Credibility of instruction

[ironsifu]

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.

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?

there is a huge difference between knowing how to jab, and perfecting a jab. in a fight/self defense/etc. this makes the difference between might get out alive vs. your opponent doesnt have a chance. in talking about an expert in the art or average student, the expert is supposed to be the guarantee in a fight. this is what is meant by "jack of all trades". the guy who knows how to ball his fist and maybe even knows how to use it is the "jack". this can be any 10 year old green belt (or 35 year old green belt) in any karate school (or MMA school) in this country.

but the guy who can kill you with his jab, is the expert. the expert can be a mike tyson, a julio cesar chavez, a manny pacquiao, take your pick.

now a 10 years old green belt who grows up can open a school and teach, but the question original, is "who is qualified". i am from the school, that only a expert should teach, not just some guy who knows how to ball his fist. i know that in medical school you dont get to be a teacher if you are not a doctor first.

about my example of which is the best way to learn, for the expert, picking something up in a seminar is not means that you are qualified to teach it. but my point in the posting was that teachers should spend more time developing the art they teach, instead of all their life adding to it. for example, i teach three system of fighting, kuntaw, eskrima, and jow ga kung fu. i do regular point fighitng, olympic tkd sparring, and a few other styles of competition which i done for years. but my classroom learning ended in 1992, but my art has been changing a little over the years from my experiences and my students experiences. the last change? was what they call "continuous point fighting" it aint kickboxing, and it aint point fighting. we use to call it semi pro, but even today this kind of sparring which is very new to me (i never did it myself) is very different from what i know. my students learn it alongisde me, while my students fight in this kind of tournament (only the last three years).

a few seminars could never be equal to what we got in the last three years. too many teachers, imo, will learn something in a seminar and then teach it. i believe this is bad. as teachers we should teach what we know but make sure we know what we teach very well.

[ironsifu]

oh i woudl like to add one thought too.

in bruce lee's book a jab is a jab, a kick is a kick. this is the philosophy of somebody who is still learning, because a jab is only a jab, and the level of skill,understanding and use of the jab is very low.

but when you have mastered the jab, or the kick, you will see and understand, and be able to do things no one else can. i cannot explain it any more than that.

if you would like to learn what i am talking about do this: give youself 3 months. you will have practice sessions at least one time a week, and do only a left jab or right jab, 1000 - 1500 a session. you will spend at least half your time training with your jab. you will spar against people who can do anything, but you can only use that one jab (not even the other hand). no matter how boring, stick to this for the whole time.

i promise you know one will be able to tell you anything about this punch, and they wont be able to even match your punch after 3 months. even if you had no teacher to guide you, your jab will be superior to anyone inyour school, because i can guarantee that no one in your school has done this with any of their techniques. at this point, a jab is no longer just a jab, but it will be a weapon.

[joesteph]

there is a huge difference between knowing how to jab, and perfecting a jab. in a fight/self defense/etc. this makes the difference between might get out alive vs. your opponent doesnt have a chance.

I don't see this as much of an issue in these forums, Ironsifu. I think we're all on the same page with your first quoted sentence; the only caveat with the second is that it may not necessarily be true that your opponent doesn't have a chance, but can we agree that you'll either defeat him, escape from him, or go down taking a piece of him with you?

if you would like to learn what i am talking about do this: give youself 3 months. you will have practice sessions at least one time a week, and do only a left jab or right jab, 1000 - 1500 a session. you will spend at least half your time training with your jab. you will spar against people who can do anything, but you can only use that one jab (not even the other hand). no matter how boring, stick to this for the whole time.

Since you advocate this, Ironsifu, and it does sound very basic, have you employed it with your students and found it to be successful in their martial arts growth, say over the course of a year or two? Do you include forms, which incorporate many movements, with this training?

[ironsifu]

joesteph,

in the first statement, i do not believe in training to lose, or training to have less than a successful chance. the standards for real training in the martial arts is to be very high above average martial arts and physical skill. many teachers have average advanced students, i do not. but yes, i do agree that the truth of training is that you may lose, may win, or may lose while the opponent loses too. the only difference is that the fighter himself determines which one he will be.

an example of this is how many philippine martial artists believe that in order to fight with weapons, you will get injured. i dont believe that. there was only two fights i have been in my whole life that involved weapons. once with a knife, the fight was over in one punch (i was lucky), the other was a group, and one guy had a stick or something (it was night) and i won that one, even though i had to run away too many of the guys in the group dropped. you fight how you train, and 90% of the fighters even in martial arts schools do not know how to train, and this is why the level of black belters today is so poor.

for your second question, yes, we use this technique all the time. for the last 6 months i have a class two days a week, where we kick for 1 hour. they spar with only kicks, and no blocking. do you know how hard that is? but i did it myself when i was young. for the first three months we worked on the round kick (front and back leg, close range only) and since october, we been doing the side kick. earlier in the year we did another 3 months of jab and front hand hook because in 2007 i did the jab for 30 days, 1,000 punches a class.

i will invite some of my students to this board so you can meet them yourself.

also if anyone is from sacramento california, please stop by and visit you will see that our school is not like any school many people have ever seen, this is a very friendly invitation. i'll give you the "grand tour".

oh, i just saw another question about forms. i have never done this kind of practice with a whole form. first my school only has one style with forms, jow ga. and jow ga forms are too long to do 1,000 times. but we do take a technique here and there and execute them for 100. 200. even 500 times in a class. last saturday i made the students spar with a technique from the form against an opponent who can do watever he liked. this is the best way to learn to use our techniques.

at the same time, we are very slow in teaching forms, so for the first year you dont learn a form at all, only techniques and a stance training "form", which is just a routine of footworks. when they begin small tiger, it takes about 9 months to a year to learn and develop it. in this way, the guys get much more skill and use of what i am teaching them.

i hope this doesnt sound like advertising, but please see my website, you can see a little about our teaching philosophy there. i'm recording video for a channel too for youtube.

Edited January 17, 2009 by ironsifu

[tallgeese]

We've all got ways we focus our training, and I think we can all agree that more skill is always better in any aspect.

Personally, I'd never take that much time to focus on one particular aspect of what I was doing. Simply because it takes away from time spend practicing other skills as well. You'll get the same reps in eventually, but by working on intergrtaining other skills you become more well rounded over that same time. That's just me, it dosn't mean the other way's wrong. It just means I value a diversified training specturm more.

I think we'd all agree that we train to win. To survive, call it whatever you want. That's the end result. I don't think we sould ever become complacient enough to assume that we will dictate the outcome. There are simply too many variable to consider in actual engagements. Still, the mindset to win is vital.

As to the actual issue brought up between ironsifu and bushido man, I think that the seminar route is fine for adding to your collective understanding of fighting. You're not trying to teach another system, but by learning movements and then adapting them to the overall strategy and principles of your system your expanding the framework of what you're doing.

Competition can be a great learning tool. I've used it myself, but it's not the only one. I personally feel that the right kind of competitions are highly valuable in developing a fighter, but I don't require my guys to compete. It's perferance.

And to the original point of continuing to learn (well, the not so original issue ) by the time you reach a high degree of skill, you should be forging ahead within your style to advance it's application. YOu ashould also be taking the principles and movements of your system and tailoring them to you more and more, becoming a highly individualized fighter.

And finally, we all have to face facts that not many of us do this professinally, at least not full time. And the range of skills needed to truely be a well rounded combatant is pretty wide and varied. We're talking striking, clinching, ground fighting in all it's variations, weapons (i limit to gun, knife, club), small joint manipulation at a minimum. Each of these is time consuming to reach the highest level of skill in. If you're really training to defend yourself, then the likelyhood of actaully reaching a "master" standard in any of these to the point where you have to look elsewhere to train is slim, espically when you consider the reps requred to maintain the status you've acheived in each.

This fact alone means you can continue your own advancment in your own artform farily regualarly after becoming an instructor.

[bushido_man96]

If you spend three months working nothing but the jab, then what suffers in the process? By singling out one part, the whole can suffer because you are not working other aspects.

Sure, you can jab 1000 times per class for 3 months, and I am sure you will develop a very good jab. However, I think that a technique can be honed very well in less time. At some point, it could become overkill. After how many reps does it become just more of the same? The learning curve starts out slow, then really takes off, and eventually the curve slows as it reaches its peak. The thing you have to consider is, how much practice is necessary to reach the peak, and at what point does it top out, and you maintain rather than improve?

I know that as Martial Artists, the concept of continual improvement is always tossed about, and I am not against it. I just believe that there comes a point in time where your jab becomes what it is, and then you can better spend your time learning to incorporate your jab with other techniques, and then learn the strategies to employ it.

In the end, I think we can get to the same point, what differs is how much time we spend. Time management is something to consider.

As far as going to seminars goes, I think that they are a valuable tool to expose us to other ideas and concepts. However, you have to be careful about what you take away from a seminar. I don't have a problem with teaching something that I may have picked up at a seminar, but what is important to consider is that I take the time to work on the concept or technique with a partner, break it down, tear it apart, put it back together, and work it over and over in applications and scenarios so that I can be sure that I am confident enough that it can work, and feel confident enough to be able to relate the knowledge to someone in a safe and applicable way. You could say it is much like learning a tournament strategy, working it over in class, and then applying it in sparring and competitons.

[joesteph]

you fight how you train, and 90% of the fighters even in martial arts schools do not know how to train, and this is why the level of black belters today is so poor.

Do you see each student as a "fighter," Ironsifu? It's a word that, IMO, implies combat at full contact and, I'd say, on a regular basis. Many students (half the enrollment in American MA schools?) are children, whose parents are looking for a combination of protection against the bully (and stranger) and instilling values (or virtues) such as respect and self-discipline. Others, in their teenage or adult years, are likely at first only concerned with self-defense, although beyond that often develops an appreciation of the "art" in martial arts. I wouldn't say it's that anyone I've referred to doesn't know how to train, as I've quoted, above. Do you actually mean that they are not being trained properly?

[W]e do take a technique here and there [from the jow ga form] and execute them for 100. 200. even 500 times in a class. last saturday i made the students spar with a technique from the form . . .

If we can separate the question of how many times a technique should be performed from the taking of techniques from a form, then I agree that not only should techniques (which are not "hidden" but are contained within the form) be brought out for practice, but there can be greater appreciation of forms by doing this.

Personally, I'd never take that much time to focus on one particular aspect of what I was doing. Simply because it takes away from time spend practicing other skills as well. You'll get the same reps in eventually, but by working on intergrtaining other skills you become more well rounded over that same time.

This is actually how I feel, myself. It's a time factor as well as an emphasis concern. It may reflect American culture, but I think of a reference to a "diminishing return." In other words, there's actually a certain point you reach in which, if you continue at that pace, you begin to worsen as you go along; you can get sloppy, even dread starting because you'll have to do what may seem endless. You not only need variety to keep the mind fresh but, working with other "aspects," see the overall picture. If I keep working on my left jab, and I don't want to make it into a drudge, then I've got to switch to working on my right cross, too, and next I connect them, not only physically but mentally as well.

As far as going to seminars goes, I think that they are a valuable tool to expose us to other ideas and concepts. . . . I take the time to work on the concept or technique [i learned] with a partner, break it down, tear it apart, put it back together, and work it over and over in applications and scenarios . . . and feel confident enough to be able to relate the knowledge to someone in a safe and applicable way.

I must admit that I have not attended seminars, although I did take a special course, "Street Survival," which remains with me years later, and I just began a self-defense JuJitsu program to supplement my karate studies. My teacher attends a special annual US Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan event every summer in San Diego, with days of seminars presented.

We seem to have a discussion not about techniques themselves, but the instructing of those techniques, and how those who instruct are, or maintain themselves as, the creme de la creme.

[ironsifu]

i dont want to pull away from the original topic, which is who is credible to teach, but i would like to answer a few points.

training on a technique for three months will not hurt the rest of your skill. as i said earlier, we have to stop treating martial arts training as if its a race, you have your whole life to learn. at the same time, students/fighters (another point, i consider them the same thing) must develop there skill to the highest level and the best way to do this is to have a patient tempering of skill. some people never get the ability to throw 500 punches in one time, there will be a limit to what level his skill with achieve. 3 months is not a long time, and if you look at it like this, three months on this three months on that, in the end you will have a high skill level in most of your techniques, while the next guy is only average at all of his techniques.

which brings me to the next point. a master of a school ("owner") is a professional martial artist. this means he does this for a living and been doing it full time. you can be a business owner with a school, and be part time, or neglect your training and development, but they should not call himself "master" such and such, starting his own techniques and things like that. people have confused the black belter with a teacher, the business owner/intructor with the master, who is qualified and who is not. so, for someone who asked me earlier about training full time, that not everyone can do it. well i agree not everyone can, so not everyone should lead people as if he does. this is serious stuff, because it creates the culture that anyone with an SBA loan can open a school, be a master, add degrees to his belt, create his own style, etc.

today i just got back from the first BASKA tournament of the year in vallejo CA. i was talking with a teacher, who came from a TKD school with about 10 students, and all of them did poorly. i felt bad for him as a "master", and worse for his students. he trained his students honestly, but the poor guy just did not have the knowledge to coach his people to even survive the fights they were doing! it was so bad one of my beginning students offered the other student some advice.

the point here is, that this man i met, was a 5th degree black belt in tae kwon do, and been studying about 10 years. he never did tournaments himself, but he sees a value in them. they come week after week, and most of the time they leave empty handed. he and i will be sharing information in a few, but imagine you have to face students knowing you cannot teach them to protect themself even from a 15 year old boy. most people will disagree but i say that even though anyone can open a school, most people should not. but the discussion here is who is qualified. i know that at least you should be experienced, and a professional martial artist... not just a franchisee.

[ironsifu]

I wouldn't say it's that anyone I've referred to doesn't know how to train, as I've quoted, above. Do you actually mean that they are not being trained properly?

yes, most teachers are not teaching their students how to train. and its generational. if a teacher gives a black belt in 3 years, and the black belt teaches his student in 3 years, and that student teaches another one in 3 years, you end up 10 years later with water down martial arts. period.

the black belt is not respected because its not being respected by the teachers. if students are not trained right, they will not be ready to defend themself.

[tallgeese]

It's definatly not a race, agreed. I'll still take the 3 months of varided training to be "average" in mulitiple ranges and movements over a good jab any day. Again, you'll get those reps in eventually.

I also agree that certain rank requirements should be respected and only those who meet those requirements should be granted rank. Still, to say that someone can only learn those requirements from someone teaching on a full time basis is pretty limited and not, in my opinion, true. They might not be up to speed as quick due to the limitation in training time, but they will get there. Many very competent fighters I've shared the floor with over the years were products of this enviornment.

I agree also that at a certain point, being at a trainin facility with only 2-3 days of active instruction a week will not be sufficient for certain things. When I have competivie guys who cross the threshold of needing more time to imporove, I usually get them with others who can give them those times. But, were usually talking about guys on the high end of amature or low level of professional full contact competition. Not everyone trains to be a pro/high level amature athlete. For self defense purposes, structured training at a "part time" instructors facility is adaquate. Espically since most serious students will enevitably end up training on thier own as well (conditioninig, bag work, ect.)