A thread under JiuJitsu and Grappling Arts got off on a tangent, and a question was raised as to whether or not this should be a separate topic. If JohnC doesn't mind, I'd like to quote from his posting to answer it and not get the original thread out of whack.

"Should instructors teach what the student wants to learn or what the instructor wants to teach?" To me this question has far reaching consequences that forums talk around on many threads. For example, should traditional styles do away with traditional techniques that have no real application now-a-days? Should styles limit themselves to the techniques that the majority of students are capable of doing and get rid of the 360 degree jump spin back kicks or force students to attempt stuff they'll never be able to do well because it's 'traditional'. I'm sure we've all had the situation where the student voted with his feet and not just took his business elsewhere but quit MA completely because it didn't give him what he wanted. Where's the balance and how does one find it?

May be just rambling Your thoughts?

I'm glad you raised these questions, John.

In my art, Soo Bahk Do, I've found that changes occurred from what was traditionally taught, not that what was taught was removed, but that the order in which it was taught was changed. I'm specifically referring to five hyungs from the Pinan series called Pyung Ahn. The change was made to start with, for a stripe (small promotion) on the orange belt, the first of the Pyung Ahn forms, and then to move to green belt, leave the Pyung Ahn series and perform Chil Sung E Ro Hyung--the second of the seven Chil Sung hyungs. Soo Bahk Do is usually referred to as a traditional martial art, but "the powers that be" examined the Pyung Ahn (and likely the Chil Sung) series, and determined that the concepts were far better understood by dan members.

What I've found a problem with (my personal problem or do others have it, too?) is blocking a kick with that small wrist bone. The theory may be, despite its "stiffer" use in the hyungs, that you'll be redirecting while you're moving, but I'm still concerned that I'm going to break my wrist bone against a strong kick. I learned the Isshinryu block two decades ago, and from Taiji the use of the open hand, which I prefer; when I also took TKD during that time period (too many snippets of MA in my past), I was introduced to that small wrist bone block and didn't like it. One of my instructors warned me that I'd break my fingers; I never did. When we spar in Soo Bahk Do, I've been admonished for open hands, but I've used them whenever I can. And raising a leg to block a kick is not in my art, but I've used it anyway; I learned that one twenty years ago, from my Isshinryu tutor, before everyone called it a Muay Thai block.

I'm very glad that my instructor has modifications (hopping!) for jumping front and crescent kicks, accepted for Soo Bahk Do testing, although she started me (and another adult) working on jumping side kicks. The younger students love to do the jump kicks, and the 180s are fun for them, but that's something I see my art adjusting to regarding ability and even knee injuries.

What do others think about the question: Should instructors teach what the student wants to learn or what the instructor wants to teach?

Poll above

Edited December 6, 200817 yr by joesteph

I like training the old way, old skool if you like. We have had to make changes to certain kata's like Heian Godan, Enpi ect and i find it difficult. Some shotokan kata's can be very difficult to learn and get right so when changes are made to them it can be annoying because you have to start from scratch.

Not being out of a traditional school, I don't even feel like I should vote in the poll. However, to the point of the thread, I think teachers should teach what they are qualified to teach.

I think chaning with the times is a good thing, if that's what the instructor WANTS to do. He certainly shouldn't just because students might want to do something else.

My biggest gripe comes from people who haven't focused on sd applications claiming that they teach sd. Or schools who have no grappling exp suddenly teaching "grappling applications" of their art. Be proud of what you teach and the reasons you teach it. Instructors shouldn't feel the need to try and ad hoc on some thing that is popular at any given time.

Now, I've seen plenty of good programs that deviated from a tradition set of specification to successfully integrate either sd or mma principles and application into their school. I guess when you break it down, the school I came out of probibly went thru this prior to my involvment. The process usually involved some heavy cross training by the instructor and/or core group of students. Then add some heavy testing of patterns at speed. It can be done.

However, it shouldn't have to be. I think up front honesty on the part of the instructors and students (about what they really want) is key in the process. I've had guys want to train with me that were interested in the long tradion of ma's and the history, ect. I usually refer them elsewhere. That's not my cup of tea and it would be foolish for me to try and fill that void for them. Likewise, a school that focues soley on non- contact work and tournament preperation (katas and sparring) probibly shouldn't be touting sd as their PRIMARY focus.

It's just my thoughts on the matter.

I have no doubt that I want to teach what I want to teach and how I choose to teach it. If its not what people want they will vote with their feet and leave.

I hope however that I am a good enough instructor to allow people to realise the value of training the way I prefer, even if the actual reasons are not immediately apparent to them.

I teach a system of karate, not a just a list of techniques.

A good example of this perhaps, is the order in which kata is taught. After we have an understanding of the pinan katas, we can move on to learning the senior katas starting with Kushanku which is an amalgam of the pinans. After this we start to learn the Katas which contain inner circular stances starting with Naihanchi moving through Seishan and culminating in Chinto which is the combination of the inner circular stances (found in Naihanchi and Seishan) along with the variety of techniques / movement found in Kushanku... etc. etc. tg's falling asleep at this stage

Of course you can learn / teach these katas in any order you want, or for that matter break out the individual techniques found within (in fact thats where your one steps etc comes from), but it the most part I think they have a greater value if they are taught systematically (IE in the order they are intended).

Not being out of a traditional school, I don't even feel like I should vote in the poll.

Actually, Tallgeese, you can vote, as the fourth choice that didn't originally appear is now there:

"My art is not traditional and is right up-to-date"

I had made an error when posting with the poll; Patrick corrected it.

Thank you, Patrick!

Not being out of a traditional school, I don't even feel like I should vote in the poll.

Actually, Tallgeese, you can vote, as the fourth choice that didn't originally appear is now there:

"My art is not traditional and is right up-to-date"

I had made an error when posting with the poll; Patrick corrected it.

Thank you, Patrick!

Can we add another one then ie - "My art is traditional, and with correct practice engenders good form that can be applied in the modern world"?

Can we add another one then ie - "My art is traditional, and with correct practice engenders good form that can be applied in the modern world"?

I've already asked the favor of adding what I accidentally left out, Michi, but the second response:

My art is rather traditional but has made satisfactory updating changes.

would likely cover what you're referring to, and in your posting you can explain your vote. A posting would be something to share your thoughts with us all.

Not really, as my art doesn't have to update itself per-se. It is comprehensive enough however for practitioners to be able to adapt it to suit modern application.

There you go, now I've got a vote in.

I think a lot of factors go into determining the more modern applications of training to defend ones self. The most obvious is the addition of training against and with the most common weapons of the day, firearms, knives and clubs.

Another is the use of modern protective gear to test sd movments against "live" attackers at a more realistc fight speed against resistance.

Also related is the use of modern conditioning and learning pattern understang for retention.

At the end, it's successful outcomes that we're looking for.

There you go, now I've got a vote in.

The democratic process in action!

Another is the use of modern protective gear to test sd movments against "live" attackers at a more realistc fight speed against resistance.

With speed goes impact, so the right gear allows the technique to be carried out much more aggressively against the "attacker." KarateEd wore something like a "red suit" for a women's self-defense workshop.

At the end, it's successful outcomes that we're looking for.

Agreed.