System Conflicts

[Lrtucker]

I have a question that has been sitting heavy with me lately and I am hoping I can ask it here without being flamed like I might be on other sites.

What do you do when you do not agree with your system?

What do you do when you recognize fluff?

As an underbelt I trained in three styles, earning my blackbelt in one.

I have a ton of love for the style I earned my first Shodan in and when I decided to start teaching, I was proud to teach this style.

As I started teaching under the banner of this system I saw holes between the curriculum and the philosophy of the Grand Master. As a black belt I have continued my education in my style as well as studying BJJ and Judo (not for rank, but for the love of the art). The grappling arts I have studied helped me in filling the holes I found in our curriculum.

I am trying to stay true to the set curriculum of our system, but I am starting to see many techniques I feel are fluff. I am looking at them from the stand point of practical application and redunancy to other techniques. Oddly, many of these techniques that I see as fluff, my sensei did not teach to me either. Until becoming an instructor I did not even know they existed

Now looking at it as an instructor, I have a strong desire to cut them. However, many of these techniques fall into the same group and I feel if I cut them it removes a namesake element of the style. At the same time I can not teach techniques that I believe work.

I am not sure how to proceed with the curriculum I teach. The absence of these techniques plus the addition of the techniques I have added to fill other gaps leads to almost a new style, or at least pushes it in a different direction. I want to teach techniques that I believe are not fluff, but I do not want to be one of those guys who decree themself Soke, Grand Master, or something of that nature.

What would you do?

[tallgeese]

Tough spot.

I think it depends on what you're looking to teach for. If you want to teach your students techniques and tactics that you feel will keep them safe, and you feel that those won't...then it's an easy call, best to cut them, or modify them to make them meet your standards. You're the one putting people out your doors if you've told them that the things they are learning have the potential to defend them. To teach them something you deem as out of line with that (or fluff) then I think you HAVE to get rid of it.

Now, if you're teaching to keep a passed on tradition alive, just as it was envisioned by those who created it, fluff or not these days, then teaching them is fine. Just be up front about why your teaching the system or at least those parts of it you deem fluffy. If you're up front, I feel you're off the hook for falsely giving advice on winning combative encounters.

Pushing an existing system in a new direction is not a bad thing. There is new information all the time coming out of learning science, physiology, combat studies, ect. that should all effect how we're doing martial arts. Also, circumstances of one's own individual needs come into play to shape how we each do our own version of our system and then pass it on to others. New directions are good.

I was lucky to come out of a system that encouraged such things. Keep the same name, with just modification in your direction shouldn't be a big deal. This also lets you avoid the hassle of totally building from scratch. Depending on your systems administration, and how close with it you are, this may or may not be a problem.

Interesting question, keep us posted on the decisions you make.

[MasterPain]

You could always teach the system "as is", with a disclaimer on technique you don't have much faith in, for rank, then teach whatever else you want as a way to round out the skill set.

[JusticeZero]

Here's a question..

You say they are "redundant". Would some of the "fluff" become "core" for a student for whom one of the "fluff" techniques worked better than the "core" ones?

In one of Miller's books - Meditations on Violence I think - he talks about how people tend to default to one of two flinch reactions. he has two offensive techniques designed to capitalize on the person learning the technique flinching in one of those two ways. he teaches both, even though one of them just doesn't work very well because it capitalizes on him doing something he never does like that. But the students who do move that way find it really useful.

Is it possible that the redundancy is there for a similar reason that some students will take to different things than others?

[Zaine]

This is a tough thing to go through. I went through the same thing, although it wasn't because of techniques but because of the doctrines that the system was changing to. The easy answer is talk to your instructor, sometimes what we perceive as fluff has something hidden in it. On the other hand sometimes it's fluff and it's just been there so long that it leaks into tradition. I ended up leaving that school, which was a great step for me but again, my situation was different, I didn't agree with the new ideologies that my instructor was slowly making mandatory for a student to believe. It's your call.

[vantheman]

I ran into a similar thing last night at my class. One of the more advanced ways to escape from a headlock (advanced in a Kempo sense) was to throw the guy behind you as you rolled back. One of the students had also trained in Aikido, and knew of a way where you do a modified front roll. While this wasn't the way my instructor was taught, he realized this was a more efficient way and required less energy, so he began teaching it that way. Our school is very open to cross training, so the lenience to allow new/better/different forms of a technique may vary.

VTM

[Wastelander]

I think everyone pretty well covered it--what you teach depends entirely upon what you want to achieve with your teaching. If you want to perpetuate your style for the sake of passing it on then you should teach it exactly as you were taught--I know people who do this and are very good martial artists, even though I don't like some of what they do. If you want to teach and art that is as effective as you can make it, then you may need to teach supplementary material that isn't normally part of the curriculum of your core art and you may have to remove "fluff". Or, as MasterPain mentioned, you could do both by stating that certain techniques are or are not part of the style and why you are teaching them anyway.

[sensei8]

What do you do when you do not agree with your system?

What do you do when you recognize fluff?

What would you do?

To not agree with ones system might mean that one's been in that said system long enough to ask that question in the first place because a beginner hasn't invested enough time to make such an uneducated assumption. Having said that, if I finally reached the assumption after many, many years that I no longer agree with Shindokan, I'd walk away from it.

If my Dai-Soke was still with us, he'd be the first one to tell you that I challenged everything. Not because I didn't agree with 'it', it was because I wanted to completely understand what it was that I was being taught. I'm suspicious about anything and everything concerning most things. I want to know for a fact that it's not fluff, and that it's effective across the board. However, what may be fluff to one is not fluff to another. JusticeZero makes a valid point..."Would some of the "fluff" become "core" for a student for whom one of the "fluff" techniques worked better than the "core" ones?" That's a solid argument imho.

I too, have found a few things within Shindokan that I do teach even though I personally don't agree/approve of 'it' and that's because it is Shindokan and it's in an approved curriculum, and I've told my students that while I may not agree with said technique(s), that's not a valid reason for me to not teach it. Why? Our Soke put it in the curriculum because he believed in it wholeheartedly, and in that, 'it' is effective. As an instructor of Shindokan, I must allow the student to decide for themselves if 'it' is fluff or not, and to insure that I don't decide for the student; that's the beauty of owns martial arts journey; it's their journey, not mine. I rob my students of their own betterment by withholding anything that might be effective for that student. It's not my students fault if they can make the fluff work for them and I'm to pig-headed to make the fluff work for me.

I'm a firm believer that our Soke wouldn't have included any technique(s) in Shindokan if it wasn't effective. My shortcomings of not being able to have 'it' work for me is my fault and mine alone, and in that, I've no right to punish my students by not teaching them everything that is Shindokan, and in conclusion, I've not earned that right to decide for my students.

I don't envy the decision(s) that you have to make because it's a tough situation. I trust whatever decision you make, you'll have looked at it very carefully.

Good luck.

[JusticeZero]

what may be fluff to one is not fluff to another. JusticeZero makes a valid point..."Would some of the "fluff" become "core" for a student for whom one of the "fluff" techniques worked better than the "core" ones?"

Exactly. There is one technique that my previous main instructor rarely does. To them, it's a difficult "flashy" technique that has little application; they teach it as a show-off movement and aren't comfortable with using it. For me, it's one of my bread and butter movement techniques; it just works a lot better for my body structure, and i'm much more comfortable with using it. I was on the phone just the other day giving him tips on how the movement worked so that he could teach it better to one of his students who seems to use similar movements to me.

[Groinstrike]

Here's a question..

You say they are "redundant". Would some of the "fluff" become "core" for a student for whom one of the "fluff" techniques worked better than the "core" ones?

In one of Miller's books - Meditations on Violence I think - he talks about how people tend to default to one of two flinch reactions. he has two offensive techniques designed to capitalize on the person learning the technique flinching in one of those two ways. he teaches both, even though one of them just doesn't work very well because it capitalizes on him doing something he never does like that. But the students who do move that way find it really useful.

Is it possible that the redundancy is there for a similar reason that some students will take to different things than others?

Redundancy is good , is good if the techniques that seem so overlap are effective. I agree with Justice that having just a few techniques from reference points, and practicing the heck out of them can be very beneficial.

When doing attack and defend we find ourselves going to the same 3 or 4 things in different variations. Thats because they work!!