my thoughts on "formal"

[Flatlander]

I totally agree with all of your post (particularly the spelling), except this bit here;

The difference between a teacher and an instructor is what you just imparted: those who want to clone themselves or turn out a small army are instructors - anyone can do that. A Teacher is one who challenges you and teaches you about those nasty, little hidden parts of you that limit your thinking and helps you blast them apart of your own volition. [/color]


Respectfully,
She-Sulsa

Honestly, I think the difference between instructor and teacher is semantics. I refer to him as my instructor all the time, and I would say that he falls under your definition of Teacher quite nicely. I don't think that we can judge KJK's instructor's instructional abilities based upon how KJK refers to him (Teacher, Istructor, Sifu, Grandmaster Flash, insert, insert.) IMHO.

Respectfully,

 

[shesulsa]

Honestly, I think the difference between instructor and teacher is semantics. I refer to him as my instructor all the time, and I would say that he falls under your definition of Teacher quite nicely. I don't think that we can judge KJK's instructor's instructional abilities based upon how KJK refers to him (Teacher, Istructor, Sifu, Grandmaster Flash, insert, insert.) IMHO./QUOTE]

Well, yes, I think most people are accustomed to using the term "instructor" - and you're right, that we can't judge his instructor's abilities based on how someone refers to him.

I suppose I should add the caveate that this is how I think about instructors and teachers and the difference between the two. There are both kinds at our school - mine just happens to teach me rather than instruct me...I'm inferring a closer relationship with teacher than instructor.

 

[Katsu Jin Ken]

#1: "Weither or not they admit it or not is the difference between honesty(truth) and deception(untruth) of ones self. Honestly expressing yourself is the key. Weither the expression is hypocriticaly of what your originally speaking on or not doesnt matter. Controdictions(hypocriticism) is apart of the growth of a human as truth is reviled the falsehoods left behind will be what we call controdictions, i call growth from puberity to maturity in MA."

Okay, I assume this is all a big dialogue basically meaning, "I'm just gonna say what I feel."

#2: "I have come to a point in MA formal training where i have nothing left i feel to learn from them(this is for fighting and self defense purposes, now id love to go to China or somewhere to train in the old ways but not for self defense or fighting)"

But...contradictions....are you a student or a master? If you are a student, you cannot know everything...even masters do not know everything. And there are plenty of masters here in the US who can train you in the old ways.

#3: "Ive found truth in religion and mylife im finding it in the martial arts."

Really? In my humble opinion, truth = perspective. You will only find truth in death, young one.

#4: "Seems like all the instructors ive seen on TV and in person want a mimic of themselves. They dont want you to do the techniques in a confortable manner, they want it done text book fashion. I dont see the probably in doing a "untext book" technique if it is effective for the purpose your using it for. Why would you want to put yourself in a position you dont feel comfortable with from the get go, apply the technique, and hope that someday with enough repetition, you'll be comfortable. Why not just make a slight variation and do it "your way" the most comfortable yet efficient way you can? Hope this makes sense. I dont mean to offend anyone. You all have some thoughts?

The difference between a teacher and an instructor is what you just imparted: those who want to clone themselves or turn out a small army are instructors - anyone can do that. A Teacher is one who challenges you and teaches you about those nasty, little hidden parts of you that limit your thinking and helps you blast them apart of your own volition.

Part of finding "truth" to your art is finding techniques that work for you and modifying them slightly to work for your particular build and how you match up against someone larger, smaller, stronger, more flexible, etcetera.

Suggestions:

#1 Speak with your teachers about your current feelings. I'm sure they can come up with a solution for you.

#2 If you REALLY want to learn your art - teach blind kids, deaf kids, physically challenged individuals - especially since you are interested in modification to suit individuals. You'll be surprised at what you don't yet know.

#3 Take a summer sabbatical and live in someone's dojo (far away from home) under a summer apprenticeship program.

#4 Be prepared that once you have studied for a long time, you find new things rarer and it becomes up to you to try new things, new arts, new weapons. Try a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT art - I assume you are into Wing Chung?

#5 Free your mind and the rest will follow.

#6 Work on your spelling before it's too late.

Respectfully,
She-Sulsa

#1: I use "Big Dialogue" when I feel it suits the message that is being sent. "I'm just gonna say what I feel"- I guess that is one way of putting it. Mostly close minded people but still you could say it that way.

#2: What is the difference between student and master? If a master doesnt still have the ability to learn from the students, he won't be a complete master anyway.

#3: Your right.

#4: I've freed my mind, appariently you have not. Work on my spelling? Atleast I can spell Chun (Chung).

 

[shesulsa]

You asked.

 

[FasterthanDeath]

I have a couple of questions. 1. Have you ever been in a self-defense situation?(streetfight, bar fight, mugged) 2. Why is it that you feel that noone here in the US can teach you anything? Have you visited every instructor in the US? If so, I missed you. 3. Any why feel at the age of 21 you must quit with just one art? There are many arts each with different variations and weapons. Have you studied them as well?

 

[Katsu Jin Ken]

I have a couple of questions. 1. Have you ever been in a self-defense situation?(streetfight, bar fight, mugged) 2. Why is it that you feel that noone here in the US can teach you anything? Have you visited every instructor in the US? If so, I missed you. 3. Any why feel at the age of 21 you must quit with just one art? There are many arts each with different variations and weapons. Have you studied them as well?

1. Yes, to many to count.

2. Quality wise, I dont feel we are up to the standard. But we are getting there.

3. Why take more than one art? To be a "complete MAist" or "have the perfect art learned"? Why strive for something that cannot be achieved? Perfection is unobtainable. What would you be able to learn in your lifetime? 1 2 3 4 arts out of what 1000s?

I understand what you are trying to say. You must defend yourself because you are sifu. But compared to the grandmasters the real ones in china/japan the american teachers are subpar.

I have a question for you. Why is it that 90% of all the instructors i have ever talked to in any traditional art have a very hard time understanding the concept of "way"? Why is it that "aliveness in motion" is no longer taught? Most of the MMA instructors understand this which suprised me. But still most TMA American instructors do not why is that?

 

[loki09789]

I understand what you are trying to say. You must defend yourself because you are sifu. But compared to the grandmasters the real ones in china/japan the american teachers are subpar.

I have a question for you. Why is it that 90% of all the instructors i have ever talked to in any traditional art have a very hard time understanding the concept of "way"? Why is it that "aliveness in motion" is no longer taught? Most of the MMA instructors understand this which suprised me. But still most TMA American instructors do not why is that?

As if ALL oriental instructors are devoid of human failings like ego, apathy, lust, greed....please give me a break. Even the slocky action theater movies work from the reality that oriental instructors/masters are as human as the rest of us.

If American "masters" are subpar, why is it that there was such an uproar over the TKD Olympic decision when an American, by all critics account, won on merit of points and skill, yet the Korean hosted and staffed judging panel awarded the win to a Korean? Why is it that I have personally met/competed against an American who studies FMA and fought in the PI and won because Filipino 'masters' refused to fight him after watching his earlier matches? Why did an American White belt, while stationed in Okinawa, win by default in a full contact Kumite against Okinawan 'masters' because of the same thing?

I don't think there is any lack of American Quality in martial arts. I think that there is an over emphasis on marketing martial arts in America - and the world as a whole. You want someone to blame for the downfall of martial quality, blame civilization, technology, peace, Action film industry, performance based arts instead of martial based arts, Tae Bo..... but it isn't just an American problem or an Eastern problem.

It is basically a problem of immediacy and goal. People don't 'need' martial arts for the same reasons they did when there were constant attacks, political instabilty and spiritual pursuits to explain and comfort people in a time of high infant mortallity rates and short life expectancies. Now martial arts, as a service industry tool, has been redefined by a whole slew of goals - personal esteem building, fitness, character building, kids will get better grades, sterile/sporting applications that have very little to do with the combat roots that they draw from.... oh and by the way you can learn to defend yourself too.

If it will take 'going old school' to an age of anarchy, lower quality of life and plague to improve the quality of my kicking and punching at the expense of my tactical sense..... no thanks. My tool box is more well rounded than just being loaded with hammers.

 

[Flatlander]

Why is it that 90% of all the instructors i have ever talked to in any traditional art have a very hard time understanding the concept of "way"?

What about the other 10%? Have you learned all they have to show you?

Why strive for something that cannot be achieved? Perfection is unobtainable.

It sounds to me as though you have made the choice here to quit training. Should you continue to self - train yourself, I only ask that in the future you do not invent your own next best thing, and attempt to teach it to unsuspecting people as something new or wonderful. Your perspective on this issue is one of assumed knowledge, rather than desire for growth, and the MA community doesn't need any more of this.

I mean no offense here. But it sounds to me that you are quite young, yet. (I could be wrong.) I also think that if you are passionate enough about the arts to have come and opened yourself up here, searching for ideas, that you will one day go back to training. You can't help it man! It's an addiction!

 

[FasterthanDeath]

I agree with flatlander. It does sound like you have chosen to stop training. A MA cannot be a expert and or master of all techniques. Just a few. But many do seek to be master of all techniques which is possible just very hard to do. It seems to me that you look at the tallest mountain and instead of climbing it you say, well I've climbed every other mountain here, whats that one compared to the all the other ones? Its there. To be climbed, to be learned, to be conquered! You can never know too much, and if they are many arts out there it seems to me that they WILL always have something to teach you. MMA know what aliveness with motion is because most of them fight in real serious competition. And by going oversees and learning there wont change anything, Take a MMA or do some prizefighting. You will see that even men who are not MA have something to teach you about fighting and MA.

 

[Katsu Jin Ken]

I dont plan on teaching. That was never my intent. I dont plan on quitting training either. I just dont think you all understand, and I don't know how to explain it any better. You are your own best teacher. Instructors are their to observe you, tell you what your weaknesses are that you dont see. See the thing i dont like about cross training in anyother art would be the "unlearning process". If the art is completely different that the one you are currently mastering then you have to be untrained in order to learn how to execute the moves of the new art properly.
Everyone criticizes people who "create their own art", but I think thats great. Aslong as the they are open and honest with the students (if any) they are teaching I don't see a problem with it. I mean someone had to create the first one, and the second, and so on. People are close minded anymore, stuck in the old ways. You have to do this, or that, or that over there to be a "master". All of the posts previous are just my opinons, please I hope not to have offended anyone.

 

[FasterthanDeath]

Thats how it is now a days. People do create their own arts. And people are ousted and slandered for doing it. But at the sametime others who create their own art, and the art is not effective are promoted and appreciated all over the place. Its a double sided sword when it comes to branching out and making your own art, but as far as being your own instructor you are limited to only what you know, and since you do not know everything, how can you learn anymore?

 

[Flatlander]

Everyone criticizes people who "create their own art", but I think thats great. Aslong as the they are open and honest with the students (if any) they are teaching I don't see a problem with it. I mean someone had to create the first one, and the second, and so on.

I honestly believe that the likelyhood someone could "create their own art" is slim, and becomes impossible for anyone who has trained in only 1 art. I would call this re-hashing. Look. It's all just movement. Do you think it's possible to find a new way to move that no one in the past 5000 years has already figured out and incorporated into their martial system? My opinion is that this activity of "creating" one's own "new" art is for people who haven't the diligence to continue training and need their ego stroked now, and use it as a tool to justify being able to open up a school and start to get paid.

Now, having said that, there have been a few extremely talented and revolutionary people who have managed to, over the course of decades of training under numerous styles and skilled teachers, gleaned new insight into the symmetries of martial movement and come up with really good ideas. But, in all likelyhood, this degree fo skill and insight is not born in front of a keyboard.

Thats how it is now a days. People do create their own arts. And people are ousted and slandered for doing it. But at the sametime others who create their own art, and the art is not effective are promoted and appreciated all over the place. Its a double sided sword when it comes to branching out and making your own art, but as far as being your own instructor you are limited to only what you know, and since you do not know everything, how can you learn anymore?

This post almost made sense. But honestly, I'm not sure what your point is here.

When someone proclaims publicly that they have created a new art, and they manage to get some students, and they train, and life goes on, when you look at global picture, it really shouldn't matter to me. But it does. Because you are diluting an already watered down "martial reality". The fact is, all arts are kung fu based, or karate based, or (insert art here) based, or what have you. The differences between one "master's" expression of that art and another's does not warrant a re-naming of the system. This is the manifestation of the art.

So we end up evolving into a time where we have nearly a differently named art for every instructor out there? Is this the way you gentlemen think we should go? Does this add to the integrity of the martial arts in general? Is this the way to honour your teacher?

That's it. I need a smoke.

 

[Flatlander]

In addition, I would like to add...

If one were to "create a new art", I believe there are some important criteria which must be met:

1 - The "inventor" must have realized some new fundamental principle which has, prior to now, been undiscovered, overlooked, and otherwise not taught by anyone, anywhere.

2 - Recieved training and significant ranking in various arts, from various experts within those arts, to gain a wholistic knowledege of what else is going on out there.

3 - Tested their "new artform" in a reality based scenario. I mean sparring Dan Inosanto, pulling out your blade and going at Kelly Worden, grappling with a Gracie, etc, in order to prove the validity of the artform, and its usefulness.

If the "inventor" is still alive after this endeavor, I believe that they should then attempt to train some students in these new principles, and then send them out to test this new art, so it can be shown that it was in fact the art that was valid, and not just an incredibly skilled artist. The artform must be transmittable, otherwise, what's the point?

I don't think that these are particularly realistic expectations, but then, I don't believe there are many people who can legitimately claim to have created an honest artform. It's all been done.

Thank you.

 

[Touch Of Death]

In addition, I would like to add...

If one were to "create a new art", I believe there are some important criteria which must be met:

1 - The "inventor" must have realized some new fundamental principle which has, prior to now, been undiscovered, overlooked, and otherwise not taught by anyone, anywhere.

2 - Recieved training and significant ranking in various arts, from various experts within those arts, to gain a wholistic knowledege of what else is going on out there.

3 - Tested their "new artform" in a reality based scenario. I mean sparring Dan Inosanto, pulling out your blade and going at Kelly Worden, grappling with a Gracie, etc, in order to prove the validity of the artform, and its usefulness.

If the "inventor" is still alive after this endeavor, I believe that they should then attempt to train some students in these new principles, and then send them out to test this new art, so it can be shown that it was in fact the art that was valid, and not just an incredibly skilled artist. The artform must be transmittable, otherwise, what's the point?

I don't think that these are particularly realistic expectations, but then, I don't believe there are many people who can legitimately claim to have created an honest artform. It's all been done.

Thank you.

Your criteria aren't exactly required. If someone is capable of finding a better way to teach more people how to excell at any given art, that "better way" is a new system. Why is it a new system? because traditionalists will reject it because the guy wasn't the right race, creed, or nationality. So, essentialy the new way loses its original identity. The inventor can settle for third rate joke status, or sell it as new.
Sean

 

[Flatlander]

If someone is capable of finding a better way to teach more people how to excell at any given art,

Then are they not still doing the original artform?

Why is it a new system? because traditionalists will reject it because the guy wasn't the right race, creed, or nationality.

But still, the artform is the same as someone else's. This seems to be more addressing the problem of gaining credentials or rank. The fact is, if I go learn Wing chun, but he teacher will not promote me to the rank necessary to validate my ability to teach for whatever reason, and I choose to go teach others, I'm still teaching them Wing chun.

The inventor can settle for third rate joke status, or sell it as new.

The quality of instruction should stand on its own. I don't think we need to rename something because we can't "sell" it in its original package. Its a good marketing tactic, but I don't think this, in the end, enhances anyone's credibility.

 

[Katsu Jin Ken]

In addition, I would like to add...

If one were to "create a new art", I believe there are some important criteria which must be met:

1 - The "inventor" must have realized some new fundamental principle which has, prior to now, been undiscovered, overlooked, and otherwise not taught by anyone, anywhere.

2 - Recieved training and significant ranking in various arts, from various experts within those arts, to gain a wholistic knowledege of what else is going on out there.

3 - Tested their "new artform" in a reality based scenario. I mean sparring Dan Inosanto, pulling out your blade and going at Kelly Worden, grappling with a Gracie, etc, in order to prove the validity of the artform, and its usefulness.

If the "inventor" is still alive after this endeavor, I believe that they should then attempt to train some students in these new principles, and then send them out to test this new art, so it can be shown that it was in fact the art that was valid, and not just an incredibly skilled artist. The artform must be transmittable, otherwise, what's the point?

I don't think that these are particularly realistic expectations, but then, I don't believe there are many people who can legitimately claim to have created an honest artform. It's all been done.

Thank you.

EXACTLY! I think you have to prove its usefulness in comp. or its just another one of the billions of self defense institutes that cant hold water. I mean if you want to learn self defense why not just take up a MA? MA was created for self defense right?

Im not an idiot, i know that i still have things to learn, but if i can pinpoint those things that im weak in and find the means to fix them. Im half way there.

 

[Flatlander]

Awesome dude. I think that's the whole point of this website. Working together to find solutions.

 

[Flatlander]

Again, I sound like an infomercial.