Students and instructors

[Kacey]

As a student, what do you feel you owe your instructor? As an instructor, what do you feel you owe your students?

My own answer is based on the Student/Instructor Relationship, from both the student's and instructor's sides, originally from The Encyclopedia of TaeKwon-Do, by Gen. Choi Hong Hi, and condensed into various requirement books in more than one association I have either belonged to or had contact with.

From the student's side:


10 Parts of the Student/Instructor Relationship:

1) Never tire of learning. A good student can learn anytime, anywhere.
2) A good student must be willing to sacrifice for his art and instructor.
3) Always set a good example for lower ranking students.
4) Always be loyal to your instructor.
5) If your instructor teaches you a technique, practice and attempt to utilize it.
6) Remember that a student’s conduct outside the dojang reflects on his instructor and school.
7) If a student adopts a technique from another gym and his instructor disapproves of it, the student must discard the technique.
8) Never be disrespectful to your instructor. Though a student is allowed to disagree, the student must follow instructions first and discuss the matter later.
9) A student must always be eager to ask questions and to learn.
10) Never betray your instructor’s trust.
From the instructor's side:


1) Never tire of teaching. A good instructor can teach anywhere, anytime, and is always ready to answer questions.
2) An instructor should be eager for his students to surpass him; it is the ultimate compliment for an instructor. A student should never be held back. If the instructor realizes his student has developed beyond his teaching capabilities, the student should be sent to a higher ranking instructor.
3) An instructor must always set a good example for his students and never attempt to defraud them.
4) The development of students should take precedence over commercialism. Once an instructor becomes concerned with materialism, he will lose the respect of his students.
5) Instructors should teach scientifically and theoretically to save time and energy.
6) Instructors should help students develop good contacts outside the club. It is an instructor’s responsibility to develop students outside as well as inside the training hall.
7) Students should be encouraged to visit other training halls and study other techniques. Students who are forbidden to visit other clubs are likely to become rebellious. There are two advantages for allowing students to visit other gyms; not only is there the possibility that a student may observe a technique that is ideally suited for him, but be may also have a chance to learn by comparing his techniques to inferior techniques.
8) All students should be treated equally, there should be no favorites. Students should always be scolded in private, never in front of the class.
9) If the instructor is not able to answer a student’s question, he should not fabricate an answer, but admit he does not know and attempt to find the answer as soon as possible. Too often a lower degree black belt dispenses illogical answers to his students merely because he is afraid of "losing face" because he does not know the answer. Always be honest with students.
10) Never betray a trust.

Note that these are complementary; both the student and the instructor have responsibilities toward the other. Do other people have different viewpoints?

[bluemtn]

Well, I'm a bit fuzzy on #2, but I'm in 100% agreement with the rest. As your training progresses, and you train there for quite a long while, I think it'll become natural to feel "loyal" to your instructor and art. Even though I've gotten away from TKD for a brief period of time, I found that I came back to where I started from, and still love it every bit as much as when I started. It's like you become a family.

[K31]

Well, some things that should go without saying for students, but unfortunately need to be said:

1. Show up on time prepared for class.
2. Show up with what you need for class e.g. sparring gear.
3. Know how to tie your belt.
4. Be clean and wear a clean uniform.
5. Don't whine.
6. Don't disrespect your belt or uniform.
7. Keep your mouth shut when the instructor is talking.
8. Pay attention when the instructor is demonstrating a technique.
9. Do your best even when you are tired or have had a bad day.

[tkd_Jaz]

I think sometimes it's the little things that count. I agree with things like being ready for class ect... I do things like throwing away the garbage and making sure that the gym is clean at the end of class and things like that. I don't really feel that I owe this to my instructor(I'm not expected to do it) but I do it because I want to and as a token of my appreciation. It's not always what you do during class but also what you do after.

[Marginal]

Well, I'm a bit fuzzy on #2, but I'm in 100% agreement with the rest.
Depending on the instructor, #2 can be a bludgeon. It can be used to justify any demand the instructor may make of a student.

In more sensible terms it usualy means that students should try to make themselves available for demonstrations, show up for class on days they can go but kinda don't want to, that they should be willing to participate in class etc. Basic stuff.

[matt.m]

Wow, I am both......I am an active instructor and an active student. I teach a class on Thursday to people who outrank me in Tae Kwon Do, (Brown to 2nd dan). However, I have a dan in Judo and that is the class I teach.....Only what is relevant to hapkido.

Everyone calls me sir when I am teaching and Mr. in TKD and HKD......I am only half way to black in the latter two. However, I wear the belt I have earned in TKD and HKD, I am the highest ranking student in HKD but the lowest ranking "Upper Belt" in TKD.

The easy part of the whole equation is "No one in MSK:St.L has an ego and we all work together to help each other."

I work to break down everything I can and have to so I can help to teach the Kazuski, throwing, and falling as well as the "Walking across the room" and "Air fits" that the students need. I am extremely patient. I have always thought "Who cares how long it takes to get it done, just get it done."

On the flip side......In TKD, my students that outrank me in TKD go above and beyond to help me the same way in TKD that I do for them in Judo and Hapkido.

I am the lowest ranking dan at the school and have no problem with it. The thing is this: There should always be a level of "Hero worship" to work hard to attain, however it shouldn't be ego abused driven by those with the high rank.

I talk to the GM and other Masters all the time and we have always tried to develop a sense of "Everyone is a student, however someone has to be in charge to help" kind of attitude.

Just my .02

[DArnold]

Loyalty!

[IcemanSK]

In terms of the original question, "what do you owe your instructor?" I like the list from the Encyclopedia that Kacey brought out. While I don't have a formal list the Gen. Choi did, I have a courtesy agreement between my instructor & myself.

Loyality is at the top of the list.

[Balrog]

As an instructor, my goal is to turn out students that are better than I am.

As a student, my goal is to be better than my instructor.

Both require loyalty and dedication.

[Kacey]

As an instructor, my goal is to turn out students that are better than I am.

As a student, my goal is to be better than my instructor.

Both require loyalty and dedication.

Nicely stated! :asian:

[terryl965]

As an instructor, my goal is to turn out students that are better than I am.

As a student, my goal is to be better than my instructor.

Both require loyalty and dedication.

Excellent post

[MBuzzy]

How do people feel about #7 in terms of cross training? Is this in reference to techniques within the same style?

I really like the instructor side of #7, but I think it only works in terms of different schools within the same style.

[Kacey]

How do people feel about #7 in terms of cross training? Is this in reference to techniques within the same style?

I really like the instructor side of #7, but I think it only works in terms of different schools within the same style.

Nope, it refers to cross training - but I accidentally left a piece off... it should say

"If a student adopts a technique from another gym and his instructor disapproves of it, the student must discard the technique or train at the other gym"

This relates more to respect for one's instructor than anything else - if you respect your instructor, then you will not introduce information and/or use techniques in class without the instructor's permission, and if the instructor asks you to not introduce something, or not to use it, you should respect that request. Students who can't respect such decisions - or who can't be bothered to follow them - are students an instructor can, IMHO, afford to lose, for the sake of the other students.

As an instructor, I could see lots of problems with someone coming back from a totally different style (or even a similar one) and having problems with technical differences thus needing to pick a primary style for a while, until able to keep the technical differences separate - and also seriously confusing others who are either not cross-training, or are cross-training in something else, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the bigger concern.

My students are welcome to cross-train - in fact, they're encouraged to, although few do, mostly due to time constraints - but I could easily see one of them learning something I don't teach (in which case I'd probably want them to show me and then the class) or, more problematic, learn something I do teach, but earlier than the sequence I use for instructing, which can cause problems with their progression with me.

[MBuzzy]

That is a great point...and I suppose it wholly depends on how you interpret the rules and who the student is. It would be VERY problematic to a school if a student started training in another style and then used those techniques in your school.

They way you put it, Kacey makes very much sense to me. I suppose I just have a sour taste in my mouth about styles that FORBID cross training....I think that makes me more sensitive to it!

[DArnold]

That is a great point...and I suppose it wholly depends on how you interpret the rules and who the student is. It would be VERY problematic to a school if a student started training in another style and then used those techniques in your school.

They way you put it, Kacey makes very much sense to me. I suppose I just have a sour taste in my mouth about styles that FORBID cross training....I think that makes me more sensitive to it!

FORBID = Fear of looseing students = Insecurity in what you do/teach

[Blindside]

I have a hard time understanding how or why you would forbid a technique. If the technique is crap, show everyone the counter and then obliterate the person every time they try it, usually fixes the problem. If the technique is great you should be stealing it.

I'm a student who has cross-trained in a number of different styles, and I am welcome to come in and try them against others in our class. Its a learning experience for all involved, I get to see proposed defenses, and the class gets to see some characteristics of another style without having to go out and cross-train to get it.

How is this doing a "disservice" to other students? Are you as an instructor so insecure in your technique that a student using something that you haven't taught them is going to somehow pollute the school?

If the student learns something "out of order" how is that going to mess up what you teach? Are you going to say "you can't do that until you are X belt" despite the fact that they already know it? This is more about instructor ego that the student to me.

Lamont

[Kacey]

I have a hard time understanding how or why you would forbid a technique. If the technique is crap, show everyone the counter and then obliterate the person every time they try it, usually fixes the problem. If the technique is great you should be stealing it.

So.... I guess you missed this part of my post entirely:


My students are welcome to cross-train - in fact, they're encouraged to, although few do, mostly due to time constraints - but I could easily see one of them learning something I don't teach (in which case I'd probably want them to show me and then the class)


How is this doing a "disservice" to other students? Are you as an instructor so insecure in your technique that a student using something that you haven't taught them is going to somehow pollute the school?

If the student learns something "out of order" how is that going to mess up what you teach? Are you going to say "you can't do that until you are X belt" despite the fact that they already know it? This is more about instructor ego that the student to me.

Gee... let's see... having a student attempt to teach a technique s/he can demonstrate but doesn't understand and can't explain teach something they learned elsewhere to juniors who don't have a clue how to use it properly and end up hurting someone unintentionally because they're trying to use a technique they don't understand and can't control properly... no, can't see how that could be a problem at all. :)

[Blindside]

Gee... let's see... having a student attempt to teach a technique s/he can demonstrate but doesn't understand and can't explain teach something they learned elsewhere to juniors who don't have a clue how to use it properly and end up hurting someone unintentionally because they're trying to use a technique they don't understand and can't control properly... no, can't see how that could be a problem at all. :)

You said they "learned it," which implies they know how to use it properly. If by "learn it" you mean "saw it once and thought it was cool" then you are talking about something else entirely. Why are you having a student teach? I didn't suggest that, I said use it, as in sparring or whatever self-defense training you use. And if you see obvious defenses to it, you teach it, if you don't see a good defense for it you better learn one. If you like it, you steal it, and then YOU teach it.

Lamont

[Kacey]

So... your students don't watch each other, copy what other students do... Mine do, and yes, on very rare occasions, I have asked them not to use particular techniques in particular situations, not because they didn't know the technique well enough to use it, but because others who didn't tried to copy it - not because I didn't know it, or didn't want to learn it if it was new to me. I learn things from my students all the time - everyone's life experience is different - but that doesn't mean that everything every student walks in with is appropriate for use in all situations.

You don't agree with me - that's your choice. I don't agree with you, and that's my choice. One of the great advantages to the internet is the ability to interact with others who have different experiences and different opinions; if we all agreed all the time, things would get awfully boring.

[DArnold]

I have a hard time understanding how or why you would forbid a technique. If the technique is crap, show everyone the counter and then obliterate the person every time they try it, usually fixes the problem. If the technique is great you should be stealing it.

You may wish to look up and learn what the meaning of Respect is in the Dictionary then you will start down the road of learning why most people don't care if you understand or not.

Obliterating the student does not teach them that the technique is crap, it mearly shows them that every time they go out to another class and observe a new technique, when they come back you can, and will, kick their ass.
So I dont think everyone follows your logic path.

Stealing the technique because, as you say, "If the technique is great you should be stealing it" shows that someone is not an instructor/student in an art but mearly a cockroach that scurrys about getting what they can find.



I'm a student who has cross-trained in a number of different styles, and I am welcome to come in and try them against others in our class. Its a learning experience for all involved, I get to see proposed defenses, and the class gets to see some characteristics of another style without having to go out and cross-train to get it.


Yes, I would use a person like you for my own means... as an example. We agreed with you, thus the statement, "students should be allowed to visit outside do-jangs". Any one with a modicum of intelligence knows ignorance is not bliss. However this should be guided by a knowledgable instructor to prevent problems. And seniors do train with other seniors in other styles, not juniors. (There is a difference between visiting and training).

As it said, the instructor decides what is taught and not taught, thus the name instructor. If a student wishes to be their own instructor, that is cool also, they can just do it somewhere else. But what makes you think any good instructor would share their most valued pearls of wisdom with a class hopper. HA



How is this doing a "disservice" to other students? Are you as an instructor so insecure in your technique that a student using something that you haven't taught them is going to somehow pollute the school?


I don't think most are insecure just because your dander is up.
Someone saying, "OH YEAH" has rarely been a good argument.

Please re-read the post as it said decide, not reject everything.
Therre are several possibilities, not just the one you are jumping to.
It may already be a part of the art
It may be a part of the art that that the student is not ready for
It may be just crap.

So, one answer to your question is yes, it could be crap that pollutes the school.



If the student learns something "out of order" how is that going to mess up what you teach? Are you going to say "you can't do that until you are X belt" despite the fact that they already know it? This is more about instructor ego that the student to me.


Nah
It really is quite simple.

Let me explain it in terms my child would understand. You have to learn your ABC's before you can learn to write, then I will teach you cursive. Then I will teach you cognative writting, then professional dissertations...

I think most teachers would find it, as you put in elloquent terms, "crap" to try and teach algebra to a student that does not know addition and subtraction.

So then comes your argument, well I wouldn't work out with someone like this because they have an ego.
That's fine.

The point you miss is that the reason they call them instructors is that they have already been down this path before and have and will see many like you come and go.
They know its not about them but about a students ego that does not know the meaning of respect.
One that thinks they will pick and choose what they want to learn.
One that thinks they should be their own instructor.
One that thinks you pay an instructor with dues (money).

Instructors do not go to class to learn from you.
They really don't need to be at class at all.
The only reason they are their is to show students the way.
You may wish to read Joel Hyams, Zen in the martial Arts as every instructor has had to deal with a student who's cup was already full.

Any instructor can afford to loose one of these.
If a student can not show me they can controll the simplest of things, their mind, throgh a simple act of respect, then by all means they can still work out in my class but that does not mean that I have to teach them. It will just be aerobics and after a while they will go away (Thinking I am a crappy instructor because I didn't give them anything)

An instructor teaching you is usually not based on money but on loyalty. Students always have this misconception that you must teach them. LOL

Yeah, Somewhere, someoneo said, "Do not cast your pearls before swine"
And if you think most instructors have not seen class hoppers before well then the joke is really on you.
:shock:

[Blindside]

Obliterating the student does not teach them that the technique is crap, it mearly shows them that every time they go out to another class and observe a new technique, when they come back you can, and will, kick their ass. So I dont think everyone follows your logic path.

If I have a choice between saying "don't do this because I said so" or physically demonstrating why this technique isn't a good idea, I usually go with the physical demonstration. Say Student A comes back with a really cool high kick that he picked in another school, one that tends to leave the groin exposed to execute. I may not even need to explain anything, just pop him in the groin every time he tries to pull that off. I then explain to the rest of the class the counter to the technique and then let sparring continue. Odds are that particular kick will go by the wayside rather quickly.



Stealing the technique because, as you say, "If the technique is great you should be stealing it" shows that someone is not an instructor/student in an art but mearly a cockroach that scurrys about getting what they can find.

Uh huh, are you saying TKD (or any art) sprung full-fledged from the mind of a single person without any outside influence? By your definition I think we are all cockroaches, or maybe some of us are cockroaches and others are clones of cockroaches.


As it said, the instructor decides what is taught and not taught, thus the name instructor. If a student wishes to be their own instructor, that is cool also, they can just do it somewhere else. But what makes you think any good instructor would share their most valued pearls of wisdom with a class hopper. HA

I teach everyone who comes in my door, equally to the best of my ability. Do you pick favorites?



Please re-read the post as it said decide, not reject everything.
Therre are several possibilities, not just the one you are jumping to.
It may already be a part of the art

Then there is no issue about a student using this not-really-an-outside technique.


It may be a part of the art that that the student is not ready for

The student already has it, knowledge doesn't go away, whether she is following your normal progression or not. Is your response "don't use this until I say so" or do you fix the issues the student has?


It may be just crap.
No issue then, give your other students a moving dummy to practice on should they decide to retain a crap technique.

I respect my instructor highly, but I don't need to shut off my brain to do so. The simple fact is, my progress is mostly my responsibility as well as his, and I have to make decisions about what and how I study.

As an instructor, I am a guide, not an autocrat.

Lamont

[Carol]

Instructors do not go to class to learn from you.
They really don't need to be at class at all.
The only reason they are their is to show students the way.



Yikes. That is not what my instructor has told me. In fact, what he says has been quite the opposite.

[Papio]

Geeze DArnold try to remember the tenants of Taekwondo, Blindside is offering an opinion, wither you agree with it of not isn’t an excuse to troll, blindly attack or post defamatory sarcasm.

Self control, courtesy and integrity all shoot to mind when I read your post, not in a good way.

[DArnold]

If I have a choice between saying "don't do this because I said so" or physically demonstrating why this technique isn't a good idea, I usually go with the physical demonstration. Say Student A comes back with a really cool high kick that he picked in another school, one that tends to leave the groin exposed to execute. I may not even need to explain anything, just pop him in the groin every time he tries to pull that off. I then explain to the rest of the class the counter to the technique and then let sparring continue. Odds are that particular kick will go by the wayside rather quickly.

As I recall your word were not "physically show them" but obliterate them which has a different conotation, so I would assume, like my cockroach comment, in this exact medium of communication :uhyeah: we both made mistakes. Over time, trust and loyalty with my students I coud go either way, there is no set in stone answer. It depends on the situation on how it is handled. Just as a wild "if", if it were a Black belt I may explaine, if it is a white belt I may just say "don't do this". My black belts over the years have come to respect my judgement in matters and know I would not cross sajajido. Never betray a trust.

Uh huh, are you saying TKD (or any art) sprung full-fledged from the mind of a single person without any outside influence? By your definition I think we are all cockroaches, or maybe some of us are cockroaches and others are clones of cockroaches.

Nope, I was not calling you a cockroache which if you think so I apologize. But those who mearly hop from class to class looking for "cool techniques"

I teach everyone who comes in my door, equally to the best of my ability. Do you pick favorites?

Nope, How do you define equally as every studetn I have ever had was uniques both physically and mentally. One place where a students mental capacity is different is that I do not wast my time on people who visit my class and want to stroke their ego by trying to show me what they know. You want to learn something from me, work out. You want to teach what you know, go start your own class.

Then there is no issue about a student using this not-really-an-outside technique.

Not set in stone. For the if you are choosing to talk about it depends on the technique and the level of the student. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The student already has it, knowledge doesn't go away, whether she is following your normal progression or not. Is your response "don't use this until I say so" or do you fix the issues the student has?

Either way is a possibility depending on the situation. I have never met a student in 28 years that, in your words, ""...has it".

What techniques do you have that you do not have any more to learn about? Sometimes it does need to go away at their pride and joy may be wrong or you might need to learn you ABC's before you start trying to form sentences.
As I said, each situation is different. One example may be I have to earn the students respect (yes, instructors must earn a students respect), so then I may show them why. However you may want to look up the definition of Repsect in the dictionary. It means to defer to someone elses judgement. That is why they call one an instructor and one a student!

No issue then, give your other students a moving dummy to practice on should they decide to retain a crap technique.

No one comes to class to get hurt. Yes, ignorance is its own reward for those who don't listen to the instructor.

I respect my instructor highly, but I don't need to shut off my brain to do so. The simple fact is, my progress is mostly my responsibility as well as his, and I have to make decisions about what and how I study.

If you decide "what and how", then the simple definition is you don't respect your instructor. No one asked you to shut of your brain, just the ego that you know more than your instructor. So if you do know more then why would you work out under them anyway?

As an instructor, I am a guide, not an autocrat.

I am also a guide, but when students decide they wish to guide themselves, or as you say, "decide what and how" then it is a waste of my time as they assume they already know the path.

I wonder how classes would be held if not all students didn't line up togeather because they were to decide what and how?

I wonder how I would react if my 8 year old was in school was to say, "I'm going to dedcide what and how I study."

I wonder how people would react if medical student were to say, "I'm going to dedcide what and how I study."

.....

Lamont

1

[DArnold]

Yikes. That is not what my instructor has told me. In fact, what he says has been quite the opposite.

I have never been to a class with my instructor where he has said, ok teach me.

[Carol]

I have never been to a class with my instructor where he has said, ok teach me.

Has your instructor ever told you that he (to use your original phrasing) "learned from you" ?

[pmn89v]

Has your instructor ever told you that he (to use your original phrasing) "learned from you" ?

l agree. My punong guro have been teaching for years and he told me himself that he is still learning to teach. He said its a constant growth to be a martial artist let alone to be a instructor of a martial art.

[Blindside]

As I recall your word were not "physically show them" but obliterate them which has a different conotation, so I would assume, like my cockroach comment, in this exact medium of communication :uhyeah: we both made mistakes. Over time, trust and loyalty with my students I coud go either way, there is no set in stone answer. It depends on the situation on how it is handled. Just as a wild "if", if it were a Black belt I may explaine, if it is a white belt I may just say "don't do this". My black belts over the years have come to respect my judgement in matters and know I would not cross sajajido. Never betray a trust.

Yes that was an overstatement on my part.


No one comes to class to get hurt. Yes, ignorance is its own reward for those who don't listen to the instructor.


We study a martial art, you can't become good at full-contact fighting without doing it. If you have bad technique because you don't practice enough or if you have adopted less than great techniques, then there will be a physical price if you go up against competent opponents. Preferably those lessons will come at the hands of your classmates and instructors rather than someone who is really trying to kill you.


If you decide "what and how", then the simple definition is you don't respect your instructor. No one asked you to shut of your brain, just the ego that you know more than your instructor. So if you do know more then why would you work out under them anyway?

I think that is your definition rather than a "simple definition." One of the few times I have felt I beat my instructor sparring was when I took him down, he made a fundamental grappling mistake of giving up his back, I sunk my hooks in, and I choked him out with a rear naked choke. He isn't a great grappler, he is strong and has good instincts, but he isn't educated about it so he can fall victim to attacks that his instincts don't really address. Again, I respect the heck out of him, but I know that is one of his limitations, I don't go to him for advice on that. If he does make a teaching recommendation on something in that area, I take it with a grain of salt. On the other hand, in standup fighting I have tried to mirror him in almost every way. I don't think it is ego telling me that I know more than him on groundfighting, it is common sense.


I wonder how classes would be held if not all students didn't line up togeather because they were to decide what and how?

Lines on a floor don't make a martial art, they might be traditional for how you teach your art, but they aren't fundamental are they? Could you teach a group with you in the center and a circle around you? Sure, and some arts do it this way.


I wonder how I would react if my 8 year old was in school was to say, "I'm going to dedcide what and how I study."

I wonder how people would react if medical student were to say, "I'm going to dedcide what and how I study."


So you test them, and grade whether they succeed or fail. My position is that the true test of whether somone succeeds or fails in the martial arts is to be found when someone is really trying to hit you. If you cannot avoid getting hit you fail, if you can't put a hurting on someone, you also fail. I won't stifle innovation because it isn't the way I do things, and if I can't find a hole in a student's technique on the sparring floor, who am I to say "don't do this."

Lamont

[Kacey]

Has your instructor ever told you that he (to use your original phrasing) "learned from you" ?

Yes... but there is a difference between my instructor learning from me because of something I did/said/demonstrated/etc., and him asking me to teach him as if our roles had been reversed.

In addition to teaching TKD, I also teach middle school. I learn from my students (both types) all the time - but that doesn't mean that I would ask one of my TKD students to teach me how to do a technique any more than I would ask a 7th grade student to teach me how to do math. I will ask my students (both types) to show me how they do something, if they have a different approach than I do; I will ask for people to volunteer their own perspectives - but that is, IMHO, different from asking them to teach me. It may just be a semantic difference - but that's the way I see it.

[DArnold]

AHHHH

My position is that the true test of whether somone succeeds or fails in the martial arts is to be found when someone is really trying to hit you. If you cannot avoid getting hit you fail, if you can't put a hurting on someone, you also fail.

So this statement shows that you are a fighter and not a martial artists.
As anyone in the MA's will tell you that fighting is only but a small part of the Martial arts.

And as for the doctor example, just like a medical school, I would not waste my time on someone who wants to "do it their way".

Anyway with this attitude they would never even get in to medical school, so it is a moot point.

[Empty Hands]

And as for the doctor example, just like a medical school, I would not waste my time on someone who wants to "do it their way".

Anyway with this attitude they would never even get in to medical school, so it is a moot point.

Clearly you haven't spent much time around doctors...

[Bumblebee]

I'm told that all I'm expected of as a student aside from the rules of conduct is to do my best. I expect my instructor to do the same. My instructor is one of my most common sparring partners as well. He's still a young instructor and enters tournaments with me and we push each other a lot. I know some people say it's not good to become friends with your instructor, and I agree with that within the dojang, but outside it's different. We're like brothers.

[Blindside]

My position is that the true test of whether somone succeeds or fails in the martial arts is to be found when someone is really trying to hit you. If you cannot avoid getting hit you fail, if you can't put a hurting on someone, you also fail.

So this statement shows that you are a fighter and not a martial artists.
As anyone in the MA's will tell you that fighting is only but a small part of the Martial arts.

If the martial artist can't fight, I think he's lost a vital portion of what makes him "martial," I don't think it is such a small part....

[Bumblebee]

Umm okay.

With instructors learning from students, it happens all the time. It's nothing so obvious as "Okay, teach me." A student could do experiment with something and the instructor might say to him/herself "That was a good idea. I'm gonna use that." That's still learning from your student. If you decide to stop learning from other martial artists, why even continue?

Also, if you went to medical school, or even 10th grade health class you'd know something about the hippocratic oath. As a doctor you are required, by law, to do everything in your power to help someone. Medically. So you can't really tell a patient. "You wanna do it your way, fine! Do it your way, you're just a waste of my time." They'll take away your license so fast you wouldn't know what hit you.

As for the fighting being only a small part of Martial Arts, I agree with Blindside. Martial deals with fighting, combat, war. If it's in the name, it can't be a small part of something. That would be like going to a store called "Generic Grocery Store" and all they have is celery and everything else in the store are power tools.

[karate-dragon]

Have a problem with the blanket "loyalty" and "never questioning" ones. I am myself extremely loyal. However, it is a sad truth that not all instructors deserve that loyalty and blind trust. Some truely use it as a weapon against the students who follow blindly after spending years drilling into them that it is a requirement. Only if the instructor proves to be worthy of the loyalty, and it is a sad state that few are.Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me.

[a2889]

The biggest thing that I have noticed here is the fact that this is the TAEKWON-DO section of the forum and the people that are arguing with Mr. Arnold and Kacey are from Karate and Kempo. If you have a different opinion as to the relationships between instructor and student, that is your opinion. But, it also shows the subtle differences between your styles and ours. For us, we have learned that TaeKwon-Do is a way of life, not just a means of self-defense. And as an instructor, you see that sink in to new students on a regular basis. Key signs are that the student shows up just to stretch and work on the bag. Yes, some watch the more advanced students in their classes. Of course they will pick up a little here and there from that. However, this gives them something to look forward to as they grow in TaeKwon-Do.
Long story short, this is the way we see our relationships. Instead of trying to influence our art, go to your style forum and argue your ideas of loyalty to them.

[Bumblebee]

Well I practice Taekwondo. I'm aware that there are other aspects of Taekwondo and martial arts in general, but Martial does refer to combat. I don't think a person is necessarily a failure if he or she gets hit, because saying that you never get hit is very hard to believe. Unless you're a ghost, doing martial arts, I don't see that happening. Also, its true that if you go to see a doctor and you say you want to do something, a doctor can't say "Okay, do that." Unless of course, he agrees. If he disagrees, he is required to try to talk you out of it or at least let you know that he it's against his advice. Not to mention the fact that saying that you as an instructor never learns anything from your students. That's just ignorant. I don't care what martial art they practice, they make a point.

[Blindside]

Long story short, this is the way we see our relationships. Instead of trying to influence our art, go to your style forum and argue your ideas of loyalty to them.

I suspect that TKD doesn't teach one kind of "respect" or "loyalty" and everyone else teach different versions. Kacey's original post was obviously TKDcentric since she based it around General Choi's teachings, but then she opened up with "Do other people have different viewpoints."
I found many things I liked in Kacey's original post, and one or two that I disagreed with, so I brought it up. This is after all, a discussion forum.

I'm not trying to influence your art, the idea that one, ten, or a hundred postings on an internet forum is going to do diddly to the way a martial art is taught is rather amusing. However, I might be able to make one, ten, or a hundred people think about what and why they do the things they do from hearing a different viewpoint, that isn't a bad thing.

Lamont

[DArnold]

Well I practice Taekwondo. I'm aware that there are other aspects of Taekwondo and martial arts in general, but Martial does refer to combat. I don't think a person is necessarily a failure if he or she gets hit, because saying that you never get hit is very hard to believe. Unless you're a ghost, doing martial arts, I don't see that happening. Also, its true that if you go to see a doctor and you say you want to do something, a doctor can't say "Okay, do that." Unless of course, he agrees. If he disagrees, he is required to try to talk you out of it or at least let you know that he it's against his advice. Not to mention the fact that saying that you as an instructor never learns anything from your students. That's just ignorant. I don't care what martial art they practice, they make a point.

Yes, martial does refer to combat.
DO also refers to a way of life.

Since combat is against an enemy, what percentage of time compared to your career do you spend in actual combat? How many real, life threatening, altercations do you get into every week? You know, the ones that really prove that your style/instructor/class are the best, true way, real self defense... WHATEVER

You may wish to study some of the ancient phylosophers... The winner is not the man that fights a thousand fights and wins... but the man who has the oppertunity to fight a thousand fights and does not!

As for the doctor analogy, why go? That is the humor in your argument and this so-called logic that some use:

I'm going to go to a doctor and pay money and tell him what I'm going to do! Why because I'm a free thinker. No ones going to tell me what to do. I controll what I learn and when. And yes the doctor will look at the ceiling, smile, and bill you anyway as you are wasting their time also...

Unfortunately today this is known as "Survival of the unfitist"

But Carol and you may wish to go back and read the thread again as I never said an instructor does not learn from students. You both went off in a tangent of misinterpitation.

[Bumblebee]

Yes, martial does refer to combat.
DO also refers to a way of life.

Since combat is against an enemy, what percentage of time compared to your career do you spend in actual combat? How many real, life threatening, altercations do you get into every week? You know, the ones that really prove that your style/instructor/class are the best, true way, real self defense... WHATEVER

You may wish to study some of the ancient phylosophers... The winner is not the man that fights a thousand fights and wins... but the man who has the oppertunity to fight a thousand fights and does not!

As for the doctor analogy, why go? That is the humor in your argument and this so-called logic that some use:

I'm going to go to a doctor and pay money and tell him what I'm going to do! Why because I'm a free thinker. No ones going to tell me what to do. I controll what I learn and when. And yes the doctor will look at the ceiling, smile, and bill you anyway as you are wasting their time also...

Unfortunately today this is known as "Survival of the unfitist"

But Carol and you may wish to go back and read the thread again as I never said an instructor does not learn from students. You both went off in a tangent of misinterpitation.

Combat isn't always a life or death situation. I'll give you the Do part of your argument, because I'm agreeing with you on that, but in general you fight in martial arts. I'm not just talking about Taekwondo. You can call it sparring if you want, but if you look at it, it's still a fight. A practice fight, but still a fight.

I'll look into the ancient philosophers, I don't know what that has to do with the debate we're having, but I'll check them out.

Now for the doctor analogy, did I say that I go to a doctor with my opinion and decide that I'm already going to go through with it? I don't recall that. I'll need to re-read what I wrote, but I don't remember writing visiting a doctor with a sprained ankle and say "I'm going to just rest it, ice it, wrap it, and elevate it. That okay with you?" No, because I don't view myself as an idiot. I was stating what is law. I'm saying that if you do go see a doctor and you tell him, "I have a sprained ankle, I'm going to have it amputated." The doctor is required by law to tell you he doesn't think it's a good idea. He can't just walk out on you telling you that you're a waste of his time. He'd lose his license. Not everyone is House.


I have never been to a class with my instructor where he has said, ok teach me.

This is what I was referring to in my arguments about an instructor not learning from a student.

[Kacey]

Combat isn't always a life or death situation. I'll give you the Do part of your argument, because I'm agreeing with you on that, but in general you fight in martial arts. I'm not just talking about Taekwondo. You can call it sparring if you want, but if you look at it, it's still a fight. A practice fight, but still a fight.

Sparring is a game, and the name of the game is win points. Like any game, sparring has rules - no matter how hard and heavy you go, when was the last time someone was truly, seriously, intentionally injured in a sparring match? Bruises? Sure, all the time. Broken ribs? It's happened. Concussions? More common in competition than in class, at least in my experience. But serious injuries, inflicted with the deliberate intention to cause serious bodily harm, are not allowed by the rules.

Combat is something different. Certainly, the definition of combat can include conflict between individuals - which does, technically, include sparring. But the implications of combat are different, and the way I use the term combat does not include sparring as one of the options. There is only one rule in combat, and that rule is win or die. That's a totally different scenario than sparring in class or tournaments - even in Sabaki tournaments, there are rules that go beyond win or die, intended to maintain the safety of the fighters to a certain extent.

As an instructor - to get back to the topic as I originally posted it - I have a responsibility to my students, to protect them from themselves and each other until they reach the point where they can spar in a realistic and yet controlled manner - because sparring, as I said, has rules, designed to protect the participants. I teach my students to spar; I teach them to avoid combat whenever possible, through avoidance, through verbal de-escalation of potential violence, and so on. It is my responsibility to equip them, as best I can, to first avoid conflict that could lead to combat, but, if combat cannot be avoided, to escape as unscathed as possible.

Combat has a different set of rules, which are designed to bring victory to one side, and defeat to the other. Defeat does not have to mean death for the defeated - although it can - but losing a sparring match, no matter the rules or the stakes - is not, or at least should not, be a life or death, win or die situation the way combat is. If that's what you're training for, join the armed forces, because they need you - people who are truly willing to die for their country are an asset beyond measure. But if you're training in MA, and you think that sparring and combat are the same thing, you need to sit down and rethink what you're doing, and why, and then have a long talk about the subject with your instructor... and then you need to go talk to some veterans from the armed forces who have seen actual combat, or some LEOs, and find out what the differences truly are.