For the last few years or so, there has been a significant campaign by the WKSA to standardize everyone, meaning we all do Kuk Sool the way the text books lay it out. Here in lies the problem, the text books are honestly, terrible. The text books have no level depth, do not explain any kind of detail, are filled with high stances, and don't tell the practitioner anything except a rudimental order. Is it that the WKSA didn't want all their knowledge wrapped up in a book for others to steal, did they just not make a good book, or is there some other reason for their lack of material? Thanks! SBN
Also when the wksa updates a form or technique, there's no way 2 change the manuals that people already have. Maybe an online resource that you need to have a wksa id number to access would be an option.
I think I view the textbooks as supplemental to what I learn from my instructor. This may be where the issue lies because each instructor might teach it a little differently. As use as a reference, the textbooks are really well laid out. Once you have the instruction, you can use these for a time when you are away from your instructor and training on your own. I don't view the textbooks as an instruction manual on how to teach the technique. If this is to be the case, then yes, the textbooks need to be setup to include more detail, but, this also creates an issue where someone can just buy a textbook on ebay and think they can teach themselves Kuk sool Won (even though we know that's not possible). Also, each volume would be about 1000 pages and way to in depth for, say, a white or yellow belt looking at volume 1. An online resource would be nice, that way changes made to the syllabus, techniques, forms, etc can be readily available to Kuk Sool members (and instructors). Anyway, I think that most of the fine detail on material needs to come from your instructor, and use the textbooks as what they are, standardized references to the forms and techniques learned (or taught) in your classes
I brought this up, or rather asked to have this suggested at the Instructors workshop that just passed. But havent heard anything on it.:bang: Actually I was told that is was a good idea, but maybe WKSA is too involved with the 50th aniversary to do anything else
Textbooks are 1st - an excellent source of income for WKSA (Don't take it personally , just remember it BUSINESS!) 2nd - a way to keep hq vicariously "close" to the student? 3rd - only a memory reference (actually a crutch imo) 4th - an attempt at some level of standardization ( at least of sequence) 5th - and most importantly OPTIONAL. Certainly no substitute for training. Remember THE BEST STUDENTS/BB's & MASTERS OF THE PAST AND PRESENT DID NOT NEED OR HAVE THEM. DO YOU??? (rhetorical)
Most of the best had direct access to GM IHS or higher ranking masters. They didn't need textbooks also they didnt need textbooks because their training ethic was/is great.
yeah, i agree with turk. they should be used as a reference manual, not an instruction manual. i think ksw is pretty well standardized anyway. having recently changed clubs i can see first hand that there are subtle differences between the techniques and forms that i was taught, and the ones my *new* instructor teaches. rather than being a hindrance it has helped me sharpen up my material as i have to analyse every movement and step, so when i teach, i am teaching the way my instructor does.
good point. as the org has got bigger and bigger there would have been the danger that the material would get watered down and instructors could end up not teaching certain tecniques because he/she felt it unnessesary.
sure so lets do all hyung on the left side to Do less tech is not watering down , doing more tech very poorly is.... It is more likely to "water down" by having people do a lot of stuff in a certain amount of training time than it is to do half as much in the same time period. For the most part this, is the quality prob in ksw as it has grown...... the text book has had little positive or negative effect on quality other than to serve as a reminder of the bulk of material that most people forget over time. there is no way for the typical,,,,, the typical,,,,modern student of ksw to train 2-3 hours a week and be expected to achieve skill mastery over the material required. Simply memorizing it is about the most that can be expected. Granted there will be exceptions. The problem is that people, who study MA for a while want to have skill that is functional, not only memorized and theoretical, especially after 3-4 years of investing resources in the training. It is becoming apparent that just dumping more and more memory requirements on them is not going to help, especially if their other option is to go down the street and take quality mma for a year and be able to fight. Watering down, (referring to cooking), if you have a gallon of soup and you need three, you add 2 more gallons to feed everyone. Sure it feeds more people, but the quality of the soup is horrible and no one is satisfied. The opposite being to "Boil it down" which reduces to a smaller volume but a more concentrated product. It seems that in order for ksw to remain viable in the MA business (in the current state of "give me quick results") it seems obvious what will likely work better..... any thoughts
I completely agree with you Choi, the WKSA has way too many techniques. The sets should be smaller and less redundant. We don’t need to do a side fall arm bar from every darn position.... They have that many techniques to keep people coming to class (and more importantly paying), but what you end up getting are flocks of students who only memorize static techniques and don't comprehend the principles.
I think the Burden is on the Instructors to a large degree. WKSA does not come to our class and see what is taught, I've never seen them walk in? Tournament only proves you can when prepared for tournament learn what you need to compete, that is what they see. Testing proves you have memeorized what you need to pass the test. If you have a good instructor, He will measure the amount of water you get. Or boil you down when you need it. I have seen both sides of this equation. Some teachers let the students dictate how much they get to learn and how often they test. The best instructors IMO teach you what you are ready for, and help you understand principles so you are ready for more, and put less emphasis on belt promotion. IF the WKSA (i'm refering to the Highest leadership of) was here in every class, perhaps there wouldn't be text books? No I think they serve as a reference point and perhaps should be called as such. I have found them quite useful as reference, but there is no way I would presume to teach myself from them. However, I do think that the association does need to find a better way to pass changes down to the STUDENTS. Some teachers decide to blatantly disregard after they have taught the new way, they just revert back. Posting it on the internet seams a great idea.
no probs, that will make me a more rounded practitioner.. sorry, i meant watering down the syllabus. only if thats what they want to do, fight. sure, if ksw wants to create an abundance of quality competiton fighters then the syllabus would have to be dramaticaly reduced. if, on the other hand, it wants to create a quality "traditional" martial art that anyone can train in and enjoy, then i think they're doing a pretty good job.
Sometimes, even rhetorical questions need an answer. So, those ancient books that Kuk Sa Nim inherited have no meaning? They don't exist and/or have no value? Because you don't get to study from them, they can't help a persons training? Practitioners have always tried to codify, standardize, retain the art for prosperity. Even if it really was true that NO ONE ever wrote down any part of MA into scrolls or books for retention or teaching, and we started doing this dastardly deed only recently, if we learn to learn this way, so what? You call it a crutch, I call it a tool. There have always been people who said the new tool was a crutch, and anyone who wanted to do it the RIGHT way would do it the OLD way. While it is nice for someone to know how to split logs and mill them flat and straight by hand, (and how to do it preserved also in books) I'm glad we have machines that can do it faster and better.
This is, unfortunately, way too common. the debate about whether more tech/skills aids retention is really a tough call. I can see valid points on both sides. That is always the case and It is an important point to remember because the "burden" that you speak of is dictated by those who are no longer faced with the "front line" realities of the modern student but by those who are actually doing the teaching So absolutely everyone that does not demonstrate that they memorized everything at testing fails? Of course!! bypass the WKSA LICENSED AND CERTIFIED instructor, the person who is DIRECTLY responsible for the student becoming and remaining a KS student. No really.... No association should ever step in between teachers and students. that would undermine EVERYTHING. from a MA perspective it is unethical to interfere with the sun bae/hue bae relationship, from a business perspective it can be even worse.. The ONLY way that is ethical and practical to do this is THROUGH the teacher. True, that happens usually from a lack of understanding. It is difficult for an instructor to justify change if they don't know why they should but instead are only told to . in order to do so they must fully understand WHY they should change and HOW it will work better. Retraining is a difficult task . This can only happen if the org approaches them respectfully as a fellow teacher and extensions of themselves and "trains and explains" the "hows and whys" instead of "telling them what to do" the days of "teacher say and student do" are long gone The only way is teacher to student, teacher to student, teacher to student. and keep you busy doing 2x as much as you had before. regardless of what you actually understand or not. adding opposite side is just that, more busy, but not more understanding... only if thats what they want to do, fight. not fighting but actually having skills. I am a marginal mma fan but I understand that the avg student will not know the difference and expect useable results. i If ksw wants to keep the art viable it has to be flexible within it's traditional rigidity to allow for growth. The people who probably deserve the kudos for doing a good job are the instructors who are teaching the students in the classes everyday, they are the one doing all the work, without which theere would be nothing...
OK........ I tried this twice before on two separate forums and got my head handed to me in both cases. I am going to try this again because I really think this is incredibly important even though I risk ruffling feathers. Please bear with me. As much as people may look up to this or that person as a teacher, I feel compelled to tell you that most people I have run into in the KMA world couldn't teach their way out of a paper bag! I have been a professional educator and counselor since 1979 or so and have had more than a few occasions to evaluate teachers in there environment. I know you folks in the KMA will look at your leaders and consider them the greatest thing since "sliced bread". Nothing wrong with that. However, from an objective POV most teachers really suck!! Consider the following. a.) First off, a teacher is a teacher. That means they are not a coach, instructor or tutor. They are teacher, and if they represent themselves as a teacher they damn well need to be able to teach. What is a teacher? A teacher is someone who uses a particular venue to build problem-solving skills on an emotional, intellectual, physical and spiritual level. b.) Secondly, a teacher is successful when that person's students demonstrate that they can successfully solve problems of a given sort by themselves. If a student constant has to go back to the teacher because they CAN'T solve problems on their own, that student does NOT have a teacher. c.) Thirdly, a textbook is just that--- a textbook. Making a catalogue of techniques is not a textbook. At the turn of the 19th Century, over 90% of the Korean population was illiterate and forms were used to organize the heart and soul of the art. Now that Korea is over 90% LITERATE we can use a book as a summation of the major tenets of a practice. However, just because a book generally alludes to most things found in a class does not mean its a textbook, and I have to say that on the textbook scale most of what passes for MA books would never be approved for use in the typical American Public school. d.) Fourthly, it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the primary motivation for doing things in the KMA is to garner money and recognition. The idea of expanding the knowlege base or understand of a MA is about No. 83 on the list of "The 60 most Important Things to Care about". For this reason, most high ranking people will not impart the soul of what they know either because they want people worshipping at their "altar" or because they just don't know and are too cowardly to admit it. This is probably coming across as pretty terse, and I am sorry for that. But the fact is that I have been a professional educator for a few years and have pretty much gotten my fill of people calling themselves "teachers", "Grandmasters", "Supreme Grandmasters" and everything else and not knowing their butt from their elbow about what it really means. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Why would you try to ruffle the readers here? Don't you know how to learn lessons? A good teacher is a good student. And if you have to come back over and over again to ask the same questions - what kind of a student are you, if you cannot successfully solve problems? And if you're not a good student what kind of teacher did you become? And why do we care if you think it's important or not? :hat: You talk too much. This is creeping me out. Emotional? Intellectual? Physical and Spiritual? You talk way too much. Some teachers get more involved than they need too, and they become a burden to their students, please stop sharing. I'm not trying to evoke emotion from you - just keep your distance, Bruce. Like I said above, if you have brought this topic up and have had your head served to you - why do you keep doing the same thing? What lesson are you suppossed to learn? What problem aren't you solving? Fifthly, you talk too much.
Bruce's last post was pretty accurate, LS some people talk too much and some listen too little, those that talk too much are usually forced to bc people won't listen, they only hear. I think you are right that Bruce has a lot to say, and thats ok. In this case he happens to be very right about most everything in his last post. His biggest mistake is that he is trying too hard to reach people who may not be ready or capable to accept what he presents. At least he is persistent. Ignore him, if you feel the need, but if you disagree at least exchange a fruitful retort with substance.. I don't recall him being rude, just persistent....
textbooks / openness / standardization I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but that's why I kept the handle "Pandora". It seems to me that the issue of standardization and openness are related. That if you want to be sure every student knows something, then you'll have to be sure that every TEACHER knows it. In a closed system like KS where certain things aren't taught until higher levels, you're going to have things taught that aren't fully understood. The textbooks are a good reference for material one's already been taught, for refreshing memory. They're not so good for teaching ones self. Whether that is intentional or not... it is the Association's choice to leave it that way or to change. There's an element of responsibility in there too, and I think the Association recognizes that. That's why the Association decided not to teach Dahn Doh Mah Ki to under-18s anymore. If there is a body of knowledge that can responsibly be taught to all students, that we want all students to know, then that body of knowledge ought to be spelled out clearly in some manner that both teachers and students can access. Books, DVDs, Youtube video, iTunes audio or video, you name it. It's called Knowledge Capture. Check out some oral history programs if you need ideas. It could be recorded lectures, interviews, etc. The thing about the internet age is we don't have to rely on a reporter to digest the material and put it into an article in the MA mags. If the person so chooses, they can record the material themselves and put it out on the web. BlogTalkRadio is one method that makes podcasting easy for the masses, just using your telephone. (The sound quality is more variable, the ones I've heard don't sound as polished as the "professional" podcasters.) I think this is the root of what I was seeing among the early MAP Kuk Soolin. Students far away from the centers of WKSA authority didn't have the same knowledge as students of the same rank in Texas. They don't / can't / won't under the current system. That's one of the things I'm looking at for our club. I know there's a lot I don't know about the hows and whys of KS. You can blame it as you choose: Is it the instructors fault, that they're trying to teach without adequate training / background knowledge? Is it the association's fault for not succeeding in standardizing and getting that info out? Is it the students fault? (I can't imagine why...) Or is it a natural product of growing the organization, so that some geographical areas are well-covered and others are spread thin? I'm not looking for answers, just putting the questions out for contemplation.
Great Thoughts, Ember, but now I am feeling a bit guilty because I may have introduced "thread drift" with my critique of teachers and their role in the MA. How about this? Lets say that we are teachers in a High School who are tasked with having to select a textbook for a MA class. I will even extend this to suggest that the MA class is strictly a KSW class. What I am suggesting isn't too far off the mark since selecting textbooks is a pretty common task in most schools. What would we pick and why? As far as the current 2-vol set for the KSW I would have to vote against it. Part of that is because the sources are too vague and the information has been called into question. But putting that to one side how about some of the basic things people look for in a textbook. Certainly organization and lay-out seem pretty good. How about the depth of subject matter? What level is the subject intended to be covered at? How much does the book require a teacher's assistance, or-- How much does the book assit the teacher? Like you I am not trying to pin down any answers, but I think these are important questions we need to be asking about our MA books. Thoughts? BTW: I also wanted to say "thank you" to Young-woo for his supportive comments. There is a strong reluctance on the part of a large portion of the KMA community to actually DO anything other than whine about the way things are. I am of a mind that people can actually DO something about circumstances and leave the community a bit better for having been a member. Thanks again. Best Wishes, Bruce
