What it takes to be a MASTAH!

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Black41, May 14, 2011.

  1. Black41

    Black41 Click Clack Blaow!

    Here is a thought I was thinking the other day...what does it really take to be considered a teacher of martial arts?

    I mean many of the masters out there are boasting 30-50 years of study into the art. So at what point does a student become a teacher to others? Would you really have to wait until the 30 year mark or does that time really matter? Like I've heard from my cousin who is a detective :woo: saying that there are guys on the force that have 10-20 years of 1 year experience, meaning even though they have been a cop or detective for that long they haven't expanded themselves an it's really equivalent to a couple years experience.

    So that being said, I'd like to hear some thoughts about this and what should the qualifications be to be a teacher or mastah! :hat:
     
  2. righty

    righty Valued Member

    I was teaching others after 6 months of training. Does that means I could teach or take a whole class at the time. Of course not. Teacher and master are different and both have been watered down by bad examples.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2011
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    I like the idea of a martial arts instructor coming up the ranks and putting the time in training and teaching.

    If you are in a school that trains regularly and has been around for a while, eventually you well reach black belt level. At that point, you get asked to assist in warm ups and general tasks. This is appropriately called "assistant instructor". After a few years of this, you should be able to handle covering classes on your own, providing accurate and useful feedback on a test board, assist in developing/modifying curriculum as needed, and be attending to your own training as well. At this point, you should be a full instructor.

    After a few years of this, you should be able to handle your own class (maybe a certain a week or even a whole week or the bulk of the classes), sit on the test board or run a test if need be, be able to develop/modify curriculum as needed. This is a senior instructor. Eventually you will be the primary instructor of students and will have the primary hand in bringing a student all the way from white belt to (a quality) 1st dan as the main instructor. After you have raised a few students to that level, that's when you are a "master" so to speak. And when you raise that student (and others) from white belt all the way to black belt and then to "master instructor" level, then you can be a "grandmaster".

    If you choose to use any sort of dan grades, I'd say that "generally", assistant instructors would hold 1st and 2nd dans, senior instructors 3rd and 4th, and masters 5th-7th, with Grandmaster being 8th and 9th dan. I think the "time in grade" would also reflect this pretty well : a black belt who trains regularly for 3-5 years should be a 1st dan, 5-7 years for 2nd dan, 8-10 years for 3rd, 11-13 years for 4th, 15-18 for 5th, 20-23 for 6th, 26-29 for 7th, and 33-36 for 8th would give a person time to meet the aforementioned milestones. That assumes constant training and being "ready" to test as soon as the time in grade is reached.

    I don't like the idea of linking "instructor rank" to dan level though - if someone has reached 3rd dan but rarely assists in teaching or helps run class, they should stay as an "assistant instructor" and not move up automatically because they hold the rank.
     
  4. Black41

    Black41 Click Clack Blaow!

    Thomas that's a pretty good run down of what it takes to reach certain "statuses" which I know it's more than just reaching a status, but what you said really gives some clarity to what it means and the time and dedication it takes to reach certain levels. I agree with Righty in that a lot of it is watered down because I've watched some videos of people that call themselves Grandmasters when it was pretty clear that they weren't.

    I think in general "master" may be an over used term since there isn't a unified testing standard and all the arts vary in what must be perfected to move to a new level, so some just get away with calling themselves masters.

    But in order to strike out on your own as a teacher, couldn't one just start off with say teaching the basics if they wanted, depending on who they are teaching to? For example, teaching self-defense to flight attendants; they aren't looking for in depth philosophy but rather some simple direct methods given their primary situation/circumstance.

    I know there are more traditional ideas to martial arts of what it is to be a master/teacher to other students, but what is to say that you can't learn from someone that has a good foundation in a specific area?

    It's not the idea of setting up a McDojo, but rather challenging the idea of what it really takes to spread the arts so many more people can take it up. But I realize in that sense there would need to be certain guidelines or some way of gauging it, which I think results are a good indicator.

    I remember talking to a guy I met a few years ago and we were talking about martial arts. He was telling me about his experience learning it in the military. When he was in civilization and people asked him what belt level he was, he said huh? He thought the only real purpose of a belt was to hold your pants up and then later went on to describe the master he was learning under. A group of 5 interested students approached the master and asked if what he teaches is really that effective. The master said he will demonstrate and asked all 5 to attack at once. He was able to subdue all 5 or demonstrate that he had the ability without harming them. Convinced, all 5 signed up.

    So in that story I think illustrates results, saying you can do what you will teach. Thoughts on this?
     
  5. Master Betty

    Master Betty Banned Banned

    well since belt grades are subjective I'd rather avoid talking about them. I began coaching in thai boxing with about 3 and a half years experience. But typically speaking, when compared with other arts, I'm only teaching people how to fight. I'm not teaching you a bunch of ridiculous katas, I'm not trying to teach you korean or another random language, I don't spend half the session preaching my own personal philosophies, I don't use ridiculous tihngs like one step sparring and that to teach and such was the way i also was taught. As such, it means I got a lot more experience in those 3 and a half years than most people in a lot of other arts do. So experience is very important.

    however, I know people who're ridiculously experienced but can't teach worth a damn so personality comes into it as a huge factor. ie, can the person actually explain something to students in a manner they'll understand? Can he tell the student just enough for them to understand without telling them too much and confusing them? That last point is probably the most common error rookie instructors make.
     
  6. LawOfEye

    LawOfEye Valued Member


    i'm turning 16 this year and my rank qualifies me to be a head instructor of hwa rang do . i also hold 2nd dan in taekkyon so would age matter as much ?. i've been training since i was 7 and have participated in several demonstrations , test , tournaments , and drills . would you think that's fit because in a lot of gyms they treat me as a kid with no regard for my rank and skill , even after proof . example , i have defeated a black belt in karate for confirmation reasons and even after i did , i remained a kid in their eyes and didnt receive my proper respect in the gym . to me , its a matter of experience , respect , training , and discipline .
     
  7. Microlamia

    Microlamia Banned Banned

    I agree that it's wrong not to give you the respect when you have the experience and the qualification. A 2nd dan is a 2nd dan is a 2nd dan. A defeat is a defeat whether you get your ass kicked by a 16 year old or a 60 year old. Your age would be an issue though regards teaching though. It's probably not legal for someone under 18, also you definitely wouldn't get insurance. You could ask if there's a position of assistant instructor you could apply for though. If your seniors act douchey about it that's their problem, they should be pleased that you are interested, not contemptuous because you're young.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2011
  8. righty

    righty Valued Member

    Yes age matters. As mentioned earlier although your rank may technicaly qualify you as head instructor, your overall experience (and yes, life experience counts) would not qualify you.

    Also, if you state your request to become instructor as you outline your response above, it's no surprise they treat you as a kid. Your are only 15 - you are a kid.
     
  9. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo


    I think both of these post illustrate something different. If you are teaching a set of skills or a RBSD system or "fighting", and you have no need for ranks... you have no need for the term "master". You are a "coach" or "instructor" - why do you need anything more than that?

    The whole belt ranks system, titles like master and grandmaster, and all that fit into the whole TMA model - which is supposed to be a combination of effective fighting (hopefully), learning strategies (like katas and wooden dummies and whatnot), and a cultural focus (speaking the language and using the terms). If you aren't doing this, you don't need to use terms like "master", do you?

    If you do, why and how did (or do) you "earn" that title?

    Edit - in a "fighting system" that has a pecking order defined by "fights" (like an MMA camp), I think it's pretty easy to determine who the "coach" is and who the "assistant coaches" are. The owner of gym who most likely has some quality fights under his belt is the head coach or head instructor and he hires specialists to focus on certain elements (coaches). I don't see any need for the title "master" to be used here though.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    In our Hapkido program (similar in many ways to Hwa Rang Do), we don't take students under 14 (except in very rare cases we may take a 13 year old)... so if they trained hard and consistently they would reach 2nd dan by about the time they were 19-21 years old. As a second dan, they would still be an "assistant instructor" - very able to help out and to teach an occasional class but not a "head instructor" (which I would define as a senior instructor or master). In our Taekwondo program, students under 18 hold junior rank and therefore would still be treated as "assistant instructors".

    In a good school, the proper respect should be shown to the rank that is held, but there also has to be consideration of skill, experience, and maturity combined in order to be an full or senior instructor, let alone a school owner.
     
  11. Osu,


    Hummmmmmm, what could be the reason these "arrogant b@sterds" don't give you the respect you "deserve"? :)


    Osu!
     
  12. Microlamia

    Microlamia Banned Banned

    I don't think age necessarily matters, but communication skills do.

    I don't judge people by age because from my own observations age doesn't necessarily mean you're good at what you do. I mean, on one hand, I've known assistant instructors and senior fighters who were 16-18ish and who were lovely to learn from and gave plenty of criticism without being negative...And on the other hand you have people like that middle aged sensei, who when I asked a question about adrenaline during a fight, responded with 'No questions! You NEVER ask questions in class!' And then there was the other one who when I asked him to clarify what he meant by 'taking in energy from the air around you', got extremely nasty and sarcastic. Clearly, age is not always conducive to wisdom.

    Which is why, on the subject of teaching, I'd rather simply judge someone by the relevant criteria, such as experience and communication skills. When I say experience, I mean experience in that martial art, not life experience. Just because you are versed in making life decisions doesn't mean you can successfully explain to someone how to do a major hip throw.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
  13. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    I'd disagree with you there.

    Our karate organisation works fine using the standard Japanese honorific "sensei" (roughly "predecessor", but used in Japanese culture for someone who is more advanced than you are in their education) for anyone who is a teacher. Everyone from the class teacher to the chief instructor of the national body is "sensei". I guess this is because our old chief instructor was Japanese and brought the custom with him from home and it's stuck around.

    No-one needs to be called grand master, IMHO. I find "sensei" to be a nice bit of cultural tradition that is fine to use out of respect for the origin of the art. Anything else sounds a bit too much like Western style "marketing hype".

    Just my opinion though.
     
  14. Simon

    Simon Administrator Admin Supporter MAP 2017 Koyo Award

    I don't do a Japanese Art, but would have no problem using the term sensei.

    I am a student of a Filipino Grand Master and he has me call him by his first name.
    "Don't respect me too much" he says to us. Otherwise you will not ask questions. "I don't want you saying yes Master all the time".

    Respect is nice and Moosey summed it up nicely in terms of the cultural traditions, but let's not go overboard.

    In terms of titles I have a problem with retired airmen and sailors. Picture the old boy in the club with his medals and tankard. He has been there, seen it and lived to tell the tale, he is due his respect, which he will get from me. He is though no longer a general or admiral, so just call him by his first name.

    "Oh that's the Admiral", no it isn't, it's John Smith, former admiral.
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    You're right in that each organization is different. I used the terms that I did because we have them in our system. I like the way we use them (as described before).

    I've seen other Korean Arts groups use a different (Korean) title for every level and I find this a "bit much" to try to remember what each one means rank-wise or position-wise.

    In Japanese arts I have seen various terms like Sensei (that one I get), Sempai, O-sensei, Hanshi, Renshi, Kyoshi, and so on. I don't recall which group you are with but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they don't use these terms or something similar somewhere. Which group are you affiliated with? (Or, is there a good website you'd recommend? A quick "google search" of Shotokan brings up a huge list of "masters" and "grandmaster")

    In your system, are all "sensei" equal? Or, are there distinctions made on the floor and in the class? What does it take to become a sensei? (Along the lines of the thread discussion)

    Personally, I find the terms XX dan or instructor, master, grandmaster a bit easier to use and remember.

    Of course, as you are getting at (I think), the problem isn't in the rank or title but when the person starts to forget that that their teaching skill, skill in the art, and way they interact with students and seniors is much more important than a title or rank.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
  16. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    Hi Thomas, the place I train is affiliated with the KUGB (http://www.kugb.org/) which is a governing body in the UK that used to be part of the Japan Karate Organisation.

    People in the organisation are aware of who the more senior instructors are, who takes the gradings etc. We do also have different levels of dan grade, which are respected in order of seniority. I guess my point is that, aside from the corporate structure where there are posts like "secretary", "president", "technical committee" etc, there are no gradations of honorific titles.

    Take the chief instructor, Andy Sherry, for example (http://www.kugb.org/kugb-instructor-sensei-profiles.php) - I know that if he's in the room, he's going to be the most senior person there and will most likely be the one teaching. If anyone's new, they're going to pick up pretty quickly when he walks to the front of the class, that he's the one they're going to have to pay attention to.

    I would be very suprised if he suddenly decided to start calling himself "Master", largely because the previous chief instructor, Keinosuke Enoeda, never did and his predecessor as chief, Hirokazu Kanazawa, didn't either, so I suspect that Mr Sherry would consider it disrespectful to them to give himself a title that implied he was their superior. I suppose it's just a matter of tradition.
     
  17. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    Cool - looks like a good organization.

    You are right in saying that there isn't a system of honorific titles. However, I would say though that they use a very similar construct as we do. Where we have levels of instructor - assistant, full, senior, master and grandmaster, it looks like the KUGB has black belts, then "instructors" (who are assessed by "KUGB Assessors of 4th Dan and above" and then over them is "the KUGB Technical Committee whose members are 7th or 8th Dans." (http://www.kugb.org/structure-of-the-kugb.php). They may not use specific titles but I would argue the setup is the same.

    Even though there isn't the use of the words "master" or "grandmaster" (or levels of instructor", there is a clear pecking order established by rank and experience. All sensei are not equal here - people still defer to others based on rank and position held. I'd argue that it's roughly the same thing other organizations do through ranks and titles (some more than others - e.g. I think "Kuk Sool Won" has a distinguishing title for each rank that is used.)

    I would also say that the use of positions like chairman (held currently by the most senior sensei), vice-chairman, secretary, trustees, etc all represent a very structure that are filled in other systems with gradations of instructor or master and grandmaster.


    So, I think the answer to the OP's question on how to become a "master" , title aside but function remaining, I'd say they could look at how instructors get certified in the KUGB and how people get chosen for the "Technical Committee".


    Side note - there is use of the term "Master" on the site as well, referring to Sensei Funakoshi. We'd probably call him Grandmaster in our system but it seems that the term "Master" is bestowed here once in a while too! In the bio of Sensei Enoeda, it says, "One his teachers was the great Master and founder of modern Shotokan Karate, Funakoshi Gichin, whose instruction and advice was a source of great inspiration to him." He is paid respect further on as well: "We honour him as one of the worlds great Karate Masters and thank him for his invaluable contribution to the organization."
    http://www.kugb.org/kugb-instructor-sensei-epitaphs.php
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
  18. Moosey

    Moosey invariably, a moose Supporter

    That sounds like a fair assessment, Thomas.
     
  19. LawOfEye

    LawOfEye Valued Member

    i guess that does make sense. and i would never take the responsibility of head instructor , i've seen what they have to go thru with the students and i'm not the biggest guy in the world so if one picked a fight with me , there would be an issue . lol .
     
  20. Kwajman

    Kwajman Penguin in paradise....

    I've sort of always felt anyone who gave THEMSELVES a title or insisted he/she be called by that title is a bit pretentious and probably doesn't deserve it. Remember the TV show Seinfeld where Elaine dated the guy who insisted he be called "Maestro" by everyone because he conducted some minor orchestra? Perfect example.
     

Share This Page