Listing Your Instructors

[clfsean]

Eh... my teacher... not famous or notable... except to his students.

His teachers... different story altogether. However, they are not my teachers. I've studied with one of them while visiting him in SF or vice versa for a couple of visits, but not of any consequential time.

I've met a lot of people through my teacher, learned a lot of different things thanks to him & people he knows, but I've not studied with them.

Seminar wise... I don't do them precisely due to the wanker-iffic reasons listed here. Although when I was in the Buj, I did get my picture takens with SKH at a Tai Kai.

 

[dancingalone]

And if you still have YOUR instructor, I'd say you ought to be doing it the way HE tells you to. Otherwise, why is he your instructor at all?

It was common in Okinawan karate for students to study under multiple sensei, getting something from each teacher. Presumably there would be conflict at times which would lead the student to making an internal reconciliation for himself.

Is it so different in Chinese martial arts? Most of the serious CMA people I know have studied multiple styles, often at a minimum one external system along with at least some time in an internal one - frequently not with the same teacher. Surely there is some overlap and resulting technique conflict there.

 

[clfsean]

It was common in Okinawan karate for students to study under multiple sensei, getting something from each teacher. Presumably there would be conflict at times which would lead the student to making an internal reconciliation for himself.

Is it so different in Chinese martial arts? Most of the serious CMA people I know have studied multiple styles, often at a minimum one external system along with at least some time in an internal one - frequently not with the same teacher. Surely there is some overlap and resulting technique conflict there.

Not so much really. Especially if the styles are vastly different... say... Zha Quan (Northern Longfist) & Jook Lum Praying Mantis (Hakka Southern). They are as different, save obvious ideas & such, as helicopters & airplanes.

It's one thing to study "different" things, but to go do the same thing or version of or whatever, that's a little different.

 

[Flying Crane]

It was common in Okinawan karate for students to study under multiple sensei, getting something from each teacher. Presumably there would be conflict at times which would lead the student to making an internal reconciliation for himself.

Is it so different in Chinese martial arts? Most of the serious CMA people I know have studied multiple styles, often at a minimum one external system along with at least some time in an internal one - frequently not with the same teacher. Surely there is some overlap and resulting technique conflict there.

yeah, Sean's got it right. And even if you are studying different things, you may find elements and principles and philosophies (or at least practice methods) that contradict each other. In that case, the best choice may be to only do one system and not the other. This is something that the individual must decide for himself. I am of the belief that by far, most people who practice several systems fool themselves into believing that they are doing them all well, but most do not actually do so.

In the past, my Sihing studied under some other sifus in White Crane, these other sifus were friends of our sifu. Now he often grumbles about how things are changed and different. Sifu says, "This is how you do it". And Sihing says (on the side), "yeah, it's frustrating for me, because I've learned several different versions of this from the other teachers in the past, it gets mixed up sometimes".

 

[WC_lun]

Studying different systems can be frustrating. I studied animal style kung fu for many years under an instructor. I parted ways with him and eventually found my current Wing Chun instructor. Now I find myself having to train certain things out of my muscle memory because those things make me move in ways contra to good Wing Chun principles. I've been with my current instructor for many years, yet am continiously discovering things from the old system that I must retrain. I know it is frustrating for my instructor too. However, if it wasn't for my previous training, I would have no idea of how skilled my current instructor is and might not have taken advantage of the oppurtunity to train with him when offered. I guess in some ways it is a catch 22.

 

[Flying Crane]

However, if it wasn't for my previous training, I would have no idea of how skilled my current instructor is and might not have taken advantage of the oppurtunity to train with him when offered. I guess in some ways it is a catch 22.

I know the feeling. I was grumbling about time wasted training in other things in my past. A friend pointed out that without that experience I would not have the perspective to recognize the quality of training I am finally getting.

 

[dancingalone]

yeah, Sean's got it right. And even if you are studying different things, you may find elements and principles and philosophies (or at least practice methods) that contradict each other. In that case, the best choice may be to only do one system and not the other. This is something that the individual must decide for himself. I am of the belief that by far, most people who practice several systems fool themselves into believing that they are doing them all well, but most do not actually do so.

I share this opinion myself. Can you explain this inconsistency to me? I've been told by more than one CMA sifu (from different lineages and systems in fact) that they believe you should learn an external style AND an internal style. Examples like Hung Gar and Yang Tai Chi Chuan which seem fairly opposite to me in training methods and philosophies... What gives? These guys aren't yahoos and are fairly well known regionally in the MA world if I were to mention their names which I won't do out of respect.

 

[Buka]

The idea of studying one style, and one style only, for a lifetime, is just foreign to me. If that's all that's available, sure, or if that's the only quality school/instructor around, fine. But, man, there's just SO MUCH to the Martial Arts world. I make all my long time students go to other schools, gyms and Instructors.

Training and learning Martial Arts is fun.

 

[clfsean]

I share this opinion myself. Can you explain this inconsistency to me? I've been told by more than one CMA sifu (from different lineages and systems in fact) that they believe you should learn an external style AND an internal style. Examples like Hung Gar and Yang Tai Chi Chuan which seem fairly opposite to me in training methods and philosophies... What gives? These guys aren't yahoos and are fairly well known regionally in the MA world if I were to mention their names which I won't do out of respect.

My thoughts on this is that you can't study one or the other exclusively (internal/external). They are inclusive of each other. Power generation, real power generation, is internal only & CMA's express this & take advantage of it. Which that in itself is just proper body mechanics tuned, focused & expressed fully. But there's the school that focuses on it almost exclusively, playing down the "external" & vice versa.

Two things that appear to be opposite are good compliments at times, like your Hung Ga/Yang Taiji example. Hung Ga is decidedly a "yang" style & Taiji a "yin" style. But CLF & Wing Chun wouldn't necessarily work well together. Power generation & engagement theories & application are different. Sure they can be used together, but they will fight each other because of what your body wants to do with one or the other of them. On the other hand Hung Ga/Yang would blend nicely together in the same body shell. But FMA/Wing Chun would play nice together because they share the same principles in large part, but are different enough to maintain their exclusivity in method & manner, similar to Hung Ga/Taiji.

When systems are too similar to each other, you get almost the same issue as too different. Pak Hok & CLF are pretty closely related, but are different enough to not be confused for the other. However, that similarity would cause issues in keeping them separate with the body. One or the other would eventually override the other while it initially made it a simple & easy pickup.

Also what most CMA teachers will tell you about the idea of another style or so... is only after one is down pat. Hardly ever at the same time and what I've found is one is for public practice & one is for private practice. Even if they teach both (or more), one of them is done because it's been done so long & so much it's automatic. That one requires very little thought or effort to practice & produce results. The other one is for them to actually work on & learn about what they already do & know. It will let them relearn what they already know.

I'm sure there's more & I probably could ramble more, but that's my take in a high level nutshell.

 

[Flying Crane]

I share this opinion myself. Can you explain this inconsistency to me? I've been told by more than one CMA sifu (from different lineages and systems in fact) that they believe you should learn an external style AND an internal style. Examples like Hung Gar and Yang Tai Chi Chuan which seem fairly opposite to me in training methods and philosophies... What gives? These guys aren't yahoos and are fairly well known regionally in the MA world if I were to mention their names which I won't do out of respect.

Sean again is making some solid comments.

In my own experience, I train Tibetan White Crane. I also learned some Northern Shaolin Longfist material. They both train a turning of the waist to develop power. But specifically HOW they turn the waist, and HOW FAR they turn is different. On the surface, it seems like, Hey, they both turn the waist, so it's all the same. But it really isn't. When I would practice one system, I was developing habits that were actually WRONG for the other system, even tho there was that fundamental similarity. So my White Crane was wrong, and my Shaolin was wrong, and it's because I wasn't quite doing either one properly because what I was doing was in between them both.

As Sean mentioned, Taiji is often trained with other systems, and I think that tends to be a good idea in many cases. In my own experience, I trained taiji for maybe ten years and I finally realized I simply don't understand it. I don't understand the power source and how it all comes together. It didn't make sense to mimic the forms any more and pretend to "do taiji". Instead, my time and energy is better spent on White Crane, which ultimately will give me all the benefits of Taiji as well, if I just make a full commitment to it.

 

[MJS]

I suppose I might say parenthetically that I "attended a seminar" taught by so-and-so, but I'd make certain that I was not insinuating that there was an ongoing instructor/student relationship.

Sure, nothing wrong with that. I've done that myself.

 

[Carol]

Something I've noticed is that resume "puffery" doesn't just occur with seminars. It also seems to occur with training buddies when they each teach a different system. Some have even been brash enough to come online and say stuff like "X and I are good friends, he shows me some of his stuff, I show him some of my stuff", and then they mention each others arts as part of their collective training.

This really makes my hair stand on end. One of my old teachers trained/trains with a longtime friend of his, and when his friend promoted my old teacher, he presented the certificate during a special celebration to the school. There were certain factors about that promotion that made it particularly significant. It was a very intimate and emotional thing to see, I really cherish the memories of being there and playing a part in the school.

When I see other guys log training in (whatever), just because he and a bud got together to trade riffs, it just really seems to cheapen the process in my eyes. Not that I see anything wrong with getting together...I have an outdoor training group and every one of us is from a different background. Its a motley crew to be sure, but I'd never say I trained in any of their systems because we slapped leather.

 

[Buka]

I'm curious as to why someone wouldn't want to have their picture taken with someone, like someone teaching a seminar you are attending. The older you get, the more you wish you had more photos to remind you of the moments you spent. I suppose if it was a lousy time, you wouldn't want to be reminded. But if it was a positive experience, that captured moment in time will resonate in your soul many decades later.

I cherish the photos I have, but, God, I wish I had taken more pictures.

 

[MJS]

I'm curious as to why someone wouldn't want to have their picture taken with someone, like someone teaching a seminar you are attending. The older you get, the more you wish you had more photos to remind you of the moments you spent. I suppose if it was a lousy time, you wouldn't want to be reminded. But if it was a positive experience, that captured moment in time will resonate in your soul many decades later.

I cherish the photos I have, but, God, I wish I had taken more pictures.

Theres nothing wrong with that. I've done it myself. However, its how the pics. are used afterwards. Me....I dont post the pics, hang them up, etc. Has nothing to do with being ashamed. I just dont want people thinking that the people that I'm in the pics with are my regular everyday teachers that I train with on a regular basis.

 

[tshadowchaser]

I agree it's Puffery.


Having had to list my instructor for a couple organizations that wanted my back ground in the arts, because I would be doing seminars for them, along with doing security checks on me I always list only those instructors that I spend a lot of time with. I never list anyone that I had seminars with because I am not their student I am only an attendee at something I paid for and they happened to be the instructor.
Listing people whom one has only attended a seminar with is only padding ones history. You might as well list people you have never even met.
Now I know most folks never check on a persons credentials and that makes it easy for the unscrupulous to make false statements and delude the public (and their students) and you should hear some of the answers they give when someone dose do a background check on those certificates on the wall.

 

[VegasM4]

Found it interesting how many people list their 'instructors' including people from whom they have taken a seminar or briefly attended training with.

From my point of view, my 'instructors' are those people who, if asked, know my name and would say that yes, I was or am a student of theirs.

As such, I can only list one martial arts instructor, along with perhaps the two senior sensei who teach for him. I would not list the sensei whom I trained with for a month whilst on vacation in another state, nor the sensei with whom I took a seminar last summer, even though they did contribute to my understanding of my art and helped me very much. I would not, for example, list Angi Uezo Sensei, even though I worked with him in Okinawa when I was in the Marines; he was a security guard and I was an MP on the same base; we knew each other, but I never set foot in his dojo, nor was I his student in any sense.

Is it then legitimate to list everyone with whom you've received any kind of martial arts training as your 'instructor', or is this just puffery?

I actually trained with Master Angi Uezu and received my Green Belt in IsshinRyu from him. I trained with him at his school in Gushikawa City outside Camp Courtney. Although I remember him, I doubt he would remember me.

Semper Fi,

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I actually trained with Master Angi Uezu and received my Green Belt in IsshinRyu from him. I trained with him at his school in Gushikawa City outside Camp Courtney. Although I remember him, I doubt he would remember me.

Semper Fi,

Semper Fi, bro.

 

[chinto]

If I was asked who my instructors were, I would name my direct Sensei's and no one else. to do other wise is dishonest in my opinion.

 

[Buka]

If I was asked who my instructors were, I would name my direct Sensei's and no one else. to do other wise is dishonest in my opinion.

Yes, if that was your only instructor.
If I were asked to name my instructors, I would name them. To leave any of them out would be disrespectful, both to the living and especially to the memory of the ones who have passed.

 

[WC_lun]

I know this sounds odd, but I understand more now about my Tai chi and Animal Style training, due to my current Wing Chun training. The holes in what I understood about both the Tai chi and Animal system were mostly filled when I started training with my current instructor. He doesn't play the mystical sifu. He explains things in reference to human anatomy and physics. I can relate to and understand things easier with this and was able to make connections to my previous training that I had not been able to make before.

There is no Chinese system that is purely one thing or another. Good Tai Chi is never completely soft or yielding. Good Hung Gar is never completly hard and agressive. However, many times students take on the characteristics of a system too much, swinging to far into hard or soft. At that point, training in a system that is predominantly the other can have beneficial effects for the student. I am a proponent of only one system until you understand that system very well and have the body mechanics of that system in your muscle memory. Otherwise you just wind up working twice as hard for half of the results.