bushido_man96

That's a rough deal. Hopefully, once he gets through that rough patch, he'll be steady again. Perhaps this is a one-time deal.

On the contrary, I think that the JKD school could teach you "the real deal" when it comes to trapping, but it just won't be as complex a system as it is in Wing Chun. It will still serve you well.

I see what you are saying here, and in a situation like this, when one approaches another with individual help, I don't see the problem with it, either. But, at the same time, I'm under the impression that this is isn't in relation to an entire class, or a section of the class. More like a "I have done it this way, and it works for me; you might give it a try..." approach. Much different from being put in the charge of a child, teaching you a skill for a class.

Ozpunker brings up an interesting viewpoint. When he says "practice," it obviously refers to training. When a martial arts technique is to be identified, is it automatically to be associated with a trained fighter, no matter what level (belt as usual measurement) s/he is at, to "legitimize" it as a martial arts technique? Here, I don't think that it matters if someone has never learned to throw a punch in there life; if they are punching in self-defense/fighting, then it is a Martial Arts technique, in my mind. When I see an approach like this, then I think of a situation that might sound funny, but comes to a point: Guy 1..."..boy, I think he knocked you out, man. You ok?" Guy 2..."Yeah, I'm fine. But he's not a Martial Artist, so at least I didn't get knocked out be a Martial Arts technique." Seen in a context like this, I just don't think that there are combative techniques that aren't MA techniques. I think that this sums it up pretty well.

Ahh,but isn't this the point, how do you qualify this. Yes, there are good teachers and bad out there, and to extent I buy into the "you can teach or you can't" way of thinking, but I don't think it stops there. Good teaching is down to good communication and classroom management, thats a given. True in depth technical knowledge is something else. imo. This is perhaps why we have a lot of very enthusiastic ma clubs around the uk who are taught by "effervescent" teachers who nurture very keen students, but at the end of the day "technically" they are rubbish. Understanding of technique/purpose is king. The rest is down to how you get it across. I can see what both are saying here. I think WNM has the edge, though, as in many MAs, upon becoming a black belt, may be asked to help some students. They can very quickly find out then that the way they learned a technique may not be the way the person they are helping is able to pick it up. So, you have to be able to change tack, and help in a different way, to get the same results. Not everyone can do this. At the risk of "double quoting," I'd like to point out this statemtent: What I think WNM is saying here (and please jump in an correct me if I am wrong....) is that it is easy to teach the talented students. I take the most pride in helping those that are not as talented, or blessed with some natural attribute, and seeing that light bulb come on, and their face light up and say "oh yeah!"

This can be an issue in the MAs. However, I think that it is one that can be overcome. You can "learn" to teach kids, like you do adults. With that said, there are some instructors that are better with kids than others. With kids, things like attention span comes into play. So, if you have something specific that you want to drill on, you may have to come up with 3 different ways to drill it, over 15 minute periods each, to get the number of reps you would out of an adult class where you might just use one drill.

I think that you have to look at this on a per-style basis; not all styles are going to have the same goal. That said, here goes.... 1. Knowledge of curriculum of the system. You have to know math, to teach math. At the same time, you need to know the forms, self-defense techniques, etc., and what makes them work, to be able to relay them to students. 2. Teaching ability. This may seem like a no-brainer, but one can have the knowledge listed above, but not know how to relate that knowledge to others in a way conducive to teaching. The "school of hard knocks" is not always the best school to attend. 3. Good technique. Having good technique makes teaching easier, especially when you can physcially demonstrate what you are talking about. It doesn't have to be the best technique in the world, but it should meet a standard of what is considered acceptable. Now, this has nothing to do with being a superior athlete, although being in good physical condition will help. 4. Be an adult. This should probably be farther up the list, but I am not necessarily going by order of importance here. An adult will have a higher level of understanding, and can better demonstrate the authority needed to teach. I've been offline a few days, and haven't read the other posts here yet. So, the above was typed straight from my mind. Now, I'll enjoy everyone elses posts.

My question is, how much different was it in the old days than it is now? I think people would still show up; I don't see any reason to smack people around with sticks in class, if that is what you might be referring to. However, there isn't any reason that MA shouldn't be a physical challenge. Maybe someone can't kick high, but that doesn't mean that they can't kick well. I think what is key is finding what your bread and butter is, and doing what you can with it. As far as how long a black belt testing should last, or what it should consist of, I am not too concerned about. After all, you earn your belt in the hours of class time you put in. I think that testing is to put someone in a stressful position, and then watching them perform. I think what our idea of making good black belts boils down to is that when you have a group of 8 orange belts in your class, that you don't think that they all have to test for yellow belt at the same time. If one needs more work, tell them they need more work, and hold them back. If they don't appreciate your actions, then they aren't there for the right reasons (like sensei8 mentioned...rank should merely indicate a level of knowledge and skill). Should all black belts be knockdown tournament champs? No. Should all black belts be kata grand champs? No. Should a black belt be easy to decipher from a crowd of colored belts, when you don't see any belts on them? I think so. How do we get there? Like Sensei Pat Nakata says: with hard work.

Man, that was rough. It didn't look like he had ever done it before. Tough lesson!

Part of this may have to do with the angle and set-up. For example, when I do my board breaks, I have to come off at about a 45 degree angle from the boards, so that I can make contact with the ball of the foot. The inner thigh is a good target; I have been using it in my Combat Hapkido sessions, as it tends to allow me to flow into some of the techniques than the kick to the outside of the leg. If you get it just right, you can get your foot into the nook of the knee, and buckle them down to one knee, as well.

I don't really buy into either of these ideas. I don't think we are all on a preset timetable, where it doesn't really matter what our actions or decisions are. I am in control of my future, my present, etc. Sure, there are some things that are out of our control, those are circumstances that we may not be able to do anything about. However, when it gets down to nut-crunchin' time, I don't feel that it is already decided between "me or him" as to who wins/loses or lives/dies. Its up to me to make the decisions necessary to either fight and win, or survive and escape. Here's a favorite quote of mine: "Battle does not favor the righteous or the just; it favors the prepared."

I can see why you took this approach, ps1. Was there a point in training in class at which you realized that you could beat your instructor easily, and then decided that you should back off? How gradually, or how abruptly, did you realize this? It was gradual. A combination of my maturation, my instructor growing older, and my constant and hard training. If I'm lucky, one day a student of mine will be able to do the same to me. Gotcha. You are lucky, though. At least your teacher(s) still work(ed) with you and sparred with you. I have not been so fortunate.

This topic stems from the following quote by Ozpunker in this thread: This got me to thinking, and I was curious if everyone had their own definition as to what constitutes a "Martial Arts technique" proper? Is there a way you define a technique in this way? As for me, I don't feel that there is a requirement to make a technique an "MA technique." A technique may not be the cleanest, or the fanciest technique, but I don't think that takes away from the fact that it is an MA technique.

Very cool. Thanks beast!

What little bit of goofing I do with a stick, I like to keep a bit out the back end. I feel like I have better control that way.

Pretty cool video.

I agree. My middle brother played football, and contact was not a big deal to him. I wondered if I could ever hurt him.

I hope he makes a good showing. I don't know how competitive the heavyweight division is right now; I haven't been able to keep up for quite some time. I always liked Holyfield, the way he carried himself, and the way he fought. The guy was a total beast when he was younger. I'd hate to see him come back, and then have a finish like De La Hoya did here recently.

That's terrible. I hope they find suspects soon. RIP

He probably figured from Bruce that being fast is good....

That is a bummer, Joe. Its the only downfall of the holiday season. We had an icestorm today, so I didn't make it to class. Instead, I got to stay home and make supper for the kids, while the wife was coming home from work (an hour away). Adventures in cooking with me never turn out too great...

Yeah, tell me about it. My family has scattered as well. Brothers are all gone, all that jazz...its tough to get together anymore.

I agree. Turnabout is fair play, and enough is enough. That said, I don't think that it is fair to judge all Karatekas by the actions of these two players at one tournament. It is akin to judging the personalities and actions of all MMA fighters because of the actions of a few that tend to veer into the limelight constantly.

I'm not saying that this is right, but it is the way that it tends to be. Adults usually are the ones in charge, the ones looked to when kids need help, advise, etc. So, I'm not sure if it is ego that is to blame, or the fact that the status quo is being messed with that would bother most adults. I think that something that might be part of it might have to do with general life experiences...adults get more of this than kids do, and the concept of "what can a kid teach me" might tend to come into play. I realize that teaching the concept of humility is a staple of many MAs out there, but I'm not sure that subjugating an adult to the care of a child in class is the right way to go about it. An adult may view it as not teaching humility, but as outright humiliation, which I think, are two different things. I don't think that I would want a child to be my regular MA instructor. I know that this wasn't the orginal scope of the thread, but it has leaned in this direction. I don't have a problem with children getting work at some teaching and leading skills, but some controls being in place, and not going overboard with it, are the keys to success in this scenario.

Welcome to KarateForums!