What Constitutes a Good Instructor?

[elbows_and_knees]

i dont think just because you can't do a technique, doesn't mean you can't teach it.

i don;t see these over 60 nfl coaches getting layed out by a 300 lb running back, but they still know how to teach the drills.

i don;t see phil jackson dunking like jordan and kobe, but he still knows how to teach the game.

same difference inmy opinion

yes and no, IMO. the thing is you are talking about professional athletes. I agree with you there, because EVERYONE on the team has been playing the sport for years already anyway. He can talk to them and tell them what he's looking for. you won't see people that age coaching a complete newb, unless they ARE capable of demonstrating in some fashion. My first judo coach is 82 and he still demos techniques and does ground grappling with the guys. He can't do standup any more - a throw may break his hip - but he can demo by throwing us. If he were unable to demo anything, all new people would be completely lost, unless there were someone there who was capable of demonstrating...

[elbows_and_knees]

The ability to demonstrate techniques properly and to modify them, if necessary, for different levels and body types.

I disagree with this one. I'd like to think that when I'm old and can't demonstrate all the moves that I could still be a great teacher...perhaps even a better teacher. (you know, with all that wisdom and stuff)

..

see my above post. I would bet money that you would have a hard time teaching newbies if you can't demo for them... If I am teaching a newb judo and he is learning seionage, but he is tall, so he has to modify it - It will be hard for me to explain that to him because he doesn't know how to do it the proper way. I can take a guy from day one and show him a variation of a throw he doesn't know if I can show him.

[Blackbeltblonde]

It depends on what you mean by demo I guess. When I think of demo I think of standing there showing the technique that you are looking for in slow motion, sometimes with a partner, and sometimes without. I also think of when I see a student do a technique of if I can pinpoint exactly what they are doing, show them, then show them how I want them to change it... But, none of that actually means I have to do the entire thing exactly like I want them to (i.e. full speed, or getting throw, or throwing etc..etc..).

~BBB

[elbows_and_knees]

as long as you can do it, fine - notice I said that if they can't demo - they would have problems. Not every MA around can demo cartain techniques (in some cases, no technique) for various reasons. A teacher in a wheel chair is a good example. if he can't walk, he can't demo footwork. Notice that in the post he stated specifically if he can't demo something.

[Blackbeltblonde]

true true

~BBB

[bushido_man96]

i dont think just because you can't do a technique, doesn't mean you can't teach it.

i don;t see these over 60 nfl coaches getting layed out by a 300 lb running back, but they still know how to teach the drills.

i don;t see phil jackson dunking like jordan and kobe, but he still knows how to teach the game.

same difference inmy opinion

This is so right. There is a saying: "Those who can't do, teach."

[bushido_man96]

A good instructor knows the history of his art.

I dunno about this one. That depends on what you're after. I know more about muay thai than my coach - my background was from a more traditional standpoint, where as his was purely competitive. However, because the time I spent learning tradition, he spent fighting, he is light years ahead of me, though I can hang with him. Even though we both fight, he was fighting way more because that was the sole motivation behind the gym he trained at. Since we both coach at the same school now, he will defer to me and another guy who had the same instructors as me on questions about tradition.

I agree with you, elbows_and_knees. Knowing the history does not make a good instructor, it makes him a historian. I know a lot of details about a lot of styles and arts, but I can't teach them. I feel confident in my ability to instruct TKD, buy not in other styles. There are lots of historians out there that know about the history of war, both ancient and modern. However, that knowledge does not make them good warriors.

[Sohan]

A good instructor knows the history of his art.

I dunno about this one. That depends on what you're after. I know more about muay thai than my coach - my background was from a more traditional standpoint, where as his was purely competitive. However, because the time I spent learning tradition, he spent fighting, he is light years ahead of me, though I can hang with him. Even though we both fight, he was fighting way more because that was the sole motivation behind the gym he trained at. Since we both coach at the same school now, he will defer to me and another guy who had the same instructors as me on questions about tradition.

I agree with you, elbows_and_knees. Knowing the history does not make a good instructor, it makes him a historian. I know a lot of details about a lot of styles and arts, but I can't teach them. I feel confident in my ability to instruct TKD, buy not in other styles. There are lots of historians out there that know about the history of war, both ancient and modern. However, that knowledge does not make them good warriors.

I've got to also agree with the above. I know a fellow who can tell you everything you need to know about Okinawan and Japanese fighting arts but can't fight his way out of a wet paper bag because he never practices. Spends more time reading about karate than training in it. The irony is he'd probably be pretty darn good if he applied himself.

Respectfully,

Sohan

[atalaya]

on an instructor knowing the history of his art. i think it is a key element. for example: one of the katas we use in goju ryu was made by a dancer. that background knowledge helps me understand the flow needed to perform the kata correctly. on a similar note; if a practitioner of kung fu knew that the art was used to help monks develop their physical bodies AND practice the concepts of buddhism, they may be able to better understand things like balance and spirituality and how they apply to their art.

history can mean the difference between participating in a noble heritage and simply waving your arms around

[elbows_and_knees]

on an instructor knowing the history of his art. i think it is a key element. for example: one of the katas we use in goju ryu was made by a dancer. that background knowledge helps me understand the flow needed to perform the kata correctly. on a similar note; if a practitioner of kung fu knew that the art was used to help monks develop their physical bodies AND practice the concepts of buddhism, they may be able to better understand things like balance and spirituality and how they apply to their art.

history can mean the difference between participating in a noble heritage and simply waving your arms around

not all kung fu is based in buddhism, only the styles that were influenced by shaolin. However, you don't have to understand the history of the form in question if you know the intent behind it. intent and timing are things that should be taught to you, with or without history.

That said, I'm not saying knowledge of the history isn't helpful, but it definitely is not necessary.