backfist

As I'm learning, the most important thing to possess when teaching kids is tolerance for poor skills. Obviously, kids are going to want to play instead of learn. And the more play/fun, the more receptive they can be to learning. It sounds like the current instructor has the fun and games part down pat. She just needs to mix in just the right amount of seriousness. Most kids' skills--especially below brown belt/sash--are gonna "suck". But I'd be careful about a hasty "shake up" at the dojo. It's a delicate walk between motivating kids and demoralizing kids (as I've learned). Maybe set aside a few mintues with her, and talk to her about the concerns for the kids' knowledge and technique. Let her know that she's doing a great job in motivating the kids and keeping them entertained, but that there's a small--repeat small window of time where they can stand a little seriousness.

Thanks for the support and the advice. It's all well-received. I'm definitely going to incorporate sash ranking for the children, and I'll might or might no offer it as an option for adults. There are pros and cons to doing this.

I agree, Arthur (but thanks, Power). It'll be even harder to find a Chinese MA org because of the non-ranking situation.

I fully agree that kids are a school's bread and butter. And seeing that my kids are not much different than most others, I beginning to come around as far as ranking is concerned. Kids like to see that they're doing well. They also like to know that they are pleasing the adults in their lives. So I believe I'm going to begin issuing rank-level sashes to my sons. They'll probably take more pride in their training; will keep them interested and motivated; and dad will definitely enjoy their enjoyment. And if I, as a parent, want my kids to be happy in their training, I'll bet that other parents will too. The next step, I guess, is finding an organization who will "rank" me. There seems to be a bazillion orgs out there. Anyone have any thoughts about one?

Over the last 32 years, I've been a devout martial artist. A few years ago, I stopped training in one style and began training in another. The style I left was based on traditional belt ranks, testing, pre-testing, etc. I trained in it, off and on, for over a decade but did not attain black belt (I had issues with authority figures). The new style was a traditional Chinese gung fu style; no belts, formal certificates, etc. I studied and trained--emphasis on study--for many years. I have long considered myself a gung fu man, rather than a karate man. Over the last few years, I've been teaching my wife and kids, as well as a couple of my kids' friends and schoolmates, aspects of my different styles--using what's useful and disgarding what I believed was not. I love teaching, and my students actually love to learn from me. It's rewarding on both ends. For some time now, I've been wanting to teach full time, but have some reservations. My first school is very possessive and political about it's style. Yet my gung fu style has no rank. So if I am to teach commercially, I'm concerned about how I will be perceived by (a) the public (most don't understand belt-less styles); (b) the people in my prior style (because I would incorporate some of those techniques); and © competitors whose styles use belt ranks. I'm curious to know how some might view someone like me--decades of knowledge and experience, but one who has a hard time with the belt-ranking system.

I remember Quan in local tournaments (in the SF Bay Area). He used to perform an open kata to the theme of Enter the Dragon.

http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gungfutop2dh.jpg

You've gotten some great advice here. But I'd be vary wary of giving any consideration at all to the Burger King/McDonalds or Shell/Chevron scenarios (no offense to the gentleman or lady who posted it). All of those entities are multinational corporations who employ hundreds or thousands of professionals to continually research the feasability of operating across the street from their direct competitor. Second, I'd strongly consider the feasability of purchasing the property. In some markets, buying commercial property is a must. Others, you don't want to mess with anything other than a lease. Does your would-be competitor own their property? How about the surrounding businesses? If they're all renting, you may want to consult a CPA to see if there's a reason others aren't buying. If you know for sure that your program is at least equal to theirs (objectively AND subjectively), and you know that you can offer this where they don't offer that, then maybe you're on the right track. Otherwise, you might want to hold off until a better situation comes along where you can get yourself established without the competition constantly removing blocks from your foundation.

I respectfully disagree. Those brown belts who want it bad enough will exceed the requirements. Those who don't, won't; regardless of the positive reinforcement they receive. Think Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky didn't get positive reinforcement at every level? Sure they did. They were ferocious competitors who wouldn't be denied the next level of accomplishment. But they're human; without positive reinforcement working in harmony with criticism, they wouldn't have been who they are today.

There are all kinds of analogies and metaphors (and advice) for this one. Here's one: 1. Acknowledge and praise their hunger for learning, and encourage them never to lose it. 2. Explain that, while hunger is perfectly normal, constant hunger isn't always a healthy thing. It sounds like your student has a high mental metabolism, and he needs to be constantly fed one thing or another. This could mean that they're either not being martially nourished, or they're just gobbling up what you teach them without experiencing the taste (the full essence) of what you're teaching, or a combination of the two. Try giving teaching them something very complicated and deep. Imagine giving a chihuahua an elephant bone to chew on. It'll keep them busy for a while.

Yep. V-neck and three-quarter sleeves. I order them from a shop in San Francisco.

If your head instructor is watching the class on a monitor, then he likely sees what's being taught by the assistant. While instructors don't see everything, it sounds like he tends to watch from a distance more and more. Sifu's are people too. And if your sifu is the type to take offense to a student making a suggestion, maybe you could approach him by asking something like "sifu, I'm not sure if I'm doing [this technique] correctly; could you clarify?" This way, it looks like the mistake is all yours, and he doesn't have to defend himself or his assistant. Or your sifu is totally humble, and won't have a problem with you saying that the assistant taught something that was inconsistent.

It's true that there is no "dan" or "belt" ranking in gung fu, so it'll be a little more difficult to verify the instructor's experience--should you wish to. At the same time, they seem like fairly young guys who decided to transition from their Tae Kwon Do or Karate styles, and offer something a little different. You, the consumer/student, simply need to decide whether or not you want to learn some solid gung fu basics or whether you want to get deeper. Depending on what you want, those instructors might be fine to train with. And when the time is right, you can decide if they're somebody you want to learn from.

Nothing wrong with gung fu students competing in point tourneys. Over the past 30 years, some things have changed, but some things remain the same. Techniques and rules have changed, but the intangibles remain. Back in the '70s and '80s, your uniform meant something in the minds of referees and judges. For instance, in northern California, if you were Kenpo or Kajukenbo fighter and the tournament was hosted by William Kim's Tae Kwon Do ... well, you'd probably want to go and find a white gi top before your division was called. And if you were from a gung fu school, and you were at a tournament hosted by Leo Fong or Tony Ramos, your techniques received a certain degree of respect and attention. I still compete today (in the over-40-with-bad-knees division) and still do quite well. And I wear my V-cut gung fu top and red gung fu bottoms. No politics to worry about if you can still bring the goods.

Mente makes a very good point in his reference to Bruce Lee's philosophy of learning and punches, kicks, etc. Lee often referred to traditional gung fu as a "classical mess". On the one hand, he made very good sense. When sharing some techniques, he once told my instructor, "Tony [Ramos] a punch is just a punch, a kick is just a kick". But on the other hand, I--like many martial artists--find great richness and depth in traditional disciplines like Hung Gar Kuen. I tend to disagree with the idea of strict adherence to one instructor and one style until it's "mastered". There isn't a thing wrong with studying Hung Gar from the perspective of Buck Sam Kong or Kwai Wing Lam (both are in California) or Vernon Rieta (Hawaii). Be prepared, though, for the stance training. HG, like many gung fu styles, is notorious for its dependence on strong and varied horse stances. At the same time, HG developed a reputation for it's "bone-breaking" blocks. But that goes against the yin/yang basis of most styles of gung fu. Another reason to consider learning from more than one person. Even certain styles have varying "styles". Good luck. Joi Gin.