no knowledge. I see no reason to meet them on their terms in this equation. If they wish to learn they will learn my way not the way they wish to learn or they can find another school and another Shinshii. This may seem harsh but I have seen this go both ways. Starting out one of my senior students was a pleaser. The students ran over him like a mack truck. His students skill and knowledge level at a give point was not even half of my students because he bowed down to the needs/wishes of his students instead of teaching and them learning. Allowing a student to dictate the way class is taught never works. They have no knowledge to base their decisions from whereas the teach does. Me I don't assume they know whats the best way to learn from me. I teach them as I have been taught and that's that. There is never any debate. May seem harsh but it works. I think this goes without question. We all aspire to be better everyday and wish to attain our own personal perfection within the art and all that we do. This is a never ending journey. Having said that they do not have to be perfect. This is why we train because we are not perfect. If we were there would be no reason to train. I am by no means perfect nor do I know everything. I am a student of the art and as such maintain an open mind when learning from someone else and do not bring my own preconceived notions to class. This is part and parcel why I will not meet my students part way. They come to class to learn not to teach. If they could teach they wouldn't be coming to learn from me. Obviously I have something they want and in order to get it they must allow me to teach the way I know how to teach. This means the student doesn't dictate anything, they learn and that's it. I know I probably come off as a know it all in this post or condescending to your points of view. I do not mean to. I speak my mind and am very direct and some times that can be taken the wrong way. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and are not taking this as a personal attack on you or your views. This is just the way I see things and it may not be the way for anyone else but that's what the forum is all about. Different people with different views. It's not that its my way or the highway but in class they come to learn my art. Respect to allow me to teach is just proper decorum for any student. Allowing them to dictate how I teach is not going to work if I hope to maintain the integrity of the art and the way it's taught. I take teaching and passing on the art that I love very seriously, maybe to seriously for this generation but that's me and I doubt that will ever change. Call me a dinosaur or out of date but I am not changing the way I teach for anyone. In fact I see this as the number one reason that the arts have declined into a mere sport. Students running the show and teachers trying to pacify and cow down to them. It's not for me and I will never meet them on their terms if it means changing the way the art is taught.

I think that's a pretty good explanation Spartacus. Yes there is more to it but to explain it to the layman this is a pretty good way. Thanks for the input.

I like that Great definition Bob. I love it too. Can I use that?

Sorry I posted too quickly and didn't read your post. If this is in terms of natural ability I would agree with you.

No way to obtain skill without discipline. Through discipline skill is developed. Doesn't matter what you do. If you want to be good at it you must develop the discipline to learn and perfect it thus you develop the skill. I guess I don't understand the question.

The problem with Kumite is that in 90% or more of schools, the student is taught the arts applications and techniques but then as soon as the face off everything they have been taught goes out the window and it turns into a kickboxing/boxing match. Why teach the applications and techniques if your never going to use them. How your practice is how you will fight. Our fist step is compliant two person drills were they have set guidelines to adhere to. This allows them to learn the applications and build muscle memory and learn the mechanics. They are put up against smaller/taller/stronger/faster opponents so they can learn to adapt. The second step is also a two person drill but the attacker is able to very speed and power, faint, and try to strike the defender and try to thwart the defenders attempt to apply their defense and counter. They must maintain the same guidelines (attacker has specified attacks and defender has specified defense and counters) the difference is the attacker is non-compliant. Again they are put up against different opponents. The third step is after the students have learned 30 or so applications, they practice a two person drill similar to Kumite. The attacker is allowed to attack with any of the 30 or so attacks and can mix them up and use whatever tricks they can come up with as long as they adhere to the confines of the attacks and defense/counters. The defender now has to deal with a full speed attack without knowing what attack will come. As the student progresses the attacks and applications are added to. By the time they are ready to test for Shodan they will have learned all of the applications to their grade (singular, sequential, grouped) to include founders and what is called practical applications now days and are able to use them with efficiency. At this stage the student has identified what works for them and what doesn't and has practiced and proofed these applications hundreds or thousands of times. The 4th step is where anything goes and the defender must adapt what they know to new scenarios. There is no confines or set attacks. This is full speed full contact. This is where the training and hours/days/weeks/months/years of practicing pay off and they are able to create in motion and find and adapt a defense and counter to the attack. Essentially adapting the applications they know to the attack to defeat the opponent. Again they are put up against different opponents smaller/larger/shorter/taller/faster/stronger so they can learn how to deal with and adapt to change. This sequence is done over and over through the years with each new application or technique learned to proof test it's efficiency and viability for the student. Each Kata contains applications and as they progress in grade they also progress in the amount of applications they learn and apply/test. It seems like a never ending lesson. When you mix in the students understanding of the postures and they begin to adapt new applications (practical applications) it is a life time study. However all are proof tested as to their viability and effectiveness. Through this the student develops and learns to fight via the art. Not what they brought off the streets on the first day. We do not really use Kumite in terms of modern sparring. I see no reason to learn an art if once I learn it I still fight the way I did before I started learning. If your going to learn the art you should use what you have learned and learn to apply it. Reverting back to a few strikes and kicks like you were back on the streets is a waste of all the time you have invested into learning the art. I can't tell you how many students I have accepted over the years from other arts that were graded at Yudansha and could barely put together more than a few combinations. They had a few strikes and a few kicks and that is what they relied on to fight. They certainly did look the part when it came to Kata, they knew their old arts techniques (Kihon), had knowledge of the art, understood the reason for the techniques but didn't ever use them when it came to Kumite. In fact it was foreign to them that they would even try to use them as they felt that they were not used for fighting but just something they learned for grade. Well right back to white belt to start over and learn our way. Realism must be a part of training. Obviously safety and trying to prevent injuries is paramount these days but a student must feel pressured , must have contact and must at least prove to themselves that an application/technique works for them. If all you do is practice with compliant partners who let you do what you want every time you are learning but you're not proving that they are viable or that you can even use them if you needed too. As a student of the art I want to know that if I need to use something I've learned it will work in a real life situation. I can't do that with compliant partners. Or maybe that is that military style training I'm reverting back too. I've been told this many times so maybe it's true but that's OK because I believe it's the ONLY way to train and teach for me and my students.

Unfortunately many schools today do not bring realism into the Dojo and students are expected to just accept what is taught. Any application or technique must be applied against an uncooperative opponent. It must be tested as to it's viability for that student. Just because a technique or an application works for one student does not mean that it will work for another. Conversely - just because the application or technique works on one opponent does not mean that it will work on another. Reality is fights don't take on the cooperative partner drills seen in class. One must test them to prove or disprove it's effectiveness. Simply put - everything looks great and works at slow speed with a compliant partner.

Theory must be tested and proven. It must be put into practice.

Keep showing up and keep listening to your instructor is the right thing. But a word of advise. Be careful about watching video's even if they are representing you art. Just because someone (no matter their grade) is in your art, doesn't mean the way they execute a technique is the same way your instructor does. Many maintain the old ways and others embrace new ways or draw from other arts. This can confuse the student and frustrate the teacher. Listen to your teacher and you will improve because you'll learn what he is looking for.

Depending on the art this means nothing or means everything. Personally I this means nothing as 27 moves don't come close to accurately describing my art. This is very subjective.

How many have heard of this and how many understand this?

Agreed Sensei8.

I don't believe this is an issue. Everyone toughens up over time. No two students are exactly the same. To expect them to be is impractical. One student may be able to push through and another may give up sooner. That student tolerance, as with everything in the arts, will improve. I don't think this is an issue or something I or any other instructor needs to concern ourselves with. Their pain tolerance just like their physical fitness will improve over time. No one expects a student to be able to endure what those studying for years are now comfortable with. It is widely believed that regular exposure to painful stimuli will increase pain tolerance: increases the ability of the individual to handle pain by becoming more conditioned to it. However, in some cases, there is evidence to support the theory that greater exposure to pain will result in more painful future exposures. Repeated exposure bombards pain synapses with repetitive input, increasing their responsiveness to later stimuli, through a process similar to learning. Therefore, although the individual may learn cognitive methods of coping with pain, such methods may not be sufficient to cope with the boosted response to future painful stimuli.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_tolerance I am not a doctor or a medical researcher/scientist, but I have to disagree with this based only on my own experiences. Take conditioning for instance. Specifically striking the Makiwara, this means that I would now feel pain where I haven't felt pain in striking the Makiwara for many, many years. I don't. So how is this true? Am I a one in a million case? I highly doubt it. Now I do experience pain caused by age (body aches such as joint's) but as far as being struck or striking this just isn't the case.

Sorry to hear that Bob. That's a raw deal for sure. I hope you find a way to work it out so that you can continue that which you love and adhere to your doctors orders.

Depends on the context and what you are describing. If you are referring to being on the offense, yes you have the advantage because they have to react to your technique. By the time the signal travels to the brain and is sent back the defender is at a disadvantage as far as time. If you are speaking of what some call Mushin (no mind) where as the body reacts without thought. This is an advantage. Please clarify what you mean by action and in what context are you referring to?

It really depends on how you are brought up. 20 years ago or 100 years ago, kids are kids and people are people. Nothing has changed except a movement to PC. Instilling respect, morals, integrity, humility, empathy, drive and work ethic in our kids is not achieved by meeting them were they are at. As a parent it is my responsibility to teach my kids, not meet them were they are at. As a teacher the same goes. Yes I'm older than most here on the forums but there is a simple translation to raising a good human being and I'm sorry but meeting them were their at is never the path. Its our responsibility to teach right and wrong not to entertain the gray because its the new fad. Might not be popular these days but there it is.

I don't believe this is an issue. Everyone toughens up over time. No two students are exactly the same. To expect them to be is impractical. One student may be able to push through and another may give up sooner. That student tolerance, as with everything in the arts, will improve. I don't think this is an issue or something I or any other instructor needs to concern ourselves with. Their pain tolerance just like their physical fitness will improve over time. No one expects a student to be able to endure what those studying for years are now comfortable with.

Great feedback and input my friend. I have to say I don’t know that any applications o do are what “the founders” had in mind. For the most part I was always taught that we do t exactly know what was on their mind. To go even further with that, over time things change a great deal even if it’s a little at a time. A small example. Not to be negative about a former instructor I taught next to BUT he used to teach things all the time that were from his previous style in kata. Meaning when it came to using a knife and block or something of that nature he would teach the chamber and hand movements with similar angles to his previous style and not accurate to our style. Are used to ponder what his students will look like compared to mine as I carry-on the more accurate tradition of our style. If we each thought 1000 students in our lifetime they would essentially become a different version of the style like you see in many situations today. Because the techniques are used differently in the students he teaches the application will change whether it be slightly or more than that because the movement is not the same so the angle is not the same and therefore the leverage or way the force is applied changes. I study primarily Tang Soo Do, in fact although I study if you different styles when it comes to teaching really only teach Tamg Soo Do forms as it’s always been the foundation of what I teach. As for the forms original meanings as I said I’m afraid it’s pretty common to see bunkai, and only presumptions about what the founders intended. So, on that level I cannot speak about. I have never met a teacher that said “this is what the founder applications are”! It’s always been “this is my interpretation”! Interesting points here for sure. As for the library reference, I also study kung fu and in kung fu the forms are even more important in my opinion. They often rely on the forms for their techniques even more. There were no one steps and things of that nature, only applications from the form and I once heard a very wise instructor refer to forms as a library of the style So I can’t take credit for the reference I’m afraid! It made a great deal of sense to me and i have used it ever since. Thanks for the great input here. Well to be perfectly honest, this is what my Shinshii and his Shinshii told us came from the founder. In researching the postures with in each Kata by way of the original arts that influenced the founder, I can say around 90% of what I have been told were the founders applications are a direct match. Around 8% appeared to have been altered. (Not a bad thing as it had been simplified and IMHO improved) The last 2% I believe someone within the lineage after the founder had either made these up due to not remembering or not been taught these applications. They had no similarities to what I found as the original intent. Now this only accounts for around 90% or so of the postures in the Kata. Some I have yet to proof against any known example of Quan Fa applications. I have an extensive library of around 2200 manuals and books. There are still around 10% of our postures that I can not match to any Quan Fa posture/application. My guess is these are specifically Ti'gwa applications/techniques. Although I have read every book I could get my hand on about this subject, examples are few are far between and were not documented so all we have is stipulation and guess work. Due to this I have no choice but to rely on what my Shinshii has passed down as the application of that posture. I doubt if anyone truly understands or knows the original meaning of every posture. However by researching the arts that influenced your art and referencing their applications you can at least verify whether it matches up with what you are being taught. One good reference to the postures is the Bubishi. They give at least an indication of the original intent of the postures and it's a great starting place. I do agree with you that each instructor makes slight changes. I believe this has a lot to do with the human body. If an instructor is weaker/stronger, shorter/taller, faster/slower, etc. than his/her teacher then they will slightly alter the application to fit them and what works for them. I think this is a natural thing and if done because of these reasons it cancels it's self out and is negligible because at some point it will be taught again like the original teacher taught it due to these same circumstances.

Both. Why limit yourself or give yourself a handy cap. You take advantage of the opponents weaknesses. If they have a weak defense capitalize on targets and end the fight. If they have a strong defense then you have to control and make openings. Just 2 more cents. I'm going broke.