Never Teach ONLY What You Have Been Taught.

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Bohdi.Sanders, Jun 3, 2016.

  1. Bohdi.Sanders

    Bohdi.Sanders Banned Banned

    Do you guys agree with this or not?

    Never teach only what you have been taught. Minoru Mochizuki

    My friend, Sifu Al Dacascos, states in his book, The Dacascos Legacy, that you should take your martial art and develop your own individual expression of that art, one that works for you. If you only teach everything exactly as you have been taught, then any other instructor can just as easily take your place.

    Think about what it is that makes you unique. Don't just teach everything as you have been taught, but rather, teach others to take those techniques and make them their own. Everyone does not fit into the same mold. One person may be able to do a kick one way, but that may not work for someone else. Everyone's body is slightly different. This is what Bruce Lee taught, as well.

    It does you no good to simply imitate others. You have to make those techniques work for YOU. Learn to take those techniques and customize them in such a way that you own them. Only then will they become second nature for you. And once they become your second nature, mushin will take over when have to use them. Bohdi Sanders
     
  2. huoxingyang

    huoxingyang Valued Member

    I think a better approach is "only teach what you know".

    How you may come to know things may vary - it could be what you were taught (not ruling out the possibility of learning from multiple sources), what you discovered for yourself, or what you have learnt works for other people who are not you.

    I think what is much, much worse than someone teaching only a limited amount of stuff, based on what they themselves were taught, is people trying to teach all sorts of stuff which they don't really know i.e. don't know how to make it work for anyone.
     
  3. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

  4. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    I don't think that's true at all, because, surely it is a universal truism that knowing the subject matter =/= able to teach the subject matter.


    Was this taught to you? :rolleyes:

    Respectfully, you do not sound like someone who has depth of experience. In all arts that I have studied in any amount -- writing, drawing, music, numerous martial arts -- there are universal fundamentals (universal to that specific art, I mean) and there are variations on those fundamentals. You absolutely cannot perform the art at any meaningful level unless you know the fundamentals. They must be taught the same way to everyone. And then a certain degree of variations must be taught the same way to everyone: Eg, to master the guitar you are going to memorize "riffs" from classic songs and new pop songs, and to master a grappling art you are going to memorize chains of reversal-to-reversal-to-reversal-to ... -to-escape.

    Only after that can you create your own unique variations. So, in other words, self-expression comes long, long after you learn the same exact thing that every other student of that specific art form is learning/has learned. And that means that every teacher who is actually teaching, must teach everything that he was taught. :rolleyes:
     
  5. Knee Rider

    Knee Rider Valued Member Supporter

    The teacher is really the proxy for student self discovery. A good teacher is there to impart the fundamentals well and have enough knowledge of both teaching and the art to guide the student's learning process as appropriate. Solid fundamentals and a well managed environment for experimentation are the key things for growth.
     
  6. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    I agree with what's been said about this being a very foundational understanding of the arts.

    It's certainly nothing revolutionary and even a cursory glance at the tradional systems would show you that they transmit knowdlege in such a way that the student eventual expresses the concepts, techniques, and essence of the art in their own way whilst also staying true to it.
     
  7. Dean Winchester

    Dean Winchester Valued Member

    Another consideration of course is the intent behind the transmission, some arts have different considerations to others.
     
  8. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    I believe you are broadening the scope of Minoru Mochizuki words to mean something else. I feel the message from Minoru Mochizuki was to always give credit where credit is due. In other words, don't just teach how you do something, but go back to your teacher and their teachers to find true meaning to the movements. The danger is that when you change something for it to work for you, your specialization might cause unwanted side effects and loss of knowledge.

    For example, GM Ed Parker was a very fast and mobile person for his size. Much of the American Kenpo he developed has dependency on quick side to side movements/footwork. Some of his students were not as fast in those movements and had to adapt Kenpo for themselves. Some were very large and started to stand more sideways rather than squared off in order to compensate. Now if they only taught their sideways fighting stance, those with quick side to side ability would lose out on those benefits from the original teachings from GM Parker.

    Martial arts is full of secrets and stealing of techniques. It is quite strange to insist on giving credit where credit is due, but transparency in these matters is the first step in what I believe Minoru Mochizuki words meant.

    As for Sifu Al (GM Dacascos), he is a fantastic teacher, innovator, and martial artist. And a special call out to Sifu Kevin Jackson. I would think that Sifu Al is talking about practical application. You have to make something work for you or else it won't be practical to use. I think this is separate from HOW to make something work for you.

    There are two ways for me, one is to find things that work for me and develop them (the shortcut), the other way is to learn the principles and fundamentals that work for everyone and build a foundation on these, then based on these principles and fundamentals, develop what works BEST for me (the long path).
     
  9. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    You know in all honestly, even mentioning mu shin/無心 in such a way suggests a lack of understanding. How can mushin take over anything? I didn't disagree with some of your post but when you got to the part where you tried to sound like a Zen master, it stood out as a bit errant and superficial. Words and mushin are like oil and water, brother. You would be slapped with a stick for saying such thing in many schools, and most likely mocked.

    And with all due respect brother why is it bad that any other instructor could take your place? If everyone is truly 'unique' as you say then it stands that no instructor is really that 'special', just different, and the better strategy is not to focus on developing your own 'uniqueness', but focusing on experiencing the uniqueness of other instructors and students. If you focus on developing your own 'special' ways, you risk going off into a tangent of self-exploration that does not involve the greater world around you.

    It is a bit like self-aggrandizing in a way, to believe that you have some greater wisdom to provide to any art, simply because you want to experiment. Look at boxing, you can go by the rules, and you can experiment, and the best fighters find the right balance of both, but often only after a lot of failure. Sometimes making an art 'your own' is just going to get you clobbered. So much artful experimentation is, for lack of a better word, poo. Sometimes you can find what 'works for you', but more often than not, you have to find how to make 'you work for the art'.

    Instead, if you truly had greater wisdom to offer to an art, you would produce greater art. In that way I can say that a martial legend like Wong Fei Hung took common Hung gar lessons and constructed a somewhat complex training program that survives in large part to this day because students and instructors both 'teaching as they were taught' as well as adding in their own personal exploration (as seen in Fei Hung's student and training brother Lam Sai Wing, who did just that). In this way, the core arts are preserved over centuries, and the minor changes don't make major differences, they are if anything, superficial.

    In short brother I think it's most accurate to say the student needs to change (always), not the arts you learn. Only in rare cases will someone be able to take an art they learned, change it, and create a whole new art that is as effective or better. I can think of maybe a handful of such cases in the last century.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2016
  10. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    Your post was spot on but I'll egg you on with one comment: is it even possible to teach everything you were taught? Or should you just teach, and let the student learn, and letting the cards fall where they may? I don't think it's possible to remember and teach 100% of what you've ever been given/shown (if it was I'd have aced every math test I've failed), but if you are a good teacher, most of what you learned will be transmitted to GOOD STUDENTS. The bad students will never learn much.

    'Teach what you are' seems to capture the essence....a good teacher's instructions and example can build a student no matter what percentage of material is transmitted. A bad teacher will teach even good students poorly. A teacher can't really choose whether to be good or bad, they will end up being one or the other based on a combination of how well they were taught, but also their own ability as a student. I think that part is lost, the importance of being a student, always, and never chasing the tiger's tail of "mastery". This is why I think many martial artists and schools that view their black belts as a 'new beginning' are more sincere than those who aspire to 'master' many arts by obtaining black belts in all of them. Even places with perpetual ranking systems like the Bujinkan seem to be more sincere in that ideal than, say, any one person who claims to have mastered several arts by getting black belts in them.

    And hey brother, if you have a lot of experience in one or more arts, and you paid attention, took great notes, but also have the patience and humility to teach new learners, and I mean real experience to back it up, you should be essence be the finest of teachers. If you are missing any of these elements, in particular the experience in applying martial art, you will never transmit the whole story to your students. And that's OK, because not everyone can know or teach everything about an art (nobody's perfect, even Picasso or Wong Fei Hung made mistakes). Wong Fei Hung met his last wife after hitting her with his shoe by accident.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2016
  11. David Harrison

    David Harrison MAPper without portfolio

    If you're serious about teaching, you will always be reflecting on the results of your teaching and looking to improve. You have to be a continuing student of the art of teaching, as well as a student of the art you are teaching.

    I remember some years ago, saying to one of my first students how quickly some new students were picking things up. He told me that it was because I was a better teacher now, compared to the teacher I was when he was starting out. I couldn't think of a much better compliment as a teacher.
     
  12. huoxingyang

    huoxingyang Valued Member

    This discussion reminds me of something I have been told which I like: mastery requires three ingredients - a good teacher, a good method, and a good teacher.

    A good teacher of a bad student will not get as far as a good teacher with a good student.
    Likewise a good student with a bad teacher won't get as far as if s/he had a good teacher.
    And last of all, you can be a good teacher or student but if the method or material is poor, you will not get as far as the ones with a good method or material.

    And I'm sure many of us have come across people who are really good at something quite rubbish...
     
  13. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Fixed for you
     
  14. Rand86

    Rand86 likes to butt heads

    Indeed; teach only what you have learned. :whistle:
     
  15. The Iron Fist

    The Iron Fist Banned Banned

    Sorry to belabor this point but I wanted to clarify my prior post. Here is in my opinion a strong example of an expression of wu shin, mu shin no shin, hei jo shin, and so on in the classic Tai Chi Chuan meditative pose of Zhan zhuang. All those terms can be used to describe the goals of this exercise.

    But trying to explain what wu shin, mu shin, and so on are in concrete terms, or how they function in combat or other activity, is largely meaningless and a distraction from true understanding according to the various sources, from the early Tai Chi Chuan masters to Miyamoto Musashi and Bruce Lee. In fact many of the Chan and Zen schools dissuade from assuming it is a force or intent in and of itself, something that 'takes control' rather, the absence (無) of all such things (ego, intent). This is why I felt 'second nature' and 'mushin takes over' are errant, indeed, seemingly the opposite of what the Zen and Chan patriarchs taught. The Koan are the best example of the devices they utilize to separate Wu Shin from the endless words, interpretations, search for hidden meaning, and so on. They are little puzzles designed to break your logical mind to pieces in the search for Mu shin no shin.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. raaeoh

    raaeoh never tell me the odds

    So this is how I aproach teaching.
    1 by the book way
    2 by the way I was taught.
    3 by the way it works for me.
    4 how it works for you.
    5 now show me how to do it.



    For the record by the book way is perfect form and stance etc. Very diffrent from actual application.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2016
  17. YouKnowWho

    YouKnowWho Valued Member

    I would like to add:

    6. Help student to solve problems.

    In many classes, more than 50% of the time, I was helping my students to solve certain problems that they had experienced when they tested their skill in local MMA gyms. Sometime the problem can be solved by technique only (such as they didn't set up their attack correctly). Sometime the problem can only be solved by ability (such as they are not strong enough to make their technique work).

    In other words, your "teaching material" may not be under your control.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2016

Share This Page