People can call themselves whatever they want. The important thing is can they share anything of value to a student. So long as the students are learning and are happy, we shouldn't care too much what the teachers call themselves in my opinion. -B
i have never agreed with the idea of good fighter-bad teacher, bad fighter-good teacher. i dont believe that a good fighter can be a bad teacher, and i dont believe that a bad fighter can be a good teacher. there is more to art and being good at the art than just doing the art. that is why in filipino martial arts there is no form. either you are good at fighting (good at the art) or you are not. no such thing as good at the art, but cant fight,,,at least in the philippine fighting arts. either you are a good fighter or you are not. no matter what you know. that is why i dont like martial arts training that is just drills and "attributes" development. develop fast, powerful attacks, develop fast, powerful counters, and be able to read, out smart and fool your opponents. i dont believe in sensitivity accept for in clinching and wrestling. sensitivity in distance fighting does not exist, unless your opponent moves at demo speed, while you move at fighting speed. and this is what i call "modern" philippine martial arts, all demo and no show and prove. the only FMA experts are the ones who can spar and fight. periods. and there is more to teaching the arts than just, teaching how to hit and block correctly. you dont need communication skills, you dont need some degree in speaking and writing, again this is using western standards for asian methods. many times you have teachers who do not even speak the language of the students, and the students can learn the art. look at chuck norris who learned in a korean class from a teacher who did not speak english. students dont need much except for his fighting experience and "how" to hit, move and counter. so a fighter does not have "teaching skill". who do you think teaches all those street fighters that martial artists fear so much? you learn by doing, period. and yes, you learn faster if somebody can explain something, but if explanation teaches fighting, why dont we just get a really good book and learn that way. ALL good fighters can teach the art if he really wants the student to learn to fight, even if all he did is spar with his student. but you know in this western world we like to ask questions and fool ourselves into thinking we know the art just because we can say the tagalog name for things, and demonstrate our technique on somebody who "feeds" us attacks. so some old manong who teaches by hitting you, we rather just call this old man, good fighter-bad teachers. its nonsense. the truth is, martial arts is not for everyone. we should not expect this to be everymans add-on art. you cannot teach it for the massest. and if you are not smart enough to write a book or make a video, this does not mean you cannot be a good teacher, it just means your not going to be a POPULAR teacher. as long as the teacher can show you how to perform the basics, and he can tell you from experience how to improve and how to avoid mistakes, and he cares about the student, he can be a good teacher. but a teacher who is willing to weaken his art to make it easy for the average person, or who is good at explaining but cannot do the art, what will he pass on, he is not a martial arts teacher he is a showman or a lecturer. this reminds me of a joke i heard, what is a leader who tells you to fly into a building but he wont go with you, he is not a leader he is a con man. in the NACMAF tournaments i use to see teachers who cant fight send their boys into the full contact tournaments and they get there asses beat, and every year they train them more and more. one might come in and do good, but in reality this teacher cannot teach his guys how to beat the students of fu jow pai, wcba, and other schools, he is just a spectator-chair expert, who can do forms. fighters who teach are martial arts teachers, everyone else is just guessing.
Don't apologise, Some really good points there While I agree with a lot of your post, specifically that you need to be able to do something to teach it (i.e. need to be a decent fighter to teach) I disagree that good fighters automatically make good teachers. The ability to use a skill well does not ness mean that you can pass that skill on well. On top of the original skill there are a host of other skills needed, the main one being patience. In this case I feel that it's more that you have a good fighter with Exceptional communication skills. Though I agree the best knowledge is self knowledge (i.e. what you discover/learn for yourself), for an instructor to put someone on the right path to becoming proficient in ANY skill without the use of verbal communication is an amazing feat. One that needs a far above average level of skill, in things other than just fighting.
Angelo Dundee and Ray Arcel, two of the greatest boxing trainers ever, never stepped foot in a boxing ring to throw punches. They were trained by other trainers to be trainers. They've probably produced 30 world champions between them. Ray Leonard was a great fighter. Trainer? Olympic silver medallist Shawn O'Sullivan had a better record with his junior level coach than he did with Leonard in his corner. As for being able to do something to teach it? I would honestly love to see any archive video of Bela Karoli on the uneven bars or high beam showing Nadia Comaneci or Mary Lou Retton how to do their routines.
Teaching and fighting in any art are two seprate things, very rarely do you see someone with the ability to fight and the ability to teach. Some people are destined to only teach whereas others are destined only to fight. Thank God we can find the minority that can do both, this gives us a chance to train with good teachers that have fighting expeariance. Regards Pat
A lot of good points here. I still would agree with those who think that good fighter doesn't necessarily mean good teacher. Even street fighters in Manila needs good teachers. Just compare the fighting skills of the normal barumbado from Quezon City to those from Tondo. I, for one, am not afraid to go up against two or three muggers from Quezon City. But I would probably grovel for my life if I am in Tondo, or even in Quiapo or along the riles. So, what's the difference? Here's my speculation: There are probably more unemployed muggers in Tondo with a lot of time on their hands to perfect not only their "art" of fighting but also in showing those others who see them as their padrinos; not so in Quezon City. Teaching, my friends, is also an art that one has to master to do well. If all there is to learning is just by doing, then all our educational system needs are teachers who walk in, start writing and reading aloud essays if students can learn essay writing, or that a carpenter learns how to make a chair just by seing one being made. At best, they will be able to copy, but rarely to innovate. Doesn't mean that a person cannot be an escrimador unless he/she can teach. As shootodog so aptly put it, one shouldn't presume to attain the rank of "Guro" unless one can teach. And one doesn't have to be able to "do" in order to be able to teach. As Diego_Vega implied, you don't see Olympic trainers actually being able to perform on the same level as the athletes they train.
thekuntawman has created a new topic where this discussion about fighters and teachers are continued: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26703
