bushido_man96

The single best thing that you can do in order to become a good teacher is......teach. That is all there is to it. Jump right in there, and give it a whirl. You will quickly learn what it takes to help students understand. Becoming a good teacher takes time, patience, and practice. Also, prepare class plans, so that you know in advance what you are going to present in class. This will help you to anticipate any questions the students may have, and help you to prepare answers. Good luck...you will do just fine.

"Women weaken legs!!" (Mic, to Rocky.) The best way to reduce adrenaline release is through adrenal-stress training, to get used to the things that cause adrenaline dumps, and to lessen the chances of it dumping.

I imagine going to jail for beating a spouse, or some other serious offense would cause it, but that is fairly obvious. I do think that if I actively trained in another MA school, I would get expelled from my current one.

Planning, planning, planning. Have a good class plan. Have them divide into groups of around ten, and set up 6 or 7 different stations, where at each station you have different activities going on. One could be clapper pad drills, another could be one-steps/self-defense, one doing basic hand techniques in small line drills. Then spend around 10 minutes or so on each station, and then rotate them. If you have some older kids, that are intermediate rank, and would like to get experience assisting you, get their help. Assign each one a station, review what they will do and what their responsibilities are, and give them pointers on what to look for in basic techniqe development. Also, have lots of patients Good luck!!

Long enough to know that I need to study a lot more. Short enough to know I have a long way to go. And just right for where I am. In other words, it really doesn't matter. I have enough experience to teach what I know, and not so much that I can consider myself very accomplished, but I also know that I can hold my own if I needed to defend myself or someone else. I am not trying to offend anyone here; I have seen statements like these many times so far. I am just making a point, so please be open minded>>> I think we need to be careful about how we use terminology like "I can hold my own if need be." There are a lot of street fighters out there that can make the same claim (Tank Abbott), but they don't go and start their own gym. There is so much to consider, as opposed to just "handling oneself."

Nope, as far as I know, you just have to open your business with the chamber of commerce. However, not have any certification can lead to people questioning your legitimacy. Something to look out for, is all. Good luck to you.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I always thought that learning judo would be fun, because of all the throws there are to learn.

This is tough, but I would have to give the advantage to hands: the combinations come easier, they are quicker, and you have offense and defense all in one package.

that is VERY untrue. size matters on a lot of different levels. Now, that said, size becomes more of a factor as skill levels become equal. the big, strong, UNTRAINED guy can give a smaller, trained guy fits, but he's beatable. Against a big, strong, TRAINED guy, my money is on the big guy. Why do you think they have weight classes in organized fighting? because size matters. height matters from a strategy perspective. if you are shorter, you have to be able to get inside of the tall guy in order to be effective, otherwise you won't be able to touch him. Watch tyson in his prime. He was a master at getting on the inside, so even though he was always shorter, he overcame the reach disadvantage. Now, watch his fight with lennox lewis. Lewis ate him alive because he couldn't get inside. That is a perfect example of why these things matter. As far as finishing with one blow... good luck. That is more the exception than the rule. I have to agree with you, elbows_and_knees. It is the main reason why so many professional athletes in general are tall. Size makes a difference. I am 5'7", and wish I had another 4 inches. I do believe that us little guys can make up for a lack of stature, but it will ALWAYS be just a little harder for us than for the tall guys.

It always seems to me that tall has an advantage for one simple reason: reach. Even an uskilled opponent can still heckle a smaller fighter with his reach; if he is a skilled fighter, he will know how to use his reach to his advantage. The short guy would have an advantage with a lower base, and therefore a lower center of gravity. He may be able to take a tall guy down easily, but I don't know for sure. Once the short guy gets in, he needs to keep the tall guy's limbs occupied on something like blocking, or trapping his arms/legs to stall him.

Very good point. This post is not meant to sound like I have the answers to this question. I thought that I would try to work it into an article, but then got to thinking that I am not sure what it takes, or should require, to become a master. I am seriously thinking about undertaking this project; who knows, I may learn a lot about myself in the process. What I have noticed is that there are many opinions about when a person should be allowed to attaing a black belt, and people are very adamate about them. But no one has the same kind of arguments for mastership. I thought that this was curious.

Here is the problem that I find with trying to react quickly: Reaction is always dependent on action. The person acting has the advantage of time on his side, because you must wait for action in order to react (redundant, I know). And if your reaction time is slow, then you are screwed. You can work on your reaction time, but you also must have good initiation speed; ie, you not only have to react quickly, but must be able to start your action quickly. These are two very different abilities, and must both be trained extensively to be used well together.

Why not defend it with offense? If you can't get out of the way, and blocking that many techniques is failing you, just start hitting back. Essentially, begin your own straight blast, and intercept him. Remember, the best defense is a good offense.

Very good article. It helps answer some questions of my own. One of the best articles I have ever read. Congratualtions on your accomplishment!!

I am stringing this thread off of an idea from the "2 year black belts?" thread in the Korean Arts forum. My question is, how long does it take to become a "master?" In my current association, you become a Jr. Master upon reaching 4th dan, and you become a Master upon reaching 5th dan. In the ATA, it used to be that one wasn't eligible for master until 6th dan, and even then only 3 were taken each year. In the ATA, there are requirements above and beyond that must be met, and a special test and ceremony taken. In my current association, there is only a testing, with forms, one-steps, sparring, breaking, and the writing of a paper. So, what does it take? How much time? How old should one be? At what rank should it be attained? Just one note: I don't think that Bruce Lee ever carried the title of Master.

Why do you have to branch away? Stick with it. Supplement your training with the judo, but I would not forsake it. As far as the next school you go to, you will be starting at the beginning, no matter what belt you wear.

I know that I have mentioned this before, but here it is again: I am so jealous of those of you that have the oppurtunity to study multiple styles. All I have here is TKD and one karate school. No grappling. So I say, enjoy yourself. But, as Sohan said, stick to a base stlyle as well.

Describe the Thai Roundhouse, I may need to revote! Like the hook, though.

There are so many different cases we could look at. There is Heather Smyth, who took 5 years, along with some others. Heather Smyth has a good case, where her instructor held her out once. This is definetly the sign of a good instructor. Then, there are those who take 5 years because they don't advance as fast as some others. Then there are those who are extremly talented, and get there a little sooner, like the two year BB's; which I am (2-2.5 years). I don't claim that I am super sharp, or super talented, but I did learn something at each rank that I had. Even as a black belt, I am still learning. Now, why don't we extend this discussion beyond the rank of 1st degree? In my style, I must wait 1.5 years before I can test for 2nd degree, and then 2.5 years after that to test for 3rd degree. Now, does a 1st dan learn enough in 1.5 years to gain the knowledge of a 2nd dan? Even as 2nd dan, working toward 3rd dan, I am still learning things about myself that need improvement. So, when am I going to be ready? I guess what I am getting at is this: How do you know when? Why is 5 years so much better than 2? Wouldn't 8 years be better than 5? Honestly, I think it depends on the person and their ability. Just because a person gets a BB in 2 years, does not mean that they are not comprable to a student who gets one in 5 years.

Sparring is not necessarily the end all, be all of judgements. Just because someone cannot spar well, does not mean that they cannot defend themselves. There are some things that sparring won't show you, because of the rules involved. Point sparring may not demonstrate toughness, or the ability to take a shot. Even if it is not point sparring, you still may not get a good idea of what the person is capable of when his or her life is on the line, and all they are concerned with is survival.

I have heard that sometimes whether or not you can do the splits has to do with genetics. Not for sure, though. I heard that Van Damme had some part of his leg muscles or tendons removed so that he could do his splits. I have not been able to do it in 13 years. Been close, but usually when the adrenaline is running at tourneys.

The Shamelessly Unofficial Taekwondo Hyungs page has a lot to offer. Try it out. Type that in; it should be easy to find.

You make a good point. However, a boxer has fewer skills to master, and then these are repeated over and over again. Even the most basic martial arts style has many more forms and techniques to perform. Few people that I've met can fight after two years of traditional martial arts training as well as a boxer after the same period. The reason is the volume of training material. It just takes longer to really master and understand the principles for most people. IMHO, of course. With respect, Sohan I kind of agree with you, Sohan, but kind of don't. In a way I do because it is a lot of material to absorb, with the forms and all. But a Thai Boxer focuses on punching and kicking and movement, more than a boxer, and still can be prepared to fight in 2 years. It seems that perhaps our traditional styles (which teach self-defense, right?) get in their own way of becoming more efficient in the fight game. Now, I know that we aren't training people to fight so much as training them to defend themselves, but in the end the result is the same....you win or you lose.

I didn't think about the grappling aspect in my original post. It changes things a bit.....I don't how comfortable I would feel. I would like to think I could deal with it, but I don't know, honestly. With TKD its different. There is no grappling. I guess you don't spend as much time in their "personal space" as grapplers do.

At my school, there is a little bit of an age gap. I am 28, and there are some 20-23 age range from our college class students. Then we have a few older adults. Some are in their 40s. I think that the age gaps happen in smaller demographic areas, where population is smaller. Where you see less of an age gap is in children's program classes (which we also have, and the gap is less noticable), and in programs like the AAU promoted programs where there are age groups that train together in a team atmosphere.