Your teaching

[Spartacus Maximus]

Martial arts inevitably change to some degree form teacher to student. Every martial art has gone through modifications throughout the generations. Some try hard to replicated their teacher's methods faithfully without changing a single thing. Others prefer to teach what they learned using a unique personal approach. Others still will pick and choose the aspects which suit them or add concepts from other sources.

I don't think either is wrong, but I believe I would probably prefer to continue exactly the same training methods my sensei uses. This would make more sense as he would be my reference for technique and everything else. Also because I admire and respect him. He is an example of what I hope to become when I get "old"

What about you who teach? Do you teach exactly the same way your teacher taught you? What did you change or add if anything and why?

[yamesu]

I try to teach the roots as clean as I was taught them. Preserving traditional basics is highly important in my opinion.

However, I do also incorporate new techniques and ideals, as this is the essence of martial arts in todays society. It keeps it relevant and interesting as opposed to being simply a "preserving tradition" art form.

In saying that, I also think that each individual student needs to be evaluated on their strengths and weaknesses and training tailored to them as much as possible (or as much as is doable in a class setting).

[Archimoto]

This is a great topic. Haven't thought about this before specifically but as I reflect I realize I teach exactly as it was passed on to me. In some part out of respect for tradition but primarily because I truly believe in the efficacy of what I was taught.

Where do I differ from my instructor? Well, my instructor spoke and provided excellent guidance about the benefits of healthy living but I think there's more information available to my generation on lifestyle and nutrition. I've taken the time to really educate myself in this regard and pass it along. As to the fighting techniques specifically, my only hope is that I pass them along as well as they were passed to me!

[jaypo]

Well, our Master Instructor constantly tells us to "put ourselves in the techniques". We come from all types of backgrounds. So he coaches us to our strengths while grounding us in the traditions. When I teach, I add different things to the techniques than some of the other instructors because of the way things "feel". But it's all based on the same principles. Just small tweaks.

[tallgeese]

Fundamentals are fundamentals. It's hard to tinker too much with certain things. That said, training methods evolve. As does one's focus on aspects of the arts. It's hard NOT to tinker with these things.

For instance, I've made my BJJ journey through two different organizations, Nova Uniao and Renato Tavares. Needless to says, that's two different instructors teaching each school. That's not even considering the other grappling aspects I'd seen prior to.

Each of these schools has a different focus and out look. Each instructor has a slightly different style than others in their respective organization. Now, given the influence of both lineages, AND the particular takes each instructor had, how would my jiu jitsu look anything like a perfect copy of either?

It won't. Not if I'm doing it right. That the beauty of the "art" side of the martial arts. And that's just one part of what I do as a whole. Now start factoring in the same type of equation for the skill set I (or any of us) teach.

Unless you've been in a single system with a single instructor your entire career, (less and less common these days) there is no way you'll be a carbon copy. That's a good thing.

Now, use my BJJ example above, a triangle is still a triangle. The gross motor function is the same. That won't change. BUT there are variants on the importance of certain steps. Which is right? The combination that works best for me. That's which. Which is best for my student? We'll see that will be their own path to formulate. Again, it's the art.

If I have drills from one camp that I really like, why wouldn't I use them to develop the same attributes in my current camp. Particularly if it's an area of general weakness?

In a broader view again, what happens when your auxiliary arts start to effect your primary response pattern and after pressure testing you begin to see why your doing it that way? What do you do about that? Look the other way because it wasn't something your first instructor had access to? Or make it part of you? If it's worth making part of your response system the why shouldn't you teach your students? Why deprive them of the lessons you worked so hard to learn?

So, for me, adjust, grow. If fundamentals are sound they won't change much (unless you change the reason you do the arts- sport of historical context arts might not be as ready to deal with the realities of combat hence a change might need to occur there)

Everything else is on the table though. And if thru pressure testing the fundamentals are faulty, they are subject to modification as well.

[devil dog]

I think everyone to some degree emulates their teacher but whether intentional or not we all teach slightly different than our teachers. It may have to do with personality or limitations in body structure or just the way you explain things as opposed to the way your teacher does or it maybe due to influences from other arts.

It's inevitable that things will change and that is not a bad thing. There are some that think that in order to be traditional you must preserve what has been handed down exactly as it was handed down. Thats great but unless you clone yourself into your teacher this will not happen. They do not understand the true history of their arts. The arts are ever changing and improving. The founders took what they were taught and added additional learning to create their art. Take Okinawan karate for example, lets say my art, Sokon Matsumura took what he learned from his family system of Ti and incorporated what he learned from Kusanku, Chinto, Kanga Sakugawa, Iwah, Wai Shin Zan and the Shaolin Temple to create his art. He then passed it down. If anyone thinks it stayed absolutely in tact as the art he passed down, they are very much mistaken. It was a common practice to search out other teachers to broaden your base of knowledge and develop your own style of teaching. This did in fact have an impact on what was taught. We can see this through the inclusions and reductions of kata from each teacher in the line of lineage. This is evidence that other teachers/arts were involved.

The point is whether the art changes due to other influences or whether it changes due to the way you teach compared to your teacher, it's a natural process and a necessary process. If you are a traditionalist as I am you try to maintain the teachings and pass them down in tact as much as possible but there are always going to be differences and that is just the nature of the arts.

Ulimately whether you want to or not you will change the way it is taught unless you and your Sensei have the same body and brain. You will add your flare and personality to the art and find your own teaching style.

If this where not true then explain why all Sensei of a given art do not teach exactly the same.

In order to progress and become a well rounded martial artist you have to inject yourself and your experiences into the art and thus into the way you teach.

We do not set out as teachers to make clones of ourselves. We want you to find your own way on the path. We only guide you we do not dictate how you walk the path.

You can maintain the core foundation of your art as it was passed down but inevitably you will teach the art differently than your teacher and your students will teach it differently than you. This doesn't mean go and change the Kihon, Kata, Tegumi, Tuite, etc. It means that you will teach differently and that may be a great thing that changes the way people perceive the art.

We have all had teachers that where an encyclopedia of knowledge but that did not necessarily make them a great teacher or even a good teacher. Then you have those that can explain things and have a better common sense understanding of how things fit and they teach us in a manner that greatly progresses our understanding of the art.

If they both had the same Sensei does that mean one way of teaching is right and one way is wrong? If you could learn from their Sensei you would find that he teaches similary to them but still teaches differently.

It's human nature. We are not robots we are individuals with our own personalities, likes and dislikes and we all teach the way we perceive as right.

[Nidan Melbourne]

Personally I teach all the techniques as I was taught and how they were explained and shown to me by my instructors teacher (he has been training for 50+ years).

But realistically I will also teach students how to apply those techniques to modern day attacks. Although any technique that I learn from someone else from either another Goju Dojo or another Karate schoo or even another style of martial art. I will make sure i pass on to my own students.

There are also some things that I will relate to movies or everyday things. Somehow it usually relates back to the original karate kid movies

Edited August 21, 2014 by Nidan Melbourne

[Spartacus Maximus]

I agree with the idea of change and I am certain that it has contributed a great deal to the development of every martial art that exist today. Where I draw the line is when changes are made for the wrong reasons.

It is often very difficult to know when or why a change has been made. Especially if the source of that change is no longer around to explain. That is why I am always careful to question.

Changes and variations due to personality, body type or technical preference are inevitable. However I strongly disagree with the idea of changing or otherwise altering anything that would compromise effectivity and the original purpose.

The only thing I might change would be the intensity but I would try to follow exactly the same training methods. I absolutely refuse to be influenced by the sport/contest aspect. Nowadays the average person is too soft and lacks the drive to put themselves through that type of intense training. Nevermind doing it everyday. It isn't everyone who actually enjoys being sore all over nearly everyday and regularly coming home with bruises.

[jaypo]

I find that I emulate the "macro" of what my M.I. teaches versus the "micro". For example, I've always been more of a counter fighter using range and "van damme" kicks in my sparring (because when I was younger, I could!). However, I love the close fighting techniques that Shorin Ryu incorporates, and I absolutely love takedowns and locks. Now, when he's showing us applications of our katas, I have difficulty sometimes performing the exact micro technique he's instructing because something else feels more natural to me (he's 5'4", 150 lbs and 60 yrs old, and I'm 6'0, 185 and 40 yrs old) because of our physical differences. However, the intent is still the same- if he's drilling a takedown from Naifanchi, I may feel more comfortable doing it with a front leg sweep rather than stepping across with my lead leg and performing a hip toss. The hip toss is easier for him because his center of gravity is lower and his range is shorter. But for me, my legs are longer, and I can get to his lead leg faster and easier. So the "macro" is that the application leads to a short range takedown. The the "micro" is different.

[tallgeese]

I agree with the idea of change and I am certain that it has contributed a great deal to the development of every martial art that exist today. Where I draw the line is when changes are made for the wrong reasons.

It is often very difficult to know when or why a change has been made. Especially if the source of that change is no longer around to explain. That is why I am always careful to question.

Changes and variations due to personality, body type or technical preference are inevitable. However I strongly disagree with the idea of changing or otherwise altering anything that would compromise effectivity and the original purpose.

The only thing I might change would be the intensity but I would try to follow exactly the same training methods. I absolutely refuse to be influenced by the sport/contest aspect. Nowadays the average person is too soft and lacks the drive to put themselves through that type of intense training. Nevermind doing it everyday. It isn't everyone who actually enjoys being sore all over nearly everyday and regularly coming home with bruises.

The bolded above, in my opinion, can be problematic. If we have to question why a change was made when the one who modified it is no longer around, then don't we have to question the founders choices at the outset of the art as well?

For me, this is easy. Of course we do! But some artist have real trouble acknowledging this. Not saying that you do, just saying that a lot of people are quick to dismiss change on the grounds you stated, but balk at the idea of questioning a founder that was born two centuries ago.