MatsuShinshii

Not only did some teachers teach different kata to different students, but sometimes they taught the same kata differently to different students. Meitoku Yagi said Miyagi would tailor the kata to the students to address their strengths and weaknesses. Sanchin is a good example of this; he taught it with and without turns, and open and closed handed. I think it became more standardized in a sense later on in Miyagi’s teaching, but not everyone was taught it 100% the same way. Hence some Goju Ryu lineages do the turns and others don’t. I think they all currently do closed hands, but I’ve heard from several sources that this wasn’t always the case. Sanchin wasn’t the only kata he tailored, and not every student learned every kata. Yagi could quite possibly be the only one to be taught every Goju Ryu kata by Miyagi personally. This is very true. This could be stylistic changes from the teacher or structured directly to the student. I have seen sister arts perform a certain Kata many different ways. I have often wondered if this was due to the founder teaching it differently to each student, essentially tailoring it for each student, or if each student changed it based on their needs and thus passed it down. However there is one other factor in that the Kata may be influenced, or should I say the instructor may be influenced, by the instructors experience via other arts as well that leads to changes. Excellent points. I’d be willing to bet it could’ve been a bit of both, the original teacher tailoring things a bit, then the student tailoring a bit to his subsequent students. Then there’s also the teacher perhaps changing things subtly to better fit their bunkai. Or they may think a move or two should be changed to something else because they don’t like the generally accepted bunkai. Perhaps substituting a move made better sense to the teacher and/or his students. Perhaps altering a move made the concept easier to understand by the students. There are so many possibilities. To say it was one or another is probably being a bit too simplistic in thinking. I’d bet there were several reasons going on throughout the generations. True. However I always cringe when I hear "changing a Kata to better suite the applications" or should I say accepted applications. The point is that the founder did not put these movements into the Kata as fluff. All moves or sequence of moves have combat tested applications. Delving deeper into the Kata and figuring out, if you don't know or understand, the true application is going to foster greater results in teaching combative efficiency than changing it to something that fits in the instructors mind. I would say this is the number one issue with Kata today. Because the instructor was not taught or forgot the application, they change the Kata to something that they know or understand or worse they make up something to fill the void in their understanding. This does no justice to the instructors understanding of their art and worse it makes sure that the original concept is lost forever in their students understanding of the Kata. The funny thing is... sometimes its the very thing you think it isn't. Better understanding of the elements of the art and in-depth study usually reveal the technique. The problem now days is everyone is selling "Bunkai" and most haven't the foggiest notion of what the true applications are so they make it suite what they understand (punch, block, kick). This turns out to be ineffective, as this is not the true meaning, so instead of looking outside of the modern comfort zone they change it to make sense. Worst some adapt other arts, not even remotely associated with the art, to answer the question of meaning and you essentially begin to teach a different art. Changing the original Kata, as the founder designed it, does happen and there is in most cases a viable reason for doing so. However as this happens, think generations of changes, the art itself is transformed into something entirely different than what the founders passed down. Some argue that the changes made the art more efficient and some argue that it's the natural progression and that change is good. What I know is the arts loose the original lessons and those lessons were there for a very good reason, because they worked. Good chance this is a main reason for some saying that the art is ineffective compared to some more modern arts. Just saying... All things change and adapt over time. Good or bad? Well I guess you could ask the Japanized arts that are reduced to inventing "Bunkai" to fill the voids of understanding due to the changes made early on trying to make it Japanese rather than what the art was. Some changes are not good. At least that's my 2 cents on the subject.

They indeed have a strange kind of classification of styles. Today I learned that kyokushin karate is under Federation of Budo, together with wushu and stuff, while other karate styles are grouped under the National Karate Federation. I finally did it! I talked to my instructor and told him I will be off for a few months. I don't know I will ever return there. I also spoke to my new potential Sensei about my intention of joining his club. There has not been a part of my life without karate for the last 10 years, and now I will spend two weeks deciding what I really want to do. Now that I have plenty of free time, together with judo and iaido, I can even start... dancing? Gymnastics? Rugby? I feel kind of empty inside, I am not sure at this moment how I should go on with my pursuit of karate. Why not try Kyokushin since it doesn't fall under the same classification? If I understood you right the whole paying to leave or transfer was in that classification, correct? If so try it out and see if it suites you. Then you'll fill that empty time slot.

To play devil’s advocate... Sometimes more is better. If I’m being taught a very limited number of kata, what if I don’t like said kata or it’s not the right one for me? There are kata in my syllabus that I do more or less for the sake of advancing, and there are kata I really like and can’t get enough of. If I was required to solely do Pinan 3/sandan for for a year or two, I’d lose my mind. If Saiha was the only kata I did for 5 years straight, you wouldn’t hear a single complaint. I agree in the sense of finding what works for you. I do not necessarily agree that more Kata are better. Certain Kata fit the individual better than others. This is natural. However there are lessons that are taught within the Kata that on the surface may not be learned without depth of study. Some Kata seem boring because they do not have the flash but are invaluable in terms of teaching us offensive and defensive techniques. As a kid I hated Naifuanchin (Naihanchi) but it became one of my favorites to study as I got older because I began learning the depth of techniques and applications. But I totally get what you are saying in terms of one fits, suites or interests you more than the other. There is one Kata within our syllabus that if I was told I could never study again, I would never miss it. So I understand what you are saying.

Not only did some teachers teach different kata to different students, but sometimes they taught the same kata differently to different students. Meitoku Yagi said Miyagi would tailor the kata to the students to address their strengths and weaknesses. Sanchin is a good example of this; he taught it with and without turns, and open and closed handed. I think it became more standardized in a sense later on in Miyagi’s teaching, but not everyone was taught it 100% the same way. Hence some Goju Ryu lineages do the turns and others don’t. I think they all currently do closed hands, but I’ve heard from several sources that this wasn’t always the case. Sanchin wasn’t the only kata he tailored, and not every student learned every kata. Yagi could quite possibly be the only one to be taught every Goju Ryu kata by Miyagi personally. This is very true. This could be stylistic changes from the teacher or structured directly to the student. I have seen sister arts perform a certain Kata many different ways. I have often wondered if this was due to the founder teaching it differently to each student, essentially tailoring it for each student, or if each student changed it based on their needs and thus passed it down. However there is one other factor in that the Kata may be influenced, or should I say the instructor may be influenced, by the instructors experience via other arts as well that leads to changes.

I know. Many, many teachers teach this technique against a knife. Many high grade teachers swear by it. But they have never put it to use in real life. If utilized against a novice it may work but the chances are high you get cut. Used against someone with any level of training... well lets just say that will at the very least end up in the hospital with stitches, that's if the attacker is squeamish and stops after seeing your blood. Don't take my word for it. Attend any knife fighting class and you will realize that, blocking in general, against a skilled person with a blade ends in tragedy. Have your Uke attack you at full speed and tell them to make it real. Use a lower grade with little experience, give them a marker, and just see what happens. I think you'll be surprised how many times they tag you. Don't wear your nice new Gi. To be honest I was taught the same thing but after my time in the Corps and studying under a Filipino knife fighter I was able to convince my Shinshii to remove these techniques. If you block an experienced knife fighter they will rip back as soon as they experience resistance and both of your arms/hands will be shredded. Hard to defend yourself at that point. The likelihood of being attacked by an experienced knife fighter is pretty small. The likelihood of getting cut in a knife fight, regardless of technique, is probably pretty high. Best strategy? Don't get into a knife fight! Sound advice and true. No matter the degree of proficiency a person wielding a blade is a dangerous situation. Even the novice will hit it's target even by chance.

I liked it as a kid. Watching Bruno Sammartino, Buddy Rogers (My favorites) , Bob Backlund, Pat Patterson and others. I think it was the WWWF back then but may be wrong about that. I remember watching matches and you'd see the defeated bleeding and I thought it was real. Little did I know they were using razors to cut themselves and it was fake. When I got a bit older and realized everything was staged is when I lost interest. Probably around the time Stan the man, dusty rhodes, Mr. Fuji and others were coming on scene. I have no idea, other than Hulk Hogan and the Rock, who the wrestlers are anymore.

I know. Many, many teachers teach this technique against a knife. Many high grade teachers swear by it. But they have never put it to use in real life. If utilized against a novice it may work but the chances are high you get cut. Used against someone with any level of training... well lets just say that will at the very least end up in the hospital with stitches, that's if the attacker is squeamish and stops after seeing your blood. Don't take my word for it. Attend any knife fighting class and you will realize that, blocking in general, against a skilled person with a blade ends in tragedy. Have your Uke attack you at full speed and tell them to make it real. Use a lower grade with little experience, give them a marker, and just see what happens. I think you'll be surprised how many times they tag you. Don't wear your nice new Gi. To be honest I was taught the same thing but after my time in the Corps and studying under a Filipino knife fighter I was able to convince my Shinshii to remove these techniques. If you block an experienced knife fighter they will rip back as soon as they experience resistance and both of your arms/hands will be shredded. Hard to defend yourself at that point. Solid post!! I'd never ever use many blocking techniques against a knife, for the many reasons that you speak about here. Without a knife or the like, I'd use the upper x-block because it transitions into other applications. I was once told by a knife guy that there are no blocks other than mental blocks.... Sound advice.

I know. Many, many teachers teach this technique against a knife. Many high grade teachers swear by it. But they have never put it to use in real life. If utilized against a novice it may work but the chances are high you get cut. Used against someone with any level of training... well lets just say that will at the very least end up in the hospital with stitches, that's if the attacker is squeamish and stops after seeing your blood. Don't take my word for it. Attend any knife fighting class and you will realize that, blocking in general, against a skilled person with a blade ends in tragedy. Have your Uke attack you at full speed and tell them to make it real. Use a lower grade with little experience, give them a marker, and just see what happens. I think you'll be surprised how many times they tag you. Don't wear your nice new Gi. To be honest I was taught the same thing but after my time in the Corps and studying under a Filipino knife fighter I was able to convince my Shinshii to remove these techniques. If you block an experienced knife fighter they will rip back as soon as they experience resistance and both of your arms/hands will be shredded. Hard to defend yourself at that point.

Most effective technique? Whatever technique ends the fight before it begins or after it is initiated.

To be honest if we taught the art the way the founders did you wouldn't be taught Kata based on grade nor for that matter would you be taught every Kata. Kata were taught to a student based on what suited that student. It was based on the individual and not the curriculum or syllabus. Ever wander why some students were taught certain Kata and others were not? This leads to a lot of arguments about what Kata a founder really taught because some of their students had a different set of Kata than other students. So they argue that their Kata were the only Kata that founder taught because that was all that was taught to them. Times were different and because the training was focused around combat, the teacher would teach the student based on what suited them best and would capitalize on their strengths to make them more efficient and prepared for combat. Now some students are taught Kata for the mere sake of learning Kata and not based on what will make them effective nor for the purposes of making them effective in terms of actual combat/fighting. More Kata does not equal better martial artist unless your sole criteria is based on tournaments and winning trophies. Just my 2 cents.

1. Fat Cobra stole my thunder with Ego. But I totally agree. 2. Titles other than teacher (Shinshii/Sensei). Kinda goes along with ego but not entirely. 3. JR 137 stole my thunder with too many Kata's. Totally agree. 4. Techniques that do not work. Have too many moves (expect your opponent to stand still and allow you to apply). So called "self defense" techniques that gives the student the belief that they can some how pull a move that will keep them safe from bullets and blades. Example; cross block to a downward knife attack. If this needs explaining... well you get the gist. 5. Mysticism; The whole ninja dust, smoke and mirrors, no touch KO nonsense that gives ALL TMA's a bad name. 6. McDojo's; teaching crap for money. Giving belts based on how much you pay. Getting a black belt in a year (again based on payment not skills/knowledge.) 7. Frauds. Those that have no or limited experience but pass themselves off as experts. 8. Western Soke. Come on, how many Soke/Judan can one country have? We have more than Japan and Okinawa combined, for that matter more than there are arts. Ever wander how that works out. How can there be 4 Soke for one art? Visit the grand old USA and you can find out. Oh and this does go along to some degree with number 7. That fact hasn't escaped me. All of these I could do without but 5 thru 8 are killing the TMA's community and bringing questions as to effectiveness vs other forms of combat arts which casts a shadow on ALL of us and our arts. So these I could really do without.

I have no need nor would I want to learn that many Kata. I do not think that learning this many Kata is beneficial to the student unless it is in terms of competition as JR 137 points out. IMHO if you're studying the Kata there should be no need for that many Kata. I'll hold the number I feel is sufficient as to not target a specific number and single any art out that has more. However I do feel that learning Kata for the sake of learning Kata strictly for the number and without the substance and depth of understanding (applications) serves no purpose. IMHO there is no way a person can have any understanding past the mere movements and pattern of any Kata when you have a syllabus that large. I didn't think to ask him how many he actually knew or if he could name them, as I had already dismissed him after his statement but Bob had a point in that he was likely over exaggerating and attempting to impress.

I have no idea if this guy trains in Shito Ryu. I only stated that while surfing the web looking to see if there was any art that had that many Kata I came across a site that claimed that Shito Ryu had 94 Kata.

What? Does that ever happen? I've never heard of or witnessed a beginner being expected to spar before they're ready. Never. That's not to say it doesn't happen. I've never known it or heard of it. Is that something that happens in the US? Quite apart from it being morally wrong to ask a new starter to spare before they're ready, it would also be dangerous not just for the new starter, but for the other students. What if the new kid is both completely mental and extremely tough? Are there really instructors out there that would take that risk before getting to know and trust the new starter? Then there's the civil liability. The new person is effectively a guest. Are are there any insurance companies out there that are happy to cover clubs that throw visitors to the wolves? Based on your comments you probably were not around in the 70's.

The transfer process goes like this in my country: you pay some money to your previous Sensei, s/he gives you that reference thing if s/he is O.K. with your leaving the club, and only then can you become a member of a new club. Well, actually, this is good advice, thanks, LLLEARNER I regularly practice karate at least once a week. I think I'm a bit afraid of forgetting and losing everything I have practiced and learned so far, and never being able to return and continue from where I have left. I have never taken a break from karate since I started ten years ago -except a three-month-period when I broke a limb, and another period because of a nastier injury. But anyway, taking at least a few months off would really help me make up my mind. I have recently discovered a Kyokushin karate club and joined one session, and I think what they practice is closer to what I want to learn. Maybe I should go talk to that Sensei to let me in for some time and get to know their style better. Karate and judo are similar in some respects, as far as I know, too, but in my karate club, we never practiced judo techniques. You do not have to think about what a technique is for or whether it is useful that way, even if you sacrifice the correct technique for showing off and looking flashy in kata. I have little knowledge of how techniques in kata can be used against actual opponents. Judo, however, is much more realistic in that sense. So you can’t leave one club and join another without the original club’s owner’s written permission? That could quite possibly be the most absurd thing I’ve heard in the martial arts, and I’ve heard some pretty crazy stuff. I’m not saying you’re misinformed, as I don’t know where you live and train, I’m just saying that that policy is pretty crazy. It’s one thing if you’re transferring from one club to another club within an organization, ie transferring from the NYC branch of Joe’s Karate School to the Los Angeles branch of Joe’s Karate School. While I wouldn’t completely agree with it, I could see that being done for paperwork, rank, and instructors in the same organization not competing with each other and stuff like that. But to leave a school and start somewhere else entirely? It’s mind boggling to me. Are you sure this is an official policy, like a legal policy that’s applicable to all MA schools in your country, or is this something you’ve heard that could be urban legend? Kind of like the urban legend here in the US that black belts must register their hands and feet as lethal weapons with their local police department. It’s pure nonsense, but people still actually believe it. I’d check with an independent party to make sure it’s an actual policy and not something people have made up to keep students from leaving. I agree. Absolute nonsense! I think that this is a misconception of an introduction letter within the same organization. You don't have to pay money, it's not a necessity, nor does it keep you from joining another school in another town/city/state/country. It's a courtesy and nothing more. Instructors will write a letter of introduction to make the transition easier and establish the students credentials. It basically states that they are a student of yours, they trained for "x" years, hold the grade of "x" and are in good standing with the organization, and your contact information should other information be needed. It's not needed nor is it a requirement for either the student or instructor. It's a courtesy and nothing more. No one forces this nor does it keep the student from joining another school. Outside of an organization... Absolute nonsense! Sounds to me like a way to get a few more dollars out of the student before they leave. I wouldn't pay a dime.

Rant: How many do you actually need? I know that there have been other posts on this subject but I was speaking with a vendor today that knows a few employees and had found out that I teach. He asked me about my art and specifically he was interested in how many Kata we teach. When I told him he looked at me cross eyed and stated that his art has 92 Kata. Seriously???? Now I fully understand that there are arts that do not focus on the applications and some that don't even teach/know them and rather focus on the tournament/sport aspects of the art. However I fail to see the benefit of learning knowing that many Kata. To be perfectly honest I don't understand the need to learn that many Kata. Maybe competition to see how many you can learn? How does learning more than say 20 Kata (not saying that this is the magic number just picked a round number) help or benefit the student? How many Kata would you have to learn for each grade with that many Kata?? If you do the math and figuring 10 kyu and 10 dan grades that's 4.7 Kata per grade. Really??? Sorry to bring this topic up again but I had never heard of so many Kata being taught and to be perfectly honest I didn't even know that any style taught that many. Unfortunately I did not get to ask him the style of Karate that he studied because he went into a rendition of "your art is not good because you have too few Kata" speech and I walked away. I thought he was lying but I did a google search I found a website claiming that Shito Ryu is listed as having 94 Kata. Although I also found other websites that had the number between 30 and 50. So maybe he is right about the number but I still fail to understand the reasoning behind teaching that many Kata or how you would benefit from it. Maybe it's my set in stone ways, but man, that does not make any sense to me. End of rant.

The only chinese art I've ever studied is Fu Jow Pai so I can not comment on whether he is a good source for CMA based on a few vids I watched. However I did find a Tiger "Kung Fu" vid and all I can say is I doubt he learned this from an actual Sifu. Maybe out of a book or a vid on youtube but you can tell its not a main art for him. In watching a few of his videos (by the way a lot of Jake is fake vids out there) I tend to agree with RW. Not saying that he doesn't have exposure to CMA's but the way he moves and the fact that he doesn't use traditional names for the techniques would lead me to believe that exposure was limited. Master he is not. At least for the vids (styles) I watched. I didn't have time to view all of them so maybe there is one art(style) he is very proficient in. But again I do not know the guy and have never taken any of the arts he is teaching minus Tiger so I'm am not an expert. Just my opinion. I did however find vids by others (Chinese Sifu) and could tell a huge difference but again this was just my observation.

Agreed. It's the aha moment. Without an understanding its just something that they have to do to get to their next belt. I have taken other arts (earlier in my life) that did not teach the applications and I always found it funny that the students were least excited when it was time to learn a Kata. I've even heard the occasional "Ahh Man!" or the question "how does this have anything to do with fighting or how can this help me be a better fighter". It's amazing how little resistance you get when they understand why they are doing something and how excited they become to learn more.

Man that is a blast from the past technique. An old instructor (boxing) of mine tied my right arm up for two months until I learned to use my left. Thanks for jogging the old memory Bob. Great stuff! My former sensei tied me to another student once so I couldn’t “run” during sparring. He tied us together with a belt’s length between us. He did it to a few others here and there too. Thanks for jogging my memory. I hadn’t thought about that one in years LOL!! Yep, I've done that more times than I can remember. I've tied them to me!! Now, that gets their attention really quick...saucer eyes and all; and they can't run far, if at all. Life has its little perks as the CI. I've told my students that one of the biggest reason that they are in my dojo is that they're my only source of entertainment, and I get bored really quick. I mean this in the most harmless way. After all, much of the drills that I've created definitely challenge and help them to reach their AHA moments, and that is the primary reasons, but, well, I do get bored. Do I detect an evil grin? It's good to be the King!

Man that is a blast from the past technique. An old instructor (boxing) of mine tied my right arm up for two months until I learned to use my left. Thanks for jogging the old memory Bob. Great stuff!

One of the first books I owned (in English) on the MA was Complete book of Jujutsu. Still own it. I have several books that Bruce Tegner authored; Karate beginner to black belt, Aikido and Bokata, Self Defense, Stick Fighting, a nerve and pressure point book and a Kung Fu & Tai Chi book that is missing it's cover and about four or five pages. All are from the 70's and 80's. Back in the day his concepts were 180 degrees different than the main stream but I will say his books were well written and had(have) a lot of good information in them. A former student of mine lent me a book, that if memory serves me was along the lines of forms of different martial arts and another book on self defense for police. One of my old instructors had a book on Judo and said it was very good. Not sure how many arts the man studied but it must have been a lot.

Times change. Is youtube vids the problem? Depends. If you're a complete Newb and depending on what you find... yes. If you type in a word or phase and click search you will find a plethora of information out there. Some good and a lot bad. I am by no means a technical guru on the computer or for that matter in searching the web (self taught through trial and error). However I have no problem finding the frauds spouting absolutely useless ineffective techniques on video's right off the bat. It hits you straight away. I'm sure someone will correct me but I think for every one good, informative and effective video you'll find 20 that are absolutely worthless and show everything but real TMA's. The good are there but their far outweighed by the bad. There is no monitoring of quality when it comes to TMA and the internet or really anything for that matter. The internet is here to stay. As long as there are charlatans and frauds that are allowed to post useless examples of the TMA's then you'll have problems with students wanting to learn TMA's. They will come away with an opinion based on what they just saw. I feel the major problem is that there are more inexperienced frauds posting examples of what the arts are not than those posting good examples of what the arts are. Does youtube hurt the TMA's... in a word yes. Why? Because of the message that gets out to the perspective student is not always the one you would prefer they get. 99% of the time its not the right message. Does it help MMA? Absolutely. Why? Because you can watch it in action. Nothing says it better than watching one guy beat another. Does that hold any bearing on what the student will learn by joining an MMA gym? No. But it doesn't matter when on the other hand you search for traditional arts and find a two or three minute video of two guys playing patty cakes or a flashy Kata that has absolutely no bearing in reality. Worse you have terrible examples of absolutely useless "Bunkai" being passed off as effective applications. Even a Newb will turn an nose up and look else where. However it's not just Youtube. Websites that illustrate everything but traditional martial arts are abound. In doing a little research I was able to literally waste a day of my life reading through absolute useless, false information (hundreds of websites). I did find some legitimate websites with good information and opinions but again they are out numbered by the McWebDojo's out there spouting nonsense. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your stance, the internet gives a sounding board to everyone. You can put anything you want out there as long as you have the money for a website. No one monitors them nor calls them out so you have to deal with it or put more real TMA information out there to combat the junk. As far as MMA is concerned... this is not a new phenomena. When I was young Kung Fu and Judo where prevalent, then Karate and Jujutsu (japanese), then JKD, American Kempo and the like, then Krav Maga, Pencak Silat, Arnis, and others and the list goes on and on, were the flavor of the year. It really doesn't matter what the flavor of the year is. If what you teach is effective then it will last. If not then it will go the way of the dodo. Personally I feel that the sport aspect and the McDojo's have more to do with the decline in interest in traditional arts over the internet or MMA or what ever craze will come tomorrow. They have essentially removed the effective fighting aspect of the arts and replaced it with watered down, flashy junk that is meant to catch a judges eye rather than be used in real situations. Sure the internet plays a role but our industry plays a larger one. As far as loosing student to youtube videos are concerned... well that same argument was around when I was young in terms of books and magazines. Then came VHS tapes and you heard this argument again. Not to mention other arts being introduced in an area. There will always be some reason that you do or don't get students and even reasons why you loose students. This will never change and depending on the year you can point your finger in a dozen directions and still be wrong. IMHO you don't loose any perspective students to videos. Not really. Those that would rather watch videos are not real students to begin with. If they would rather watch than do, then lets face it, you were never going to get them into your Dojo in the first place. Everything goes in cycles. Nothing stays in favor with 100% of the people out there. The only thing you can do to attract or keep students is give them what they want. In the 70's and into the 80's it was to learn to fight and defend yourself. Then the trend swayed towards tournaments and the sport aspect of the arts. Then it really swayed and gave birth to XMA and purely sport based arts and schools. Then the yoga'esque, work out oriented, meditative, non-violent, non-contact, get a belt if you show up and pay enough, McDojo's were born. Now its back to fighting. Which by the way, and I know I'll get flack for this, is the reason why the arts were created in the first place. I love it. Maybe it will skew the arts back to what they were created for rather than the kumbaya, everybody gets to be a black belt with next to no effort version that is so prevalent today. I think that MMA and the internet are a God send. It highlights the flaws in modern TMA's and puts the spot light on the limited effectiveness of how the arts are taught today with the patty cakes no-contact emphasis. I think it will force instructors to move away from modern methods and return to the original founders methods of teaching the art. Basically put the combat back into the arts. May not be popular but there's my 2 cents.

If you are teaching them techniques it should be done on both sides equally.

Depends on your instructor/organizations requirements. IMHO I feel an instructor should possess both. However I feel that the skills and abilities of an instructor must come first. Knowing a lot of your arts history is a good thing but doesn't replace skill and ability. You could know more than anyone else in your art and if you can't fight your way out of a paper bag what student is going to want to learn from you. I feel as though in the beginning instructor grades skill and abilities are the main focus. Once you achieve a level of skill and abilities and as you gain grade and age your focus shifts to understanding your art and it's history. The older you get and the higher the grade you achieve the more understanding the history comes into play. You have to have the skill first and foremost. Without it you're a paper tiger.

Domo! Well deserved!