Tradition v Progress

[Silver_no2]

Being relatively new to the martial arts (I have been training for a mere 2 years and a month) I am intigued by the constant discussion between thoughs I will term the "traditionalists" and those I will term the "modernists". The crux of the debate is simple. Should a martial art follow the teaching of its founder to the letter and therefore preserve the art as it was originally taught (traditionalist view) or should it be looking to constantly adapt and evolve (modernist view):confused:

I have my own opinions which, as you have probably guessed by now, I will be sharing with you all, but I am interested in what other people have to say first. Please respond to this as it is my first attempt at starting a thread! (Be gentle!):D

[Silver_no2]

I'LL TRY THAT AGAIN WITHOUT THE SILLY SPELLING MISTAKES! (DOH!)

Being relatively new to the martial arts (I have been training for a mere 2 years and a month) I am intrigued by the constant discussion between those I will term the "traditionalists" and those I will term the "modernists". The crux of the debate is simple - "Should a martial art follow the teaching of its founder to the letter and therefore preserve the art as it was originally taught (traditionalist view) or should it be looking to constantly adapt and evolve (modernist view)?"

I have my own opinions which, as you have probably guessed by now, I will be sharing with you all, but I am interested in what other people have to say first. Please respond to this as it is my first attempt at starting a thread! (Be gentle!)

[Andrew Green]

Seems odd that those founders didn't stick to there teachers teachings. They adapted what they learnt, often from more than one source, and taught their interpretation.

Preserving is a fairly modern 'tradition'

I typically make a distinction between traditional approach and classical approach.

Tradition - Follow in the footsteps of the masters

Classical - Seek what they saught

The whole originally taught thing is not practical, things get lost, forgotten, changed, etc. If nothing new goes in and things are going out, you won't have much left after a few generations

[Chazz]

I agree with that. Im in TKD. The founder of TKD was brought up in Shotokan among other styles. So we know how our style came about. The only thing i try to keep strictly TKD is our forms and our style of kicking. But i like to work and bring in other styles to fill in from what we are missing. (more hand work, join locks and so on) I think sticking to just the tradition of a style is ok, but expanding your mind into more than your style can be better.

Just my thoughts
-Chazz

[pesilat]

"Tradition, thou art for suckling children; thou art the enlivening milk for babes; but no meat for men is in thee." -- Steven Crane

I think that tradition has its place. It's like walking down a well-trodden path to learn about the various flora and fauna of the region. It's a good way to get the lay of the land ... but this won't make you an "explorer" ... or even a "hiker" ... you're just a hobbyist.

Martial "arts" are, IMHO, are like all other "arts" (be it writing, sculpting, painting, etc.). The "art" should imply self-expression. If you never venture from that well-trodden path then you're not likely to reach a level development where self-expression is possible (though there are exceptions).

So, I think tradition is important. It's like our textbooks in school. They don't hold all the answers but they give us a foundation for understanding the principles so that we can find our own answers in new situations.

Now, to take a tangent from here: Is tradition "necessary"? I don't think so ... provided that the student is given some sort of foundtaion for understanding the underlying principles. Whether that foundation is "traditional" or "modern" is irrelevant so long as it fulfills the requirements of building that foundation.

I think the problem, though, arises when people get mired in tradition. They think the tradition is more important than the self-expression (for themselves and/or for their students).

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Perhaps progress itself is a tradition.
The art of fighting without fighting,
The way of no way.

If we compare learning Classical MA to learning say Classical Piano, then we go thru the same system of learning the basics, training them and expanding their complexity. There is a clear difference between Classical Musicians and Pop Musicians. A lot of Classical Musicians can only interpret music that is written down for them. The Musician who learns and plays by ear can construct original pieces.

The MA should build on both concepts, the Tradition as a foundation or perspective, from which to experiment.

The musician who learns to play by himself is usually limited.
The musician who is taught by rote is usually limited.
Every so often an exceptional individual comes along.
We can all learn from each other!

[Freeform]

Well 'traditionally' martial arts were developed in a need to improve fighting skills (theirs your progress). So is it not just a case of people forgeting where we all can from to start with?

[Ghostsuit]

Originally posted by Silver_no2
I'LL TRY THAT AGAIN WITHOUT THE SILLY SPELLING MISTAKES! (DOH!)

Just a quick tip you can edit your own message using the edit button at the bottom right of your message :)

[Ozebob]

Hummnn,

This is where the concept of SHU-HA-RI is worthwhile- first one has to find a good teacher and then-
Shu- learn from tradition and copy the teacher
Ha- adapt the tradition modifying techniques to suit your body
Ri- transcend the tradition by innovation, put something back

Ozebob

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Ozebob
Hummnn,

This is where the concept of SHU-HA-RI is worthwhile- first one has to find a good teacher and then-
Shu- learn from tradition and copy the teacher
Ha- adapt the tradition modifying techniques to suit your body
Ri- transcend the tradition by innovation, put something back

Ozebob

Bob's absolutely correct!

To put it a bit differently, how are you going to make "improvements" until you've learned what it is that I'm trying to teach? (Shu)

Then you've got to spend time fiddling and figuring it out for a while. (ha)

Then after you've done that, you can change it a little or radically, to suit your desires. (Ri)

Rob

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by pesilat
"Tradition, thou art for suckling children; thou art the enlivening milk for babes; but no meat for men is in thee." -- Steven Crane

I think that tradition has its place. It's like walking down a well-trodden path to learn about the various flora and fauna of the region. It's a good way to get the lay of the land ... but this won't make you an "explorer" ... or even a "hiker" ... you're just a hobbyist.



"Hobbyist" ?
Boy, them's dangerous words!

:woo:

Interesting though, I've seen far more dilettante's in the American Eclectic schools in my area than in the "Traditional" schools. Their enrollments are far larger than the traditionalists.



Martial "arts" are, IMHO, are like all other "arts" (be it writing, sculpting, painting, etc.). The "art" should imply self-expression. If you never venture from that well-trodden path then you're not likely to reach a level development where self-expression is possible (though there are exceptions).



Excellent analogy. So, to connect it to your first thought, only Jazz musicians or New Wave are the true "Working Men" of music. Classical Musicians, like Yo Yo Ma or Itzak Perlman are "hobbyists",by your definition, since they're not venturing from that well-trodden path of classical music (only playing what's written). Poor fellows, "they're not likely to reach a level of development, where self-expression is possible." I wonder if Messr's Perlman and Ma and any other member of a symphony orchestra are aware of their fate? :cry:


So, I think tradition is important. It's like our textbooks in school. They don't hold all the answers but they give us a foundation for understanding the principles so that we can find our own answers in new situations.
[Quote]

You're absolutely correct here. However with solid traditions, as with my science textbooks from college,at least, they give us the universal principles from which we can figure out the solutions to novel problems.

The most important thing about the role of "traditionalists" and their preservationist tendencies, is to preserve a body of knowledge so that it won't become lost to the sands of history.

Take for example Taekyon. After the Japanese occupation of Korea for a couple of generations, authentic taekyon may have been lost, forever. Traditional TKD, may run the same path. It's difficult, here at least, to find a school that still teaches the old,traditional forms like yun bi, or sip su, kong song goon or even the pyong ahn's. Isn't it sad to see that body of knowledge leave us?


What I've seen with the American Eclectic arts, at least is that they often reinvent a wheel that's in the province of traditional arts.

[quote]
Now, to take a tangent from here: Is tradition "necessary"? I don't think so ... provided that the student is given some sort of foundtaion for understanding the underlying principles. Whether that foundation is "traditional" or "modern" is irrelevant so long as it fulfills the requirements of building that foundation.

I think the problem, though, arises when people get mired in tradition. They think the tradition is more important than the self-expression (for themselves and/or for their students).

Mike :woo: :woo: :woo: :(

Your last paragraph rings with a lot of truth. Martial arts are supposed to be about balance. However some of the most imbalanced people that I've ever had the misfortune to meet have been in the martial arts. To be mired in either approach (completely eschewing the traditional or completely mired in the traditional) is to be missing the boat. That is, unless you're just a hobbyist, and it brings joy to your heart.


Rob

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
Perhaps progress itself is a tradition.
The art of fighting without fighting,
The way of no way.

If we compare learning Classical MA to learning say Classical Piano, then we go thru the same system of learning the basics, training them and expanding their complexity. There is a clear difference between Classical Musicians and Pop Musicians. A lot of Classical Musicians can only interpret music that is written down for them. The Musician who learns and plays by ear can construct original pieces.


You've got a fallacy there, I'm surprised that it obviously escaped you.

Clearly you've met many people who could "play by ear" but, who couldn't "construct an original piece"? Or have you just not been around that long? I've encountered many.

On the other side, of the coin, have you ever heard of Henry Mancini or John Williams? These were all classically trained musicians. Mancini was a prolific composer (Theme from Peter Gunn, Theme from the Pink Panther). Surely, you've heard the theme from Star Wars? You did watch the Olympics without the volume turned down? Well, that's John Williams' baby.

In reality, the true innovators are relatively rare regardless of their backgrounds (Traditional/Classical vs. Eclectic/Modern).


The MA should build on both concepts, the Tradition as a foundation or perspective, from which to experiment.

The musician who learns to play by himself is usually limited.
The musician who is taught by rote is usually limited.
Every so often an exceptional individual comes along.
We can all learn from each other!

You have a great point there in your first paragraph here, then you come darn close to invalidating it in your next paragraph. Good use of of what we used to call in my college English class of "weasel words" ("usually").

Seems that what you're trying to say, and quite nicely, I might add, is:

"The MA should build on both concepts, the Tradition as a foundation or perspective, from which to experiment. Every so often an exceptional individual comes along. We can all learn from each other!"

That's beautiful, and right! So, why not just say that. Why cloud it with a sweeping generalization that's inherently false, despite the use of "usually"?


Rob

[Andy Murray]

These question mainly to Kosokun!

Why are there so many styles of Karate?
Why are there so many organisations within Tae Kwon Do?

The MA should build on both concepts, the Tradition as a foundation or perspective, from which to experiment. Every so often an exceptional individual comes along. We can all learn from each other!"

That's beautiful, and right! So, why not just say that. Why cloud it with a sweeping generalization that's inherently false, despite the use of "usually"?

It is very difficult to put down our thought on paper, as we cannot totally communicate on every level through that medium. I struggle with it, just the same as everyone else here does. It his far more constructive to say; 'what do you mean by that?' than to quote out of context with a flawed interpretation.

I use the Musician comparison because I am a classicaly trained pianist. I am also an original composer! My artistic side if you like.

I use the word usually as I can't speak for everbody. There are exceptions to every rule.

I use 'cloudy' metaphors because I am trying to promote discussion. I'm not trying to force my point of view on anyone.

You've got a fallacy there, I'm surprised that it obviously escaped you.

If I quote you out of context here for example, your post could be deemed offensive!

As to how my phallus could escape me, you've completely lost me there.

In memory of a once fluid man........................:Angel:

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Kosokun

Interesting though, I've seen far more dilettante's in the American Eclectic schools in my area than in the "Traditional" schools. Their enrollments are far larger than the traditionalists.


Yes ... because, unfortunately, most people (at least in America ... I can't speak for other nationalities) tend to look for the easy road. They take "eclectic" to mean hodge-podge. An "eclectic" should be cohesive. Regardless of what it pulls from, the system should be put together in such a way that the elements blend and work with each other. Some "eclectic" systems aren't very good because the founder didn't tie the elements together very well. Other times a student isn't very good because he/she is too lazy to develop the ties between the elements.

To train in one thing and another and take something from each and teach them both is not cross training or making an eclectic system. It's like taking all the ingredients of a cake and dumping them in a bowl without regard for proper measurements and mixing order. You end up with a bowl of useless slop, not a bowl of cake batter.

Proper cross training means learning *why* the different recipes work and learning to modify the measurements and mixing procedure to end up with an "eclectic" cake that actually tastes good but is different from the original recipes you took elements from.

Excellent analogy. So, to connect it to your first thought, only Jazz musicians or New Wave are the true "Working Men" of music. Classical Musicians, like Yo Yo Ma or Itzak Perlman are "hobbyists",by your definition, since they're not venturing from that well-trodden path of classical music (only playing what's written). Poor fellows, "they're not likely to reach a level of development, where self-expression is possible." I wonder if Messr's Perlman and Ma and any other member of a symphony orchestra are aware of their fate? :cry:

:woo: :woo: :woo: :(

Not at all. Self expression need not be improvisation. Self expression can be found within the tradition (or, classical music to stick with the analogy).

Look at the difference between a high school pianist playing Beethoven's 5th and Liberace playing it. They're playing the same notes ... but what they do with them is world's apart because the (average) high school pianist is playing by rote and hasn't found his/her personal expression within it.

Your last paragraph rings with a lot of truth. Martial arts are supposed to be about balance. However some of the most imbalanced people that I've ever had the misfortune to meet have been in the martial arts. To be mired in either approach (completely eschewing the traditional or completely mired in the traditional) is to be missing the boat. That is, unless you're just a hobbyist, and it brings joy to your heart.

Yup ... your last sentence very eloquently sums up my meandering post :-)

Mike

[Ozebob]

Interesting comments..

I have often seen the old cliche on various MA sites where the instructor says they have taken the best from different arts to create a new and better art for all.

They often say they have taken from various styles withing an art or different elements from various arts to create a more balanced art.

To me it simply means they did not stay in their original art long enough to learn what it contained, or they chose a poor teacher in the first place.

Am I wrong?

Regards,
Ozebob:confused:

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
These question mainly to Kosokun!

Why are there so many styles of Karate??

Ooh, really good questions!

Well, from a historical context within karate, a lot came from the teaching methodology in karate. The entire notion of codifying stances, ect. is a relatively new development in karate. It came about some time after the advent of karate instruction to large groups, and the adoption of the concept of "Do" by karate instr's. Prior to this, from all accounts, karate instruction occurred in the form of private or semi private lessons. The emphasis in training appeared to be "battlefield utility" (what I call "Jutsu") as opposed to the emphasis becoming that of polishing one's character. So, prior to the codifying of stances, techniques and methodologies into "styles", you had people learning to protect themselves agianst various common acts of violence. So, if you or I were in the same class, observing our teacher, we might come up with slightly different ideas of what he was doing, because we each bring different backgrounds to the table. Hopefully, these differing ideas would be effective, in application, and would suit each of our differing temperments and body types. If, later on, we take on students ourselves, we get a sort of "technique teleponeitis" occuring where the the methodologies and techniques start to diverge from what our teacher was doing. Since we're now seniors, we become the heads of our new traditions. So, you and I have, in this illustration become style heads. If we now codify our methods, we indeed give birth to new, although perhaps similar, styles.

If we look at Wado Ryu, for example and compare it with Shotokai or JKA Shotokan, we can get an idea of what I'm trying to get across. Ohtsuka, was a student of Funakoshi, as was Egami, Gima, et al, yet their styles are different.

Does that make any sense? :confused:



Why are there so many organisations within Tae Kwon Do?

Money springs to mind. If you think about it, the whole karate organization thing is much like a pyramid scheme.

<Snip>
As to how my phallus could escape me, you've completely lost me there.

In memory of a once fluid man........................:Angel:


A pun!! I love it! LOL!
Good one!

Rob

Ps. at least for me, you've done marvelously at spurring discussion! Thanks!

[Andy Murray]

We have all seen the 'old cliche' you mention here Bob, so I would say you are not wrong!

There is a common problem with crosstrainers 'dissing' the core trad guys, and saying yeah I tried that for two whole months, and it don't work. I have to say that I hear more Trad guys dissing freestylers, than I do the reverse.

Personally I agree that a trad system is important as a foundation for any MA practice, but I can't enforce that ideal on anyone! Should anyone?

Andy

[Kosokun]

Mike,

Excellent post.

Originally posted by pesilat


Yes ... because, unfortunately, most people (at least in America ... I can't speak for other nationalities) tend to look for the easy road. They take "eclectic" to mean hodge-podge. An "eclectic" should be cohesive. Regardless of what it pulls from, the system should be put together in such a way that the elements blend and work with each other. Some "eclectic" systems aren't very good because the founder didn't tie the elements together very well. Other times a student isn't very good because he/she is too lazy to develop the ties between the elements.

This has been my observation as well.


To train in one thing and another and take something from each and teach them both is not cross training or making an eclectic system. It's like taking all the ingredients of a cake and dumping them in a bowl without regard for proper measurements and mixing order. You end up with a bowl of useless slop, not a bowl of cake batter.


Ooh, that's good. Can I steal.....er.... borrow that?



Proper cross training means learning *why* the different recipes work and learning to modify the measurements and mixing procedure to end up with an "eclectic" cake that actually tastes good but is different from the original recipes you took elements from.



Exactly right!


Not at all. Self expression need not be improvisation. Self expression can be found within the tradition (or, classical music to stick with the analogy).


I couldn't agree with you more. Boy, you put that well!
It stirs my dander when people equate "traditional" with "Stagnate" or Antiquated, outmoded and stifiling. You expressed it wonderfully! There is opportunity for self-expression in not only classical music, but traditional martial arts as well.


Look at the difference between a high school pianist playing Beethoven's 5th and Liberace playing it. They're playing the same notes ... but what they do with them is world's apart because the (average) high school pianist is playing by rote and hasn't found his/her personal expression within it.


Yes, and not only that, but look at the difference between say Itzak Perlman and Yehudi Menuhin playing the same arrangement of the same piece. They ain't the same. Each expresses themselves within the music, uniquely, despite playing the same notes.



Again, wonderful analogies. Good post.

Rob

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Andy Murray

Personally I agree that a trad system is important as a foundation for any MA practice, but I can't enforce that ideal on anyone! Should anyone?

Andy

Andy,

What do you mean by enforce that ideal on someone? In a free society, where people are free to leave and go elsewhere, how can we enforce or impose anything on them? I don't think I'm understanding you here. (My fault, sorry)

Rob

[Andy Murray]

Enforce by persuasion on forums such as these. Debate is trying to convert others to your point of view, In this context I mean lead the less informed to agree with my views by persuasion.

No blame is being apportioned, so no apology is necessary.

In a Nutshell; I have one view, but please put forward your own.

Andy

[Andy Murray]

I'm a little sick of this 'you quote me, I quote you' with interest posting, but I didn't start it, and I'm not ready to finish it yet. So!

Posted by myself

These question mainly to Kosokun!

Why are there so many styles of Karate?

Posted by Kosokun

Well, from a historical context within karate, a lot came from the teaching methodology in karate. The entire notion of codifying stances, ect. is a relatively new development in karate. It came about some time ...... etc, etc

Posted by myself

Why are there so many organisations within Tae Kwon Do?

Posted by Kosokun

Money springs to mind. If you think about it, the whole karate organization thing is much like a pyramid scheme.

One answer is attributed to development of the style, the other answer to commercialism?

How can we make any progress, with so much Tradition?

Andy

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
I'm a little sick of this 'you quote me, I quote you' with interest posting, but I didn't start it, and I'm not ready to finish it yet. So!

<Snip>
Andy

Gee Andy, I don't understand your apparent irritation, I was only following "netiquette".


From the alt.comp.freeware F.A.Q. (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Circuit/9810/Page7.html)

"Netiquette is a particularly sensitive subject because so many people have such differing views regarding the subject. Nonetheless, the majority of the usenet community seem to agree on the following guidelines for posting in newsgroups."


And the pertinent section on quoting:

"Quoting - This refers to the inclusion of a copy in your reply of either all or part of the post to which you are replying.

Why should you quote? Quoting is done to help others understand what, in the original post, you are referring to in your reply. It saves others the trouble of having to open the original post to try and figure out what you're talking about.
Another good reason to quote is that posts have a finite lifespan on servers. The time they will remain available to somebody's reader is dependent on which server we're talking about, but nonetheless....it's finite. What this means is that your reply can become an "orphan" post. If there's no quote from the original post in your reply, nobody will know *what* you are talking about. They will then tend to ignore your reply, and if you are in the habit of posting without quoting, they might begin to ignore (or even filter out) all of your posts.
Should you begin your reply before or after the quote? Most people seem to prefer that others reply after the quote. Doing this will produce a logical progression of responses in the body of each new reply in the thread.
Be careful when you are removing portions of a series of nested replies to avoid attributing words to the wrong person. Note that a ">" in front of each line indicates the most recent reply. A ">>" in front of each line indicates the next most recent reply and so on. Knowing this will help you keep track of who said what.

Should you quote all of the message you are replying to? That depends on the size of the original. If the message is small, go ahead. However, if the message is large, it's a good idea to remove any portions of the original that aren't relevant to your reply or which are repetitious.
As Prof. Timo Salmi of the University of Vaasa, Finland says, "The number one rule of quoting is quote judiciously. Quote only what is essential to make it possible for the reader to understand what your posting or email message is about. As a rule avoid quoting an entire message (signatures and all). It is not judicious to quote, say, a hundred lines of discussion just to input a single line of one's own. Proper quoting is a skill. If you are going to quote, devote some time to working the quote appropriately. Don't be lazy in this respect."
When you remove something from what you are quoting, it's considered good form to substitute something like "(clipped)" (without the quotation marks) for what you have removed.

Should you ever change what you are quoting? This is called "misquoting" and usually, it's a very bad idea to do so. Even if you point out that you've changed what somebody else has said, depending on the situation it's probably going to get you in trouble.

How do you quote? Most newsreader programs have an option for setting your preferences to quote automatically when you compose a reply. Once you begin composing your reply, you can edit the quote. Refer to your newsreader's documentation for information on setting this preference."


I hope that helps!


Rob :Angel:

[Andy Murray]

How about some 'original' comments. You have failed to respond to any issues I raised in my previous post Kosokun. I have a whole dictionary here, should I scan it and post it?

Pah!!!

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Ozebob
Interesting comments..

I have often seen the old cliche on various MA sites where the instructor says they have taken the best from different arts to create a new and better art for all.

They often say they have taken from various styles withing an art or different elements from various arts to create a more balanced art.

To me it simply means they did not stay in their original art long enough to learn what it contained, or they chose a poor teacher in the first place.

Am I wrong?

Regards,
Ozebob:confused:

Depends. I would say that this is very often the case ... but not always. The 2 systems I currently hold black belts in and the one that I'm currently training in are "eclectic" arts. The founders, though, didn't take just cursory looks at the arts they drew from. In most cases they were "black belts" (though belts weren't always used ... but you get the gist) in them ... or at the very least had spent many years training in them and had gotten permission to teach.

Let's take, for instance, my primary system of "Sikal." Sikal is an eclectic blend from several systems of Filipino Kali and Indonesian Pentjak Silat. My instructor, Guru Ken Pannell, developed this blend after 15 years training in Kali and 10 years training in Silat. He had a "black belt" (or permission to teach) in 2 systems of Silat and 3 systems of Kali before he ever started developing his own curriculum which drew from those systems. He was very careful in his development of the curriculum to keep it cohesive and build all the necessary "bridges" between the elements so that when a student reaches advanced levels he/she is able to flow seamlessly between the elements and do "Sikal."

The same is true of Eskrido by GM Cacoy Canete. GM Canete is a 10th Dan in Doce Pares Eskrima (and, at 82, has been training in that system for 76 years). He also has black belts in Aikido and Kodokan Judo (2nd and 3rd Dan respectively, I think ... though I may have them swapped). He has blended elements from these into an "eclectic" whole called "Eskrido" which utilizes the throwing and locking principles of Judo and Aikido with the stickwork of Eskrima.

So, while "eclectic" sometimes (often?) means "hodge-podge" this is not always the case.

There are several items in this thread which I want to reply to which will kind of continue this post so rather than re-type things, I'll stop here and reply to those other posts as well :-)

Mike

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by pesilat



Let's take, for instance, my primary system of "Sikal." Sikal is an eclectic blend from several systems of Filipino Kali and Indonesian Pentjak Silat. My instructor, Guru Ken Pannell, developed this blend after 15 years training in Kali and 10 years training in Silat. He had a "black belt" (or permission to teach) in 2 systems of Silat and 3 systems of Kali before he ever started developing his own curriculum which drew from those systems. He was very careful in his development of the curriculum to keep it cohesive and build all the necessary "bridges" between the elements so that when a student reaches advanced levels he/she is able to flow seamlessly between the elements and do "Sikal."

Mike

Pretty Cool, Mike. Sound's like you were fortunate in finding a good, forward-thinking, conscientious, thoughtful instr.


Rob

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
How about some 'original' comments. You have failed to respond to any issues I raised in my previous post Kosokun. I have a whole dictionary here, should I scan it and post it?

Pah!!!

Could you please re-state the questions about the issues that you've raised? I thought this
How can we make any progress, with so much Tradition?


and this
I have a whole dictionary here, should I scan it and post it?

were rhetorical questions. :D

Rob

[Andy Murray]

One quote you used was a rhetorical question I asked, thrown to the whole forum.

The other was a not so subtle point, suggesting that you were wasting a lot of peoples time by having them read information with no relevant context, written by somebody else, to disguise the fact that you were not answering anyones question

I'm happy to re-state any questions I have previously raised if you do not understand them.

Oh, how about you look for my questions and answer them? lol

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
We have all seen the 'old cliche' you mention here Bob, so I would say you are not wrong!

There is a common problem with crosstrainers 'dissing' the core trad guys, and saying yeah I tried that for two whole months, and it don't work. I have to say that I hear more Trad guys dissing freestylers, than I do the reverse.

Personally I agree that a trad system is important as a foundation for any MA practice, but I can't enforce that ideal on anyone! Should anyone?

Andy

I think anyone, regardless of background, "dissing" someone else's training practices is rather shallow. Every one is different. We all have different tastes and preferences. We all learn better from different teaching methods. We each have unique physical aspects which enable us to do some things that others can't ... and, on the flip side, things that prohibit us from doing things that some other people do with ease.

As a tangent, here, if it ever seems that *I'm* dissing someone's training methods, I apologize and that is never my intent. My intent is simply to state my personal opinion and what works for me ... to bring a different perspective to it. My way works for me ... but may be absolute BS for someone else.

Anyway ... back to the topic at hand :-)

I believe that a foundation is vital. I don't believe that that foundation has to be a "traditional" art. I believe that *any* art which is cohesive will build a solid foundation. My foundation is the "Sikal" which I mentioned in my previous post. Sikal isn't a "traditional" art but it is cohesive and provides a very good foundation.

I believe that there, really, are a finite number of principles that all the various martial arts systems draw from. The differences in arts/systems/styles arises from the emphasis each places on various principles and the way that the principles it uses are expressed. These differences arise because of the environment in which the art/system/style evolved. The "environment" includes the physical aspects and preferences of the founder and each subsequent instructor between the founder and a given student ... as well as those of the student. It includes the geography of the area(s) in which it evolved. It includes the society in which it evolved. All these factors (and others to varying degrees) have an impact on why a given art/system/style emphasizes various principles and the way in which it expresses those principles.

When training, IMHO, we should try to develop an understanding of the *principles* rather than the techniques of a various system. Rather than look at "how did the instructor do that?" look at "why did it work?" If we can understand the "why" then when we cross-train we can build our own bridges.

Too many people end up with a collection of techniques with nothing to tie them together.

For all my love of seminars (I attend a lot of them), this is their biggest drawback (IMHO). They tend to draw "dabblers." These people go to a seminar (which, IMO, should be used primarily as a "sampler platter" for the presented art/system/style) and they think that the seminar is the whole of the art/system/style. They think that if they go to enough seminars that they will get the whole art/system/style. These people *only* train at seminars. They end up being "technique collectors." Some of them then, after years of attending seminars, feel that they have enough to teach with ... but they have no cohesion. All they have is a bunch of techniques.

There are occasional people who can actually make this work for themselves. Usually because they've sparred enough with the material to build the bridges within their own bodies. But often these people don't have those bridges built intellectually and, therefore, cannot really teach other people about those bridges. (This situation can also arise with people who have really put the time in and studied in-depth but who are more physically adept than mentally.) Their students will watch something and say, "OK ... but how did you get from point A to point D ... I didn't see a point B or C?" And the "instructor" will not be able to explain. Generally, in this case, the second generation of the art/system/style is better at teaching than the founder because they had to stumble around until they found those bridges and they usually end up with more of an intellectual understanding than the found had.

Note: I differentiate between "seminars" and "workshops" ... a "workshop" is, in my definition, curriculum oriented and a series of workshops can be used to teach a progressive curriculum. "Workshop" means you're in the kitchen learning to prepare the dishes. "Seminar" means your eating at the table but get only the vaguest of ideas as to how the dishes might have been prepared.

Hope all this rambling made some sort of sense :-)

Summary: I think that a foundation in a cohesive art/system/style is absolutely vital ... but whether that foundation is "traditional" or not is up to the practitioner. The problem, though, is that when people begin training have no idea whether they're getting a cohesive foundation or not. Traditional arts are usually cohesive ... but I've seen some that (due to the way the instructor teaches them) are not. Whether you're talking about "eclectic" or "traditional" ... the instructor is the key element. If the instructor doesn't have a cohesive understanding and doesn't teach the elements in a cohesive manner then it will be up to the student to "pour the concrete" into the structure of the foundation (i.e.: make the connections between the elements). If the teacher doesn't teach them and the student doesn't make the connections then the student will not have a solid foundation.

Mike

Mike

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Kosokun


Pretty Cool, Mike. Sound's like you were fortunate in finding a good, forward-thinking, conscientious, thoughtful instr.


Rob

Yes, I feel very lucky in the instructors I've had. For that I give credit to a woman named Melinda Bear. She was my first MA instructor (TKD) when I was a kid. She taught me many things ... but primarily she was an excellent instructor. For me, she exemplified the qualities that a good instructor should have and, over the years, I have used her as a kind of ruler to measure other instructors against.

Mike

[Andy Murray]

Masterfully defined as always Mike..

At my school the 'smart' guys always got a kicking! lol

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
Masterfully defined as always Mike..

At my school the 'smart' guys always got a kicking! lol

LOL ... thanks Andy. My 1st passion in life is MA. My 2nd (though, admittedly, the gap between the two is sometimes pretty large :-) is writing. I'm glad to see I can use the 2nd to buttress the 1st when necessary :-)

Mike

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Ozebob
Interesting comments..

I have often seen the old cliche on various MA sites where the instructor says they have taken the best from different arts to create a new and better art for all.

They often say they have taken from various styles withing an art or different elements from various arts to create a more balanced art.

To me it simply means they did not stay in their original art long enough to learn what it contained, or they chose a poor teacher in the first place.

Am I wrong?

Regards,
Ozebob:confused:

What would you consider long enough?

and then lets look at the Okinawan model where it was quite common to study a couple of years with one fello, then a bit with another, then go find someone else for a few months. Then eventually start teaching a blend of what they had learnt.

[Ozebob]

Hi Andrew,

I think that 2-3 years is sufficient to gain an understanding of the basics. A couple more years to learn enough of the content to see the big picture. I think that an instructors course is necessary to learn how to teach and then some sort of apprecticeship at a dojo under the supervision of a teacher of at least 20 years of experience. This is the ideal in brief to teach at one's own dojo as a branch of a good association. To break out on their own as many do with little experience is sheer stupidity.

Regards,
Bob

[Chazz]

Good point. I think that all instructors should have to learn ways of teaching. Not all Orgs. do that. They just send someone out to teach and say good luck

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Ozebob
Hi Andrew,

I think that 2-3 years is sufficient to gain an understanding of the basics. A couple more years to learn enough of the content to see the big picture. I think that an instructors course is necessary to learn how to teach and then some sort of apprecticeship at a dojo under the supervision of a teacher of at least 20 years of experience. This is the ideal in brief to teach at one's own dojo as a branch of a good association. To break out on their own as many do with little experience is sheer stupidity.

Regards,
Bob

Which would usually translate to a low dan grade, sometimes only shodan.

Let's say someone trained for ~10 years in on style of karate, got ranked nidan. Switched to Judo or jujitsu for a year and a half, didn't make shodan, but got pretty good at throwing people, then went to a different karate school, trained for another year or two, but again didn't get a dan ranking (or even just got a shodan) Throw some escrima work in there at some point to for good measure.

Then this person deciedes to start teaching, highest rank is Nidan, but still has 15+ years experience, has trained hard, taught or assisted teaching at at least the first school and helped out a lot at the 2nd karate school because of previous experience.

They select kata mainly from there first style of karate, but a few from the 2nd, incorporate some stick work and Jujitsu stuff into the syllabus (Yes its all in the kata and they see that)

Just to make it more interesting, they also have a degree in Physical Education.

Should this person be teaching?

I see no reason why not.

[Ozebob]

Hi Andrew,

Plenty do that and they would have good skills as a student but I think they still need guidance from someone with 20 years plus in the one art. The teaching ability should be there but not the content and time-in-art specific.

Regards,
Bob

[pesilat]

I think it will vary from person to person. Some people are, by nature, more suited to teaching than others and will, therefore, require less time teaching under supervision. I think the structure that has been put forth is valid. In the example by Andrew the foundation in Karate should give the student a solid foundation and an eye toward finding the underlying principles. This should give the student enough to be able to envision and build a cohesive curriculum from his experience.

I think most anyone can learn to be an effective teacher ... but it will require more work for some than others.

Mike

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Ozebob
Hi Andrew,

Plenty do that and they would have good skills as a student but I think they still need guidance from someone with 20 years plus in the one art. The teaching ability should be there but not the content and time-in-art specific.

Regards,
Bob

Which is why I threw in the degree in PE :)

[Ozebob]

Andrew,

The PE degree is a great asset for teaching but you still need to understand a system.. not just some of it. Some kata become apparent as building blocks when you learn the kata from the levels above you..

In old-style Shoto, it is not realised that Chinte is a lead in to Gojushiho. Many kata in Shotokan and other styles are taught as stand alone kata because the big picture is unknown.

!0 years in karate is a relatively short time if one has been stuck in the Shu of Shuhari. Hardly anyone seems to get out of the Ha stage and very few are suited to teaching.

Anyone can call numbers but very few can teach the art IMO.

Regards,
bob

[Andrew Green]

Hi Bob,

Originally posted by Ozebob
Andrew,

The PE degree is a great asset for teaching but you still need to understand a system.. not just some of it. Some kata become apparent as building blocks when you learn the kata from the levels above you..


Yes, but the point was that after training for 15 years a person should have a pretty good idea of what they are doing, even if it doesn't match up exactly with any other established style.


In old-style Shoto, it is not realised that Chinte is a lead in to Gojushiho. Many kata in Shotokan and other styles are taught as stand alone kata because the big picture is unknown.


Kyan lineage also teaches Gojushiho, but not Chinte. I really don't think this makes any difference, a kata can serve as a lead in to another, but that is a teaching methodology question, not something that is part of the kata.


!0 years in karate is a relatively short time if one has been stuck in the Shu of Shuhari. Hardly anyone seems to get out of the Ha stage and very few are suited to teaching.


Who said he was, let's assume a good student, good physical shape, can apply things well, and has the ability to innovate. I never really liked the shu-ha-ri way of looking at things myself, perhaps we could adapt Bloom's taxonomy to the martial arts instead?


Anyone can call numbers but very few can teach the art IMO.

Regards,
bob

Should this person not be teaching based solely on qualifications? Let's just assume they have the ability to teach, sufficient knowledge of thier own hybrid system and every other prerequisite you want to stick in, but only ranked nidan in an art they haven't taught or studied in 5 years, a shodan in something more recent, and a couple of kyu grades. They certainely don't meet the godan or higher requirement. But I would venture a guess that you started teaching before Godan as well...

[pesilat]

Andrew Green wrote:
Should this person not be teaching based solely on qualifications? Let's just assume they have the ability to teach, sufficient knowledge of thier own hybrid system and every other prerequisite you want to stick in, but only ranked nidan in an art they haven't taught or studied in 5 years, a shodan in something more recent, and a couple of kyu grades. They certainely don't meet the godan or higher requirement. But I would venture a guess that you started teaching before Godan as well...

OK ... where did this "godan" requirement come from? I don't see this mentioned previously in the thread by Bob or anyone else.

That aside, though, having a particular rank doesn't necessarily mean someone can teach. I've met some godan (and above) who are excellent at what they do but aren't very good teachers. They do teach but they're not very good at that aspect. Their students struggle a lot. In some ways this is good because the students, due to all the work they've put in to learn it, end up being *very* good ... and usually better teachers than their instructor. On the other hand, it's not good because the instructor loses a lot of students who are unable (or unwilling) to overcome the limited teaching capabilities of the instructor to learn the material. (This can also be seen as a "good" thing, I suppose, as it may be considered "separating the wheat from the chaff").

What I think is important when it comes to being "qualified" to teach is the ability to communicate the material and give the students their own foundation. Some people are better at this than others and I don't think there's any standardized method of evaluating it across the board. It can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

I believe it's important for instructors (or aspiring instructors) to try to learn what they can about teaching ... but I'm not sure a formal approach to this is necessary. Personally I try to better myself as an instructor by watching other people teach. When I'm in a class or at a seminar, I watch how the instructor teaches. How does he/she get the point across to the students? Does it seem to work well? Would it work well for me? If not, is there a way I can modify it to work for me?

Sometimes I learn what *not* to do ... but that's valuable too. At this point in my development, my focus is on becoming a better instructor. If I pick up new material along the way, great ... but even if I don't learn anything (material-wise) at a class/seminar, I feel it was worth my time (and money if there was any) if I learned something that can help me teach.

There are also many effective ways to teach ... but what works for one teacher/student combo may or may not work for another. I've heard a lot of stories about some of the legendary masters in the Filipino arts whose idea of teaching was, "I'm going to beat you with this stick until you stop me from beating you." What students they kept wound up being excellent martial artists and, often, excellent teachers. This model won't work for many (most?) ... but it has been proven to be a viable method for some (and, I'm sure, every art/system/style has similar stories about various masters throughout the evolution).

Mike

[Ozebob]

Hi Andrew,

Hi Bob,



quote:

Yes, but the point was that after training for 15 years a person should have a pretty good idea of what they are doing, even if it doesn't match up exactly with any other established style.

The point is what are they doing? Teaching some one else's system without knowing the big picture.. they can instruct but not teach. There is a difference.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In old-style Shoto, it is not realised that Chinte is a lead in to Gojushiho. Many kata in Shotokan and other styles are taught as stand alone kata because the big picture is unknown.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Kyan lineage also teaches Gojushiho, but not Chinte. I really don't think this makes any difference, a kata can serve as a lead in to another, but that is a teaching methodology question, not something that is part of the kata.

Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

!0 years in karate is a relatively short time if one has been stuck in the Shu of Shuhari. Hardly anyone seems to get out of the Ha stage and very few are suited to teaching.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who said he was, let's assume a good student, good physical shape, can apply things well, and has the ability to innovate. I never really liked the shu-ha-ri way of looking at things myself, perhaps we could adapt Bloom's taxonomy to the martial arts instead?

When you ass u me : ) Shuhari is well understood in the MA. If you need Bloom's taxonomy.. go for it!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone can call numbers but very few can teach the art IMO.

Regards,
bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Should this person not be teaching based solely on qualifications? Let's just assume they have the ability to teach, sufficient knowledge of thier own hybrid system and every other prerequisite you want to stick in, but only ranked nidan in an art they haven't taught or studied in 5 years, a shodan in something more recent, and a couple of kyu grades. They certainely don't meet the godan or higher requirement. But I would venture a guess that you started teaching before Godan as well...

I do care who teaches because we all get tarred with the same brush. If you make up your own system after 3, 5, 10 or 15 years, just be honest about it and don't try and pass it off as something it is not. I started teaching at 5th Dan, I did instruct before then. After 31 years of training I know how much I need to learn. I also know that I thought I knew a lot after 15 years but realize now that wasn't the case. Hindsight is one advantage of age and experience.

Regards,
Bob

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Ozebob
Hi Andrew,

The point is what are they doing? Teaching some one else's system without knowing the big picture.. they can instruct but not teach. There is a difference.


What big picture, they have trained in martial arts for 15 years, the things they learnt at various times from various people has become integratted into there understanding. They teach martial arts based on there understanding, not on some established tradition.


Kyan lineage also teaches Gojushiho, but not Chinte. I really don't think this makes any difference, a kata can serve as a lead in to another, but that is a teaching methodology question, not something that is part of the kata.

Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.


So Kyan and all his students missed the big picture?


Who said he was, let's assume a good student, good physical shape, can apply things well, and has the ability to innovate. I never really liked the shu-ha-ri way of looking at things myself, perhaps we could adapt Bloom's taxonomy to the martial arts instead?

When you ass u me : ) Shuhari is well understood in the MA. If you need Bloom's taxonomy.. go for it!


No, Shu-ha-ri is well understood by specific groups, some understand it to mean different things. And when it comes to though experiments, which this is, you have to assume things.



Should this person not be teaching based solely on qualifications? Let's just assume they have the ability to teach, sufficient knowledge of thier own hybrid system and every other prerequisite you want to stick in, but only ranked nidan in an art they haven't taught or studied in 5 years, a shodan in something more recent, and a couple of kyu grades. They certainely don't meet the godan or higher requirement. But I would venture a guess that you started teaching before Godan as well...

I do care who teaches because we all get tarred with the same brush. If you make up your own system after 3, 5, 10 or 15 years, just be honest about it and don't try and pass it off as something it is not. I started teaching at 5th Dan, I did instruct before then. After 31 years of training I know how much I need to learn. I also know that I thought I knew a lot after 15 years but realize now that wasn't the case. Hindsight is one advantage of age and experience.

Regards,
Bob

Of course you should care who teaches, and after 15 years training in various arts many people are ready to teach. As I said lets assume this person is both knowledgable and a competent teacher, should he, based solely on rank related issues , be disqualified from teaching.

[Ozebob]

Hi Andrew,

You said: What big picture, they have trained in martial arts for 15 years, the things they learnt at various times from various people has become integratted into there understanding. They teach martial arts based on there understanding, not on some established tradition.

# There in lies the problem to me.

You: Kyan lineage also teaches Gojushiho, but not Chinte. I really don't think this makes any difference, a kata can serve as a lead in to another, but that is a teaching methodology question, not something that is part of the kata.

I said: Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.

You: So Kyan and all his students missed the big picture?

# Straw man argument.

You said: I never really liked the shu-ha-ri way of looking at things myself, perhaps we could adapt Bloom's taxonomy to the martial arts instead?

I said: Shuhari is well understood in the MA. If you need Bloom's taxonomy.. go for it!

You said: No, Shu-ha-ri is well understood by specific groups, some understand it to mean different things. And when it comes to though experiments, which this is, you have to assume things.

# Shuhari is very clear to me. What experiment? You speculate I give an opinion, you try another way, I stick to my opinion.

You said: Should this person not be teaching based solely on qualifications? Let's just assume they have the ability to teach, sufficient knowledge of thier own hybrid system and every other prerequisite you want to stick in, but only ranked nidan in an art they haven't taught or studied in 5 years, a shodan in something more recent, and a couple of kyu grades. They certainely don't meet the godan or higher requirement. But I would venture a guess that you started teaching before Godan as well...

# What are they teaching? I instructed under the guidance of a National and International instructor for around 18 years and taught as an independent for around 9 years now.

I said: I do care who teaches because we all get tarred with the same brush. If you make up your own system after 3, 5, 10 or 15 years, just be honest about it and don't try and pass it off as something it is not. I started teaching at 5th Dan, I did instruct before then. After 31 years of training I know how much I need to learn. I also know that I thought I knew a lot after 15 years but realize now that wasn't the case. Hindsight is one advantage of age and experience.

You said: Of course you should care who teaches, and after 15 years training in various arts many people are ready to teach.

# Teach what exactly.. how to teach the physical moves? Is there any more? What about an understanding of how it all ties in together? How about all of those that dropped kata because they didn't last the distance?

You said: As I said lets assume this person is both knowledgable and a competent teacher, should he, based solely on rank related issues , be disqualified from teaching.

# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!

Regards,
Bob

[pesilat]

Bob wrote:

# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!

OK ... so where's the cut-off? If 15 years isn't long enough, then what about 20, 25, 30? If after 30 you realize how little you knew at 15, then don't you think that at 60 years you'll realize how little you know at 30? So then why should someone with 30 start teaching rather than wait until 60 years?

It seems entirely possible that someone could have a complete system to teach based on the criteria laid out in the theoretical situation put forth by Andrew.

But I still say it's impossible to take a theoretical situation and paint a black & white generalization from it. I think it's entirely possible that the theoretical person would have plenty to start teaching his/her own blend. I also think it's entirely possible that the person might not have the necessary foundation ... depends on the person.

Mike

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Ozebob

I said: Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.

You: So Kyan and all his students missed the big picture?

# Straw man argument.

No, yours was, I follow a Kyan based system and have learnt a few extra's not within my system from other kyan based systems. I learnt Gojushiho, never Chinte and really have no desire to do so. You claimed that if I did not know both I missed the big picture. Considering Kyan only taught one (Gojushiho), and I'm not sure if he even knew the other, it seems fair to conclude based on your criteria of needing both to get the big picture, he too, missed it.
[/B] [/QUOTE]



You said: No, Shu-ha-ri is well understood by specific groups, some understand it to mean different things. And when it comes to though experiments, which this is, you have to assume things.

# Shuhari is very clear to me. What experiment? You speculate I give an opinion, you try another way, I stick to my opinion.


And many things are likely clear to me and not you based on different experiences. Shuhari as a concept does not exist in all groups, only a few.

The thought experiment of this theoretical person and there right, or lack thereof, to teach material learnt from multiple systems and multiple teachers who lacks the rank generally thought neccessary to teach.





# What are they teaching? I instructed under the guidance of a National and International instructor for around 18 years and taught as an independent for around 9 years now.


and your experience is relevant to what they are teaching how?

They are teaching the martial arts as they have learnt and come to understand it through a variety of teachers and styles.




# Teach what exactly.. how to teach the physical moves? Is there any more? What about an understanding of how it all ties in together? How about all of those that dropped kata because they didn't last the distance?


You are trying to make a strawman out of my case, I covered that, they have a decent understanding of what they are doing, they teach kata, some from one system, some from another.

To be perfectly honest someon with crosstraining will likely have a better understanding of "The Big Picture" whatever that is then someone who only trained with one person in one style and never innovated or adapted anything.




# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!



All styles are ecclectic, even Shotokan. All of your kata do not come from just one source. Most instructors and style founders did not spend 30+ years training under the same person.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by pesilat


But I still say it's impossible to take a theoretical situation and paint a black & white generalization from it. I think it's entirely possible that the theoretical person would have plenty to start teaching his/her own blend. I also think it's entirely possible that the person might not have the necessary foundation ... depends on the person.

Mike

Of course it is, but the question was is a person with this sort of training capable of teaching despite the fact that they lack the rank generally required to start teaching on your own.

It's never black and white, some might be great teachers in less times, others may never be ready to teach. But what it can show is that you can't just automatically disqualify a person because they teach an ecclectic style and never got a high rank in any established style.

[pesilat]

Originally posted by Andrew Green

It's never black and white, some might be great teachers in less times, others may never be ready to teach. But what it can show is that you can't just automatically disqualify a person because they teach an ecclectic style and never got a high rank in any established style.

Couldn't agree more. I'm very much a "proof in the pudding" kind of guy.

The only way to prove one's "qualifications" as a fighter is in a fighter. The only way to prove one's "qualifications" as a teacher is to see them teach.

If a person honestly feels (and a person's honesty with him/herself can be a problem) that he/she is ready to teach ... then they should try to teach. If they are honest with themselves then they should have some idea of whether they are doing a good job as an instructor or not.

Again, the issue is whether the person is honest (and others) with him/herself about their abilities and experience.

If they can teach then the issue becomes, "Do they have a complete foundation to teach students?" If they can honestly answer yes, then they should do fine teaching their own system (regardless of what ranks they may or may not have).

If they can't honestly say that they have a complete foundation to teach then they shouldn't try to start their own system ... but if they honestly feel they are a good teacher and want to teach then maybe they should assist (or apprentice to) someone else while rounding out their skills.

So I think that the bottom line is the person's honesty with him/herself and others about his/her skills, abilities, and background ... not what color belt or piece of paper they have.

But that's just my opinion ... and it has worked for me. I don't really care what rank someone is. If I think they have something to teach me (or that I have something I can learn from them ... not always the same thing) then I will train and work out with them.

This attitude, for me, comes from having seen both sides of the coin. People with all the rank and certification and proof of legitimacy ... who are, at best, mediocre martial artists and teachers. On the flip side, people with nothing but limited training and a lot of experience and, hence no rank or certification, who are excellent martial artists and techers.

I think, Andrew, that you and I are on the same page. :)

Mike

[Ozebob]

Andrew,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ozebob

I said: Do you know both kata? If not then you don't know what I'm referring to.. of course any kata can be taught as a 'stand alone' but then, I repeat, you lose the benefit of the big picture.

You: So Kyan and all his students missed the big picture?

# Straw man argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, yours was, I follow a Kyan based system and have learnt a few extra's not within my system from other kyan based systems. I learnt Gojushiho, never Chinte and really have no desire to do so. You claimed that if I did not know both I missed the big picture. Considering Kyan only taught one (Gojushiho), and I'm not sure if he even knew the other, it seems fair to conclude based on your criteria of needing both to get the big picture, he too, missed it.
[/B] [/QUOTE]

I was referring to the fact that you, Andrew, did not understand my reference to how Chinte links in to Gojushiho if you did not know bothKata. You invoked Kyan into the discussion though you cannot know what kata he knew or did not know. The big picture is seeing how everything links in together.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said: No, Shu-ha-ri is well understood by specific groups, some understand it to mean different things. And when it comes to though experiments, which this is, you have to assume things.

# Shuhari is very clear to me. What experiment? You speculate I give an opinion, you try another way, I stick to my opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And many things are likely clear to me and not you based on different experiences. Shuhari as a concept does not exist in all groups, only a few.

# It exists as a concept but may not be known to all I agree.

The thought experiment of this theoretical person and there right, or lack thereof, to teach material learnt from multiple systems and multiple teachers who lacks the rank generally thought neccessary to teach.

# You continue to mention rank, not me. I talk about those that have 10 years in karate then a year and a half in jujutsu and a couple of years in something else you mentioned.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


# What are they teaching? I instructed under the guidance of a National and International instructor for around 18 years and taught as an independent for around 9 years now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and your experience is relevant to what they are teaching how?

# You are putting two sentences together than were answering two different questions.

They are teaching the martial arts as they have learnt and come to understand it through a variety of teachers and styles.

# So they are teaching Martial Arts? Which ones? Karate and Jujutsu and something else.. oh well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Teach what exactly.. how to teach the physical moves? Is there any more? What about an understanding of how it all ties in together? How about all of those that dropped kata because they didn't last the distance?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are trying to make a strawman out of my case, I covered that, they have a decent understanding of what they are doing, they teach kata, some from one system, some from another.

# You don't know what a straw man argument is then.

To be perfectly honest someon with crosstraining will likely have a better understanding of "The Big Picture" whatever that is then someone who only trained with one person in one style and never innovated or adapted anything.

# you say that after saying a number of times that you didn't know what the big picture was..

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All styles are ecclectic, even Shotokan. All of your kata do not come from just one source. Most instructors and style founders did not spend 30+ years training under the same person.


# The problem with flawed systems today was started by those who became instant karate instructors and started teaching when they should have been learning.

# Funakoshi developed quite a decent system, it wasn't followed by those that carried on Shotokan. I know that styles were created by Okinawan and Japanese Instructors with less than a decade of training under their belt.

Regards,
Bob McMahon

[Freeform]

Crikey, man goes away for a weekend and the debate takes off without me! Right so we're no longer talking about tradition v progress and 'arguing' about whether someone is qualified to teach.

When you say teach I'm thinking about generally passing information to others, so I think I started teaching when I was a 5th Kyu and my sensei said "Look after the lower grades while the seniors and I do some training, come get me if there's something your not sure about."

So, in this system I had about five years experience (we graded slow compared to the majority of schools), should I have been 'teaching'?

How many of you do this? getting senior grades to look after the class for you?

Thanx

[Ozebob]

Hi Freeform,

That is acting as a tutor or assistant instructor. I think of a teacher as the one that is responsible for passing on the system.
Instructors are usually those that take classes under the direction of a principal teacher.

Regards,
bob

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Andrew Green



Of course you should care who teaches, and after 15 years training in various arts many people are ready to teach. As I said lets assume this person is both knowledgable and a competent teacher, should he, based solely on rank related issues , be disqualified from teaching.

Bob and Andrew,

Are you simply saying, that in a perfect world, no one should teach unless they posess certain qualifications, but no one should be able to stop them if they don't?

Or,

Are you saying that there should be some agency that would act on behalf of our respective governments, using the force of law, to prevent or stop someone from teaching the martial arts without certain technical qualifications?

If the latter, I'd have some great reservations.

Rob

[Andy Murray]

In the UK, there was increasingly the opportunity, to turn your syllabus into an NVQ ( National Vocational Qualification ) course. Has anyone here pursued this type of scheme?

This would be one way of restricting Cowboy Instructors.

It is near impossible to hire a hall in my area without some form of Insurance for teaching MA. This is as a result of the Sports Councils missives to the local government. I don't know if this is progress or not!

I think all the groups and bodies are one of the obstacles to standardisation

[NAVSealUS]

Modernist: I think based on my own experience, martial arts success can be greatly hindered by the lack of knowledge and experience. I incorporated a couple different styles together to get in my current rhythm, AM TRAD Kickboxing (American Traditional), Muay Tai Kickboxing, and TDK. Although i am not truly "skilled" in two of these styles, i find that the knowledge one can possess from limited exposure to different styles helps you develop the rate at which you learn.
Just a thought

:woo:
Lamonte (Navsealus)

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by NAVSealUS
Modernist: I think based on my own experience, martial arts success can be greatly hindered by the lack of knowledge and experience. I incorporated a couple different styles together to get in my current rhythm, AM TRAD Kickboxing (American Traditional), Muay Tai Kickboxing, and TDK. Although i am not truly "skilled" in two of these styles, i find that the knowledge one can possess from limited exposure to different styles helps you develop the rate at which you learn.
Just a thought

:woo:
Lamonte (Navsealus)

American Traditional Kickboxing? Pardon the naivete, but what's that?

Rob

[Andy Murray]

Ah. Now there's a question!

How long does a sport have to be around for to become a Style?

Or how long does a Style have to be around for to become Traditional?

Ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Fifty? How long has your Traditional Art been around?

[Ozebob]

Originally posted by Kosokun


Bob and Andrew,

Are you simply saying, that in a perfect world, no one should teach unless they posess certain qualifications, but no one should be able to stop them if they don't?

Or,

Are you saying that there should be some agency that would act on behalf of our respective governments, using the force of law, to prevent or stop someone from teaching the martial arts without certain technical qualifications?

If the latter, I'd have some great reservations.

Rob

I'm not saying either.. I'm saying one should support the most experienced teacher in their area.

Regards,
Bob

[Ozebob]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
Ah. Now there's a question!

How long does a sport have to be around for to become a Style?

Or how long does a Style have to be around for to become Traditional?

Ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Fifty? How long has your Traditional Art been around?

Great question Andy,

Firstly sport has nothing to do with style. The term 'Traditional' according to my little Oxford pocket dictionary means "oral transmission of a body of knowledge that has prevailed or been accepted from generation to generation"

While Shotokan is one of the first modern or eclectic styles of karate, it's founder, Gichin Funakoshi had trained for forty odd years under the top karate masters of his generation before he introduced karate (toudi) into mainland Japan.

Shotokan-Ryu is abetter term for modern shotokan karate and I and others use Shoto-Ryu to describe what we do as we include both the pre-JKA and post-JKA type kata and associated drills.

Regards,
Bob

[Kosokun]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
Ah. Now there's a question!

How long does a sport have to be around for to become a Style?

Or how long does a Style have to be around for to become Traditional?

Ten years? Twenty? Thirty? Fifty? How long has your Traditional Art been around?


I've had it explained to me, with regard to a traditional vs. modern kata, that a traditional kata was in existence prior to WWII. It's an arbitrary cut of date for the purposes of discussion withing the WKF, I gather.

Rob

[Andy Murray]

I was reading Lamonte's post, then I saw Kosokun reply, which is why I brought up, the style, sport, Trad thing. My wording was perhaps poorly phrased, but I thought you would all get what I meant, as the words 'style, sport and Trad' were Lamonte's, not mine.

Ozebob. By your dictionarys definition of Traditional then, would you say that any Father teaching their son a system, makes it Traditional, as it is passing from one generation to the next. I just got a vision of MurrayKanDo temples being setup all over the country by my daughter.

You heard it hear first!:D

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Ozebob

# You continue to mention rank, not me. I talk about those that have 10 years in karate then a year and a half in jujutsu and a couple of years in something else you mentioned.


Perhaps I was mistaken, I thought you'd mentioned something about only higher ranked instructors should be teaching.


# So they are teaching Martial Arts? Which ones? Karate and Jujutsu and something else.. oh well.


Does it matter?


You are trying to make a strawman out of my case, I covered that, they have a decent understanding of what they are doing, they teach kata, some from one system, some from another.

# You don't know what a straw man argument is then.


Taking an argument, reducing it to a weaker form, and then attacking the weaker form.

The case I put forth was a person with a good understanding of what he was doing. Yet you keep trying to stick people who don't in (ex. Dropped kata because they didn't understand it)


To be perfectly honest someon with crosstraining will likely have a better understanding of "The Big Picture" whatever that is then someone who only trained with one person in one style and never innovated or adapted anything.

# you say that after saying a number of times that you didn't know what the big picture was..


No, I can't be perfectly sure what you mean, this is an abstract term for which you did not provide an adequate definition. However, whatever it is you are refering to when you say "big picture" would be likely be something best learnt looking at multiple sources, not just one.




# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!


Define complete system. After 15 years is it not possible that they have studied a complete system, one encompasing weapons, striking and grappling. Much more then many "pure" karate instructors have studied.



# The problem with flawed systems today was started by those who became instant karate instructors and started teaching when they should have been learning.


15 years is not an instant instructor.


# Funakoshi developed quite a decent system, it wasn't followed by those that carried on Shotokan. I know that styles were created by Okinawan and Japanese Instructors with less than a decade of training under their belt.


Funakoshi has been gone along time, someone most have carried something on, or you would have nothing. A good chunck of the Okinawan styles where formed with less then 15 years training under an instructor. Some of them are highly respected styles. I would suggest that this train 20-30 years under one person in one style is a fairly recent demand placed on students, it doesn't take that long before you're better off experimenting on your own.

[Ozebob]

Andrew,

Straw Man argument is arguing against something not said by the other side.

Bob

[Ozebob]

Andrew,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ozebob

# You continue to mention rank, not me. I talk about those that have 10 years in karate then a year and a half in jujutsu and a couple of years in something else you mentioned.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Perhaps I was mistaken, I thought you'd mentioned something about only higher ranked instructors should be teaching.

# I qualified that later in this drawn out saga.

Bob

[Ozebob]

Andrew,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# So they are teaching Martial Arts? Which ones? Karate and Jujutsu and something else.. oh well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does it matter?

# Not to me. My point is and will remain, that students should support the most experienced teacher.

Bob

[Ozebob]

Andrew,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be perfectly honest someon with crosstraining will likely have a better understanding of "The Big Picture" whatever that is then someone who only trained with one person in one style and never innovated or adapted anything.

# you say that after saying a number of times that you didn't know what the big picture was..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, I can't be perfectly sure what you mean, this is an abstract term for which you did not provide an adequate definition. However, whatever it is you are refering to when you say "big picture" would be likely be something best learnt looking at multiple sources, not just one.

# I did define the 'big picture', if it was inadequate then I'm sorry you did not understand.

Bob

[Ozebob]

Andrew,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# High or low rank is not the issue for me. It is the years spent learning a complete system. If onewants to start their own eclectic style after 15 years of cross training, fine, who am I to say no! I would go elsewhere as a student, that's all!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Define complete system. After 15 years is it not possible that they have studied a complete system, one encompasing weapons, striking and grappling. Much more then many "pure" karate instructors have studied.

# The entire style that one has begun to study. In the case of a karate style, that would mean their entire kata syllabus.

Bob

[Ozebob]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# The problem with flawed systems today was started by those who became instant karate instructors and started teaching when they should have been learning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



15 years is not an instant instructor.

# I was talking about those that started some of today's traditional styles.

bob

[Ozebob]

# Funakoshi developed quite a decent system, it wasn't followed by those that carried on Shotokan. I know that styles were created by Okinawan and Japanese Instructors with less than a decade of training under their belt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Funakoshi has been gone along time, someone most have carried something on, or you would have nothing. A good chunck of the Okinawan styles where formed with less then 15 years training under an instructor. Some of them are highly respected styles. I would suggest that this train 20-30 years under one person in one style is a fairly recent demand placed on students, it doesn't take that long before you're better off experimenting on your own.

# Yes, some did carry on Funakoshi's kata. Others went in different directions. I agree that 20 - 30 years is too long under one person. I think one should teach classes under supervision, then move to a branch dojo and one day go their own way. The time frame depends on the person. Dojo hopping is not a good method to me though.

Bob

[Andy Murray]

As to all this quoting, reverse quoting, strawman grappling who has the biggest bulge in their GI stuff...........

Is this Tradition or Progress???

[waya]

Personally I would say it is confusing..... I got lost on page 3 :-)

[Ozebob]

Gentlemen,

I agree it has become silly.

Regards,
Bob

[waya]

I wouldn't so much say silly.... Just overly argumentative. I see alot of good information and points, I just can no longer keep track of what is an informative point and what is an argumentative ego shot lol.

[Andy Murray]

Magnanimous as always Bob. Pommie for Decent sorta cobber.

[Andrew Green]

Originally posted by Ozebob
Andrew,

Straw Man argument is arguing against something not said by the other side.

Bob

No it isn't, web search link:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm

Unless this link and every Philosophy prof I had are wrong, otherwise you are.



# Yes, some did carry on Funakoshi's kata. Others went in different directions. I agree that 20 - 30 years is too long under one person. I think one should teach classes under supervision, then move to a branch dojo and one day go their own way. The time frame depends on the person. Dojo hopping is not a good method to me though.


I think one should get a good base in one style and then look into others and incorporate things from that training into their own, teach and experiment, and go off on your own path.


# The entire style that one has begun to study. In the case of a karate style, that would mean their entire kata syllabus.


Then most styles of karate could fully be studied in a matter of months by an experienced practitioner.

In my style, Isshin ryu, all of the hand kata are typically done for ikkyu. Sometimes some of the weapons kata are too.


# Not to me. My point is and will remain, that students should support the most experienced teacher.


Well I would say support the most knowledgable and most capable of passing that knowledge on. If another instructor has 20-30 years more experience that doesn't matter, what matters is who knows their stuff

[Ozebob]

Hiki wake

Bob

[waya]

I have to agree with some of that, in respect to what experience really means. Personally I not only want an instructor who has encountered situations where they have had to use their knowledge of their training, but I want one that "survived" it. In most ways time is the best teacher, and it makes a difference, but it's not an automatic qualifier.

Rob