On The Planet For Which Reason!?

[sensei8]

I've ran into individuals on the floor that cast a shadow of doubt on themselves due to their lack, thereof, more than I care to remember.

How so??

These questions might explain myself much better than another one of my long dissertations...

Should an Instructor of the MA posses effective techniques??

OR...

Should an Instructor of the MA posses a solid grasp of MA history, especially their core MA history??

OR...

Both/Either of the two??

OR...

Is there a middle ground that can be reached/satisfied??

Knowledge and experience are separate, yet, equal; context of the equality can differ. One can have one or the other, however, one should have both, but again, the context is about WHAT on the floor!? Do students want a history lesson or do students want to learn effective techniques!?

I've the intimate knowledge of Shindokan as well it's history, whereas, I've also the experience garnered through BOTH!! As a result of my having been cross-training in the MA for as long as I can remember, I've also the knowledge/experience of other MA styles, albeit, not to the intensity of Shindokan, however, my being a student of the MA has allowed me to learn from those MA styles that aren't Shindokan; my ears to the ground, so to speak.

I'm not boisterous in my comings and goings; I'm quite plain spoken about a lot of many things, in and out/on and off, that are of/about the MA.

Then, there's the old saying that goes something like this...

“Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” ― Lao Tzu, Tao Teh Ching.

Inasmuch as I've witnessed those flood gates of impropriety within the MA, and they're most assuredly abound endlessly, that claim to be CI/Instructor but DO NOT have the most minimum knowledge/experience when MA history is concerned, not even an iota.

My niche is that of teaching effectiveness of techniques to whomever honestly desires. I'm not a history teacher, I'm a MA teacher, even though I'm extremely well versed in its [MA] history.

Please don't misunderstand me, history, like anything else in the MA, has its place, and it's importance, therefore, I do NOT, and will NOT ever speak disparagingly towards those who do teach MA history to whomever wants to learn said history.

If my niche is to not teach, even though I'm very well versed thereof, MA history in overabundance, for reasons already mentioned here, am I lesser of a CI??

What fruits does a MA instructor want to be known for??

[Spartacus Maximus]

It isn’t necessary for a martial arts instructor to have encyclopedic knowledge of history like a specialized historian , but an instructor should possess a general and solid familiarity with the origin and lineage of the chosen system to pass on.

This knowledge of history is secondary, however. Most important is detailed knowledge of the systems techniques, their function and application. The how, where and when they can be used effectively. In short, a good balance practical skills and theory.

[Fat Cobra]

I agree with Spartacus Maximus.

[JazzKicker]

I was quite a ways into my martial arts training before I gave any thought to history or origins. Karate was an in-the-moment physical activity, and history wasn't readily available, anyway.

Substitute another sport, like bicycle racing- would it matter if your coach knew who won the Tour de France in 1950 something? Or what kind of bike he rode?

I do think there is value in researching to re-discover techniques or whole systems, rather than the ancestor-worship of lineage. I was already a 2nd dan in Tang Soo Do when a ryukyu kempo instructor friend pointed me towards the origins and deeper applications of the forms I did. It certainly changed my perspective!

I've also ran into posers both on the web and in real life, who can talk a lot about history and lineage- but don't really have skills.

[MatsuShinshii]

Depends on your instructor/organizations requirements.

IMHO I feel an instructor should possess both. However I feel that the skills and abilities of an instructor must come first. Knowing a lot of your arts history is a good thing but doesn't replace skill and ability. You could know more than anyone else in your art and if you can't fight your way out of a paper bag what student is going to want to learn from you.

I feel as though in the beginning instructor grades skill and abilities are the main focus. Once you achieve a level of skill and abilities and as you gain grade and age your focus shifts to understanding your art and it's history. The older you get and the higher the grade you achieve the more understanding the history comes into play.

You have to have the skill first and foremost. Without it you're a paper tiger.

[bushido_man96]

I think each instructor has his/her own wheelhouse, specialties that they can pass along. An instructor should strive to improve in the other areas of their training, like all students should, but if an instructor has a special knack for something, then they need to run with it.

[sensei8]

I think each instructor has his/her own wheelhouse, specialties that they can pass along. An instructor should strive to improve in the other areas of their training, like all students should, but if an instructor has a special knack for something, then they need to run with it.

Solid post!!

I really like your terminology of "wheelhouse" because that's the familiarity that drives the CI/Instructor. I teach the history, where it benefits the students betterment, but the fill-in-the-blanks is for the student to learn through their own research. My primary responsibility to my students is to teach the techniques and to guide them to the landscape of effectiveness of those said techniques, and not to provide a history lesson. What is the advantage to the students betterment to reveal to them the history of, for example, said Kata/Bunkai/Kihon...just teach the Kata/Bunkai/Kihon.

I pray that I've guarded my passions here, and if not, please forgive me.