Credibility of instruction

[TheArtofDave]

Some where I think the topic took a twist, and personal opinion mixed in along with covering the topic, instead of just covering the topic itself. But I digress because I'm not saying anything is wrong with that but a foundation for understanding is what we are seeking.

Now to my point.

If white belt is the "foundation" and black belt is "the greater foundation" of the basics you'll notice if the teacher is credible by how he carries himself, and how he instructs his school.

He must have the experience to instruct you from white to black, and to the highest level of the style, or art you're learning. What makes him qualified however is while you're learning at your own pace can he be patient, take the time with you, or get other students to show you. Will they correct, and give you the inspiration to push yourself to get to black belt. A qualified instructor will have both love and respect for his art. And for martial arts also.

Seminars aren't inherently bad. It's what you take away from them, and how you want to analyze what was there that will give you the best benefit anyway.

Also I do not like the term "Master" although its incorporated into a lot of arts. I prefer the term "Student" because even if you're a traditional 9th degree, or in some cases a 10th if the art allows, you're still a student of martial arts who loves your art respects your art, and you love all martial arts, and all styles, and are intrigued by what you can learn from them.

I also don't see MA's as strictly fighters. MA's can be doctors, lawyers, contractors, teachers, actors, etc. There are varying jobs you can hold, you're not a "fighter" even if you constantly train. You're a student. If you forget you're a student of the Martial Arts you need a reality check. If they were so easy to master everybody would claim to be a master. Nobody can claim to be a master. Not even an instructor. Through many years of experience they've learned a scientific way to teach that you can follow.

What makes them credible, is how well they know the material, and how well they teach it.

You do fight how you train, but when you're training for sport you do not train to fight. You train for sport. If somebody is lacking in an area regarding sport in a tournament I do not feel its necessary to "belittle" them, or make light of their short comings. But as Martial Artists we offer encouragement, ways to improve, and for people who come away empty handed they're still learning. It's only learning from our mistakes that we grow, and get better in our art.

That being said I don't believe you should train like you're going to kill yourself. If I practice my jab 1000 times, my instructor is going to make me do that many sit ups because I did not practice my forms. I came to learn Martial Arts. If I wanted to learn how to be a boxer I would have joined a gym.

One last point I need to offer. When you're in a class. Whether you're getting the knowledge for free, or some of us have to pay I do not agree with an age restriction for the quality of a black belt. You're learning how to be more responsible in your MA training, we can all agree on that. Would you want to diminish that quality with a child who earns their black belt? As they age while in the school they're going to become more responsible, learn more respect, and what it means into place respect in their art, in their parents, in their instructors. With adults its the exact same. The training within classes are may not be the same but the quality of the training, and the quality of the black belt is too.

3 years to get to black belt is not a short time to get there. Also it doesn't mean the quality of the black belt is going to be "poor" more time doesn't always mean better quality. Its up to you the student to train. An hour or two a day will yield the same results as 3 or 4. Some time spending a couple hours a day is better than over loading yourself. Each one of us is different.

The reason a lot of black belts are poor is because you have working individuals who cannot always train like they should. They work 2 to 3 jobs so maybe they don't always get to show up to class. Also you have these McDojo's and belt mills catch the eye of the uneducated to what they actually are. So wouldn't also be our job to warn people to stay away from these places, and find quality instruction in their area?

I know none of us are perfect. But my love, and respect for Martial Arts is great. With that comes a certain responsibility to be a better person. To hold yourself at a higher standard than the average person. You have to think and act as a martial artist even when you have your low points great lessons can be learned from humility.

Ok.. I'll shut up now... lol...

[bushido_man96]

Also I do not like the term "Master" although its incorporated into a lot of arts. I prefer the term "Student" because even if you're a traditional 9th degree, or in some cases a 10th if the art allows, you're still a student of martial arts who loves your art respects your art, and you love all martial arts, and all styles, and are intrigued by what you can learn from them.

I think that the term master is looked upon to mean perfection, or close to it. I don't agree with this assessment. I do think that it means that one has attained a high level of skill, in their style, along with the ability to transmit that knowledge to others.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Also I do not like the term "Master" although its incorporated into a lot of arts. I prefer the term "Student" because even if you're a traditional 9th degree, or in some cases a 10th if the art allows, you're still a student of martial arts who loves your art respects your art, and you love all martial arts, and all styles, and are intrigued by what you can learn from them.

I think that the term master is looked upon to mean perfection, or close to it. I don't agree with this assessment. I do think that it means that one has attained a high level of skill, in their style, along with the ability to transmit that knowledge to others.

In my secondary school, all (male) teachers were referred to as "Master" - Master Smith, Master Regan etc.... you get the picture.

They were just teachers at the end of the day, but that was the term many grammar schools in the UK (in the 70's) used back then to describe a male teacher.

Interestingly (in this case at least), the word "Master" is derived from "Mister" - which is in turn is derived from the French/Latin "Messieurs". It was used to refer to a person of some standing in society, but who did not hold a title of "knighthood" (or above) - typically it referred to the likes of priests, scholars and artisans. From where the expression arose - in Medieval Europe - it is quite a lowly title it would seem... almost common.

This is perhaps why, here in the UK the correct "title" for a male under the age of 13 is still "master"!!!

But agreed, somehow the word "Master" in ma seems to have been elevated massively to refer to someone who can not be surpassed.

So maybe, next time you train with a guy with the title of "Master" think 13 years old??

WNM

[ironsifu]

You do fight how you train, but when you're training for sport you do not train to fight. You train for sport. If somebody is lacking in an area regarding sport in a tournament I do not feel its necessary to "belittle" them, or make light of their short comings. But as Martial Artists we offer encouragement, ways to improve, and for people who come away empty handed they're still learning. It's only learning from our mistakes that we grow, and get better in our art.

i have a lot to say about this post, but i will have to come back to it. but i do want to answer this part of the post.

i believe that martial artists make excuses for not knowing how to spar well, by saying that, sparring is sport, and not real fighting. this like saying, well, you don't fight to the death, so your doing sport and not really fighting. so, my question is, are YOU fighting to the death? martial artist are saying, we dont spar lightly because we train for street, but those martial artists are not fighting on the street, are they? what are they doing? hitting bags, focus mitts and "simulate" fighting. isnt that what sport fighting is? even NHB is "simluated" fighting... there are rules, and i can't bring my boys or my knife into the ring. so saying " we cant use our [street] techniques in tournament" is like saying "my arts too deadly for tournament". i thought as a community we outgrew that a long time ago.

contact is a non-issue, because if you cant beat this guy light contact, why do you think you will beat him full contact? if you can turn up the power, so can he. but the difference is that he already proved to you that he is faster and can land first, and that you cannot stop him. this is what point contact is all about. training to land first and to not get hit. why is this so bad? yes, there are point fighters who fight very unrealistic and use tricks to get points, but that is a small number. the bottom line is that point fighting develops speed and timing like no other form of fighting, and if you develop this kind of speed, you can carry this into a full contact fight and use it to your advantage. if you are slow, you have a disadvantage, i dont care how hard you think you can hit.

the truth is, there is only two ways to prepare for real fights. one, spar, and two, fight for real. everything else is nothing but theory.

now, the second comment. a teacher who does not have the ability and knowledge to teach his students to outsmart another student in a mock fight should not be teaching, period. its not a thing of, my path is my path you have yours. dont be too soft to call a spade a spade. there IS a such thing as inferior martial arts, and there is a such thing as unqualified teachers. fighting (not lineage, not "credibility", not philosophy) is the measuring tool we use to say if this guy knows his stuff or not. there are too many "unqualified" teachers in the bleachers, telling his students how to beat the fighters on the floor, when in reality he can't do it himself, and his students wont learn how. too much KNOW, not enough SHOW.

you see, people seem to thing that even though i dont have the skills and knowledge to be a good martial artist/fighter/teacher, i can still call myself one. it doesnt work that way. we all choose our path. maybe some people choosed to be full time workers, part time martial artists. but they cannot put themself on the same level as those who do this full time with the skills to match it. the real pursue of martial arts is not for everyone. its that simple. but this whole "make your own path/to each his own" is a cop-out excuse for accepting teachers who have poor skill. whether you like it or not, teachers with poor skills, are not qualified.

[sensei8]

For me, the term "Master" means nothing outside of its formal context! "Master" has its place in the martial arts and shouldn't be taken outside of its intended context. The term "Master" and the term "Rank/Title" both have meaning ONLY inside of its proper context.

Even the Japanese use the term "Master", but, I believe that they're more intune of how to properly use it than us Westerners are.

Just don't let it get ones head any bigger!

[tallgeese]

I disagree that contact is a non-issue.

Regardless of who hits first and quickest, it's meaning less if you don't train to actually have power behind it. Too often semi or non contact fighters I've seen can point people left and right, but ask them to actually hurt someone and they are hard pressed to do so.

This is not a fault of the art but of training methods. If that's one's focus, that's fine, but being a phenom at point fighting might not translate to skill in real combat. If fighting for sd is your focus, then proper sparring is crucial, this will include some contact.

I'm not talking about going to a non functional state each time you step on the floor, but working varying levels of contact that do occasionally mean that you're going to put some hits on.

[bushido_man96]

contact is a non-issue, because if you cant beat this guy light contact, why do you think you will beat him full contact? if you can turn up the power, so can he. but the difference is that he already proved to you that he is faster and can land first, and that you cannot stop him. this is what point contact is all about. training to land first and to not get hit. why is this so bad?

I don't think that point fighting is bad, but I don't agree that winning in point fighting = winning in hard contact fighting. They are two different strategies, and the other guy doesn't have to acknowledge the point you just got in hard contact, continuous fighting. Other intangibles can come into play as well, such as toughness, endurance, etc.

So maybe, next time you train with a guy with the title of "Master" think 13 years old??

Hehe, perhaps that is a way to put things into perspective.

[gzk]

contact is a non-issue, because if you cant beat this guy light contact, why do you think you will beat him full contact? if you can turn up the power, so can he. but the difference is that he already proved to you that he is faster and can land first, and that you cannot stop him. this is what point contact is all about. training to land first and to not get hit. why is this so bad? yes, there are point fighters who fight very unrealistic and use tricks to get points, but that is a small number. the bottom line is that point fighting develops speed and timing like no other form of fighting, and if you develop this kind of speed, you can carry this into a full contact fight and use it to your advantage. if you are slow, you have a disadvantage, i dont care how hard you think you can hit.

Without the necessity of actually landing a punch hard, I can throw a much faster punch. I can neglect to turn my fist over, neglect to rotate my hips and shoulders, neglect to clench hard on impact, etc. Being able to throw a bad punch that lands lightly, but quickly, in no way proves or even indicates that I can "turn the contact up" and be effective. I can modify my stance into one that gives my opponent a small target but takes away all my hip rotation. You get whole schools, associations, maybe even whole styles doing this and soon enough their style will be a closed system that is primarily aimed at countering competitors from their own ranks, which makes for a fun sport, but not a particularly effective martial art.

[ShoriKid]

contact is a non-issue, because if you cant beat this guy light contact, why do you think you will beat him full contact?

It is an issue. If your throwing light, first touch ends contact, your not learning a lot of things that will change as th contact goes up. As GZK said, you can get by with a lot of bad habits at light contact that won't fly when you crank things up. You don't have to protect your body as much, carry yourself ready to be hit, which is different than not worrying about getting hit with any force. You need a better stance for balance to generate power from and absorb shock. When your point fighting it's to the first hit. Then stop action. No real need for combinations that mechanically work together to generate power. No worry about good defense. Techniques that touch don't always have enough reach left to generate any real damage.

but the difference is that he already proved to you that he is faster and can land first, and that you cannot stop him. this is what point contact is all about

He's proved that he can touch me faster. That he's better at tag. That's what point contact is all about. I can face point fighters in their arena and lose plenty of times. And when we pick up the contact and open the targets to include the whole body, I fair very, very well against them. Always have. Point fighting is good at working on reactions, but it doesn't build optimal reactions for heavy contact unless the person trains that way too.

there are too many "unqualified" teachers in the bleachers, telling his students how to beat the fighters on the floor, when in reality he can't do it himself, and his students wont learn how. too much KNOW, not enough SHOW

Many instructors are just that, good instructors. I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't have the ability to get it done is good, but as an instructor or coach, and if all your worried about are the results, there is no difference, they have to make the person better. What they can personally do in the sport doesn't matter. If they understand the rules/activities and have the ability to see what you need to do to improve, they are a good instructor. Just because you have a faster side kick doesn't mean they can't make you land that kick more often, or teach you how to generate more power than them.

What your basically advocating is that anyone past about 35 should give up teaching. By that point, the physical attributes will have deminished to the point that your going to be losing at point fighting on a consistant basis. If your producing high quality, young students they should be faster than you be virtue of good technique and quick reaction times. Do all good football coaches or boxing instructors need to be the best at the game and actively able to take on the people they are coaching? Do even young coaches like Greg Jackson or Mark Dellagrotte have to be able to beat the fighters they train like GSP or Florian?

Quality instruction has to be able to build the foundation and begin to expound upon that. They must be able to find the wholes in your skillset and fill them. Take your talents and abilities, see where they can take you the furthest and point you in that direction while providing the guidance to make sure you get as far as you can. In the end, they must know when to point you toward someone else to take you further down the road than they can take you.

[bushido_man96]

Lots of good points, ShoriKid. I have never been all that great at sparring, but I do feel like I have the ability to teach and explain things that can make my students better at sparring than I was.

It is an issue. If your throwing light, first touch ends contact, your not learning a lot of things that will change as th contact goes up. As GZK said, you can get by with a lot of bad habits at light contact that won't fly when you crank things up. You don't have to protect your body as much, carry yourself ready to be hit, which is different than not worrying about getting hit with any force. You need a better stance for balance to generate power from and absorb shock. When your point fighting it's to the first hit. Then stop action. No real need for combinations that mechanically work together to generate power. No worry about good defense. Techniques that touch don't always have enough reach left to generate any real damage.

I concur with you here as well, and it was one of the problems I always had with sparring in the ATA. It seemed like it didn't matter if you kept your hands up in a good guard or not, because if something just slipped through and knicked you, they got the point. I much prefer to be able to spar continuously, even though I tend to run out of gas fairly quick, because it allows me to stand in there and instead of blocking everything that come at me, I can worry more about knocking things a bit off-line so that it isn't as direct a hit.