Credibility of instruction

[bushido_man96]

I think that for someone to have credibility to teach, they should be active in their own training. If an instructor is no longer training with his/her own instructor, they give the impression that they have mastered their style and are unteachable. He/she should always see themselves as students and they should be able to learn from their students.

This can be tough at times. Perhaps the instructor can't train full-time with his own instructor. For example, my instructor's instructor lives 4 hours away. Hard to train under him on a regular basis. But, he still does go to his instructor's classes at times.

And sometimes, the instructor's death can obviously put an end to this. So then, something else has to be done.

[tallgeese]

At a certain level, one's own study and work within the system as well as bringing things in via cross training probilbily suffices in this aspect as well. An advanced blackbelt ought to be developing and testing all the time as part of his teaching and development of lesson plans (no matter how informal they might might be)

So constant learning is good, but at advanced levels this can take alot of different forms.

[bushido_man96]

I agree. It just isn't always feasible to have an instructor at one's disposal, especially as rank and experience get higher and higher.

[tori]

If you are an instructor and have availablity to continue your own training, you should. Not only does it keep you a student, but it is great for your own motiviation.

[joesteph]

If you are an instructor and have availablity to continue your own training, you should. Not only does it keep you a student, but it is great for your own motiviation.

My teacher is the chief instructor of her own school, as a fourth dan in Soo Bahk Do. Twice a week, she sees her own teacher to continue her studies. She started at age ten, and is now twenty-five. This is likely the best time for her to continue, as, being in her twenties, she has time (and youth) on her side. She's still "hungry," and won't have to look back in the future to this time now, thinking to herself, "I should have . . ."

[tori]

If you are an instructor and have availablity to continue your own training, you should. Not only does it keep you a student, but it is great for your own motiviation.

My teacher is the chief instructor of her own school, as a fourth dan in Soo Bahk Do. Twice a week, she sees her own teacher to continue her studies. She started at age ten, and is now twenty-five. This is likely the best time for her to continue, as, being in her twenties, she has time (and youth) on her side. She's still "hungry," and won't have to look back in the future to this time now, thinking to herself, "I should have . . ."

I think that is great! My instructor is a 7th Dan and has trained for 25 years. (Obviously he is not in his 20's ) He still makes it a point to get to his own instructors school and train. His instructor still trains with his own instructor. Learning and betterining oneself is constant.

[tori]

That word would better be described as bettering.

[ironsifu]

At a certain level, one's own study and work within the system as well as bringing things in via cross training probilbily suffices in this aspect as well. An advanced blackbelt ought to be developing and testing all the time as part of his teaching and development of lesson plans (no matter how informal they might might be)

So constant learning is good, but at advanced levels this can take alot of different forms.

i agree with this statement.

there is a point in your martial arts development, that the time for learning new things is not as important as it is to develop what you already know to a hire level. this is what they call "jack of all trades, master of none", vs. "master what you know". which one speaks about having high level of skill, and which one speaks about knowing a little of everything?

after a teachers spent at least 15, 20 years studying, he needs to put an equal amount of time developing and testing his learning, not attending seminars picking up new tricks and forms. this is something i say to many of my friends who teach kung fu, as kung fu people like to add so many forms to their list. this is not advanced knowledge it is collection of things to show off (without mastery there is no use of these forms all you can do is show them off). good mastery of a style is that you can take the techniques of any style you know--or even one form of one style--and use them (ahem, fighting) against any other skill level or style.

if a teacher is not confident enough to play hands with any fighter, any style, any time, he should not be standing in front of a classroom. this skill level you cannot achieve by attending class after class after class, only by testing, thinking, training and then testing again... over and over for many years.

[ironsifu]

My teacher is the chief instructor of her own school, as a fourth dan in Soo Bahk Do. Twice a week, she sees her own teacher to continue her studies. She started at age ten, and is now twenty-five. This is likely the best time for her to continue, as, being in her twenties, she has time (and youth) on her side. She's still "hungry," and won't have to look back in the future to this time now, thinking to herself, "I should have . . ."

ah... i opened my school when i was 22. yes i was too young (i think a good age is 30 at least, after 20 years of training), but i learned a lot. my teachers both died when i was young, so by age 22 i did not take another class in my life after this point. but at age 25 your teacher will learn more by getting on the circuit, and not to bring students (bringing students, unless you are winning all the time, is a distraction and keeps you from learning in tournament) but to build her reputation and test her skill, and most of all, to learn by "exchanging". a lot of the learning you will do as a young teacher is going to come when you teach others, but even this is inferior to what you can teach yourself from a match with an opponent.

the best learning you can do after 15 years of training, if you were trained right, is those things you learn on your own by sparring and training.

[bushido_man96]

there is a point in your martial arts development, that the time for learning new things is not as important as it is to develop what you already know to a hire level. this is what they call "jack of all trades, master of none", vs. "master what you know". which one speaks about having high level of skill, and which one speaks about knowing a little of everything?

I think the "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" mantra gets beat up just a bit too much by many. In the end, we are learning about defending ourselves, so any useful information that we can put to use will be of benefit. At the end of the day, your jab is your jab, your front kick is your front kick. You can spend all the time you want attempting to master these two things, but we will never perfect them. That's no excuse to not continue focusing on them, not at all. Constant practice is important. Sure, you can look into the "depth" of your punch or kick, but in the end, it is what it is.

Yes, there are plenty of other techniques in each MA, aside from the punch and the kick I mentioned above. In the end, I think we can make things as simple or as complex as we want to. But like I said, it is what it is.

...but at age 25 your teacher will learn more by getting on the circuit, and not to bring students (bringing students, unless you are winning all the time, is a distraction and keeps you from learning in tournament) but to build her reputation and test her skill, and most of all, to learn by "exchanging". a lot of the learning you will do as a young teacher is going to come when you teach others, but even this is inferior to what you can teach yourself from a match with an opponent.

What would be the major difference of "exchanging" at a tournament, and taking a seminar or two to see if you can pick up something?