Instructor credibility

[Spartacus Maximus]

In other threads it has been said that almost everywhere anybody, even with very little experience or training can open a school. If ranks, titles or blackbelt degrees are not relevant, what makes an instructor more credible and likely to be successful over another?

When comparing the publicity of random schools it seems that the instructor's title and rank are invariably put up front as if to validate quality. Do potential students who have little to no experience of martial arts prefer a 5th Dan over a 2nd Dan? Will they even think twice about it?

[bushido_man96]

I think yes, most of the time when dealing with those who are new to the world of Martial Arts training, seeing the credentials will be a helpful factor in determining where to obtain membership. We see this in life with many things as consumers, so Martial Arts will be no different. Many of us know, however, that it isn't always the case that the person with more credentials hanging on the wall happens to be the best instructor available. But, these things can only be learned through experience.

[Spartacus Maximus]

Attempting to see things from the average prospective student is admittedly difficult to do for someone who has been involved in martial arts for years. The experience, knowledge and familiarity with the subject provide the resources needed to make an informed and objective judgement.

Exactly how much importance does an instructor's rank have for determining his perceived teaching credibility in the mind of an average new student? Schools run by first, second or third Dan instructors exist and are not rare so one could conclude that rank has little influence on their success or difficulty to find people to teach. At the same time there is always a need to justify and legitimize a person's competence with tangible credentials even if these could easily be falsified.

[Wastelander]

Honestly, from talking to non-martial-arts people, I've found that they generally don't even know there are different levels of black belt. Even if they see that someone is described as an "X Degree Black Belt," they don't understand what that means, or how it's any different from "black belt." What tends to catch people's eye more is how many black belts someone has, rather than how high a level of black belt they are. Of course, we all know that neither a high level black belt, nor a bunch of black belts, mean that someone is a good instructor.

Calling an instructor's organization or teacher can help, somewhat, because you can at least confirm some information about training history, knowledge, etc. Even then, though, you have to trust other people whom you can't confirm the credibility of. The organization might have some actual documents that could help, but that will usually be in the form of certifications, or "hall of fame" entries. You can pay to have a background check done, if the organization/teacher doesn't do them, but that is limited to criminal history, and doesn't vouch for skill or knowledge. Competition records for the instructor and their students can be a good guide, if you're looking for competition, but that's about it. People really have to go on trust, for the most part.

[chiliphil1]

I am in agreement with the posts above. I don't think that the number of degrees is going to make a difference but rather the number of diplomas.

In my area there are a couple of schools which the instructors have degrees in early childhood development and things like that. They seem to advertise that more than their MA accomplishments.

I think as far as instructors go as long as the person doesn't weight 400 pounds, knows the material and is able to perform it, and knows how to teach that should be about all you need. There are so many people who teach but have no idea what they are doing, in other words yes they are high ranked and yes they can do MA very well but they don't have a clue how to pass it on to others.

An MA "master" and an instructor are 2 very different things.

[bushido_man96]

An MA "master" and an instructor are 2 very different things.

I agree, but is it necessary to always learn from a "master?" There are lots of good teachers out there that aren't masters, and I think its a shame to pass them up if one has the chance.

[ninjanurse]

A piece of paper nor the color of a belt makes someone a good teacher.

[JR 137]

I've noticed most instructors put the amount of time they've been studying and/or teaching as well. Probably better for credibility, as else being equal.

People have a ton of reasons for choosing a school. I'd say cost and proximity/convenience and class times are easily 3 of the highest for first-timers. They factor in for experienced people too, but there's more involved after you know what you're looking for.

I think the best gauge of credibility is observing their students - technique, eagerness, attitude, etc. As a whole, students are a reflection of their teacher(s).

[chiliphil1]

An MA "master" and an instructor are 2 very different things.

I agree, but is it necessary to always learn from a "master?" There are lots of good teachers out there that aren't masters, and I think its a shame to pass them up if one has the chance.

Of course, I didn't mean master in a literal sense, just a figurative one. The only people that I consider to be masters are those in Kung Fu because generally that's the only style that uses it as an actual designation. Sure, a lot of styles will call someone master or grand master however I believe (and I may be 150% wrong) but Kung Fu is the only style where it is actually a rank..

Please correct me if the above is not true.

[JR 137]

An MA "master" and an instructor are 2 very different things.

I agree, but is it necessary to always learn from a "master?" There are lots of good teachers out there that aren't masters, and I think its a shame to pass them up if one has the chance.

Of course, I didn't mean master in a literal sense, just a figurative one. The only people that I consider to be masters are those in Kung Fu because generally that's the only style that uses it as an actual designation. Sure, a lot of styles will call someone master or grand master however I believe (and I may be 150% wrong) but Kung Fu is the only style where it is actually a rank..

Please correct me if the above is not true.

Not correcting, just stating what I've found...

Many karate styles use specific titles at specific dan ranks. Seido uses sensei at 4th dan, jun shihan (new master) at 5th, sei shihan at 6th, etc. Others follow similar titles. In my old system, senpai was a title at 3rd dan.

From that, I guess you could say master is a specific rank, in a way.