Who was your master

[JR 137]

Having a traceable lineage is important and tells prospective students that the person they intend to be learning from has been through an independent promotion process themselves. It should tell them how long that person has been training, under whom and how long it took to achieve each level. Sure, some of the names initially may be unknown but with a little research on the net or through people that 'should' know, a lineage can be verified and the quality of instruction can be determined (on the surface) before even taking one class.

Is it a guarantee that the school is right for you ? No. There is no guarantee that the instructor(s) is a good teacher. That should be determined by taking a few classes but it can tell you that the instructor is probably not making it up as (s)he goes along and that their may be an independent verification of the quality of the MA being taught at this school if they continue to belong to the mother association.

My teacher was promoted to 7th dan by Tadashi Nakamura. He’s teaching Seido Karate. He started training under Tadashi Nakamura (initially under a direct student of Nakamura, under Nakamura directly since 1987) since 1973 or 1974, while Nakamura was still in Kyokushin. He has taught many people in my area who’ve gone on to open their own dojos.

He wasn’t all elaborate about it on his website, but he listed his teacher and how long he’s been training. That got me to make visiting his dojo a priority. There are some places around me who don’t list that stuff. I outright dismissed some of them and visited others for various reasons. Then there were ones who’s resume is all fluff when reading between the lines. One said “promoted to 8th dan by X school.” X School was his school, and it’s the only one, with about 40 students. Self promotion.

My teacher’s credentials got me to visit. Speaking to him in person and watching him teach got me to sign up. What continues to go on is keeping me there. He could’ve been a bad teacher with his credentials. Unlikely but possible. He could’ve ran a dojo full of ninja turtle wannabe kids. He could’ve done a lot of other things I didn’t want any part of. But he doesn’t. And that’s why I’m there. I would’ve went to someone else with lesser credentials if I thought that teacher and dojo overall was a better fit for me.

 

[Danny T]

I used to list my instructors.
I no longer do. But am willing to discuss them. I've had more people tell me that having that listing actually stopped them from coming in. When asked why? Most felt I had to be exaggerating my training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do not think I have ever heard anyone except a westerner introduce themselves with a title.
I introduce myself to new students by my name. Nothing more.

As a matter of fact, the only person who I expect to call me Master is Mrs Dog.

And she just rolls her eyes when I tell her that's what I expect, so...

Yeah, it happens a lot in Aikido and the related arts (like NGA). Folks refer to themselves as Sensei Smith or Shihan Brown. Drives me a little bit nuts. I actually kind of prefer just first names in class, but I'm used to being called by last name (either "Mr. Seymour" or "Sensei Seymour" or "Seymour Sensei") as an instructor. When I visit my old school, I get the Mr./title treatment. My own students are less consistent.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In all fairness to the OP, I think the teacher listing his teacher(s) does have some significance. If I don’t know anything about the instructor in question and/or the art or organization, it may help me understand what he’s teaching. More so, it tells who promoted him or if he promoted himself. It does give or take away some credibility.

People come here and ask if a school is good or not quite often. The universal answer is go and visit. But when we’re checking a website, we almost always look at the teacher’s bio. How many times have we said “he’s a black belt under X, which is a good thing”? Especially in BJJ. How many times have we said “it looks like he’s promoted himself to X dan and gave himself a title”? Before we start saying a teacher’s teacher etc. is irrelevant, we should ask ourselves how many times we’ve given advice about a school/teacher we haven’t heard of.

What’s going on on the floor is absolutely the most important thing. We pretty much always follow up with that, but don’t say we don’t look at the teacher’s credentials, which who’s taught and promoted him is a part of that. Some arts far more than others.

If I were to claim 3rd dan in BJJ and someone came here looking for information about me and my school, don’t think for a second this place and many others wouldn’t have a field day with it if they thought I was full of crap. They’d think I was full of crap if they’ve never heard of me and I didn’t list who I was a black belt under and/or who he was a black belt under if that person wasn’t one of the big names. Same if I had a website claiming X dan in karate and gave no description about the style, organization, and who promoted me to that rank. Same for any art and rank I claimed.

Pull up many threads asking about many arts where the teacher’s credentials are questionable as proof. Pull up many threads where someone used the title Soke or the like.

Overall and as a whole, we’ve shown practically no respect for the self promoted people. We’ve said go visit, but we’ve been quite suspicious of them. And rightfully so.

That was my point earlier - it can be useful, but only if you already know something about what is listed there. My current rank is a translation from where I was in the NGAA to my curriculum. So, nobody granted me the rank, nor did I promote myself. I know some folks who were promoted by folks they don't train with, without testing, often including someone from outside their art. Posting that promotion on their website would seem meaningful, unless you know the circumstances and understand that it's an honorary rank (that's typical within mainline NGA), and really doesn't matter either way.

I personally have no issue with people promoting themselves in honorary levels, if they do it reasonably. I had one instructor I know suggest that to me - just keep my rank until I have a student ready to rise to that rank, then raise myself one rank. Since the rank really has no meaning if you're independent, I can see no harm in that, though I didn't choose that path. To me, it's as innocuous as a TKD school advertising Karate, because that markets better in their area.

So, for BJJ, posting lineage can be a helpful thing. Their lineages are easier to track - more visible - and it's not hard to find someone who can verify if the lineage appears legitimate. For less-open arts, fragmented arts with multiple associations that don't get along, etc., the information can be less than enlightening.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Having a traceable lineage is important and tells prospective students that the person they intend to be learning from has been through an independent promotion process themselves. It should tell them how long that person has been training, under whom and how long it took to achieve each level. Sure, some of the names initially may be unknown but with a little research on the net or through people that 'should' know, a lineage can be verified and the quality of instruction can be determined (on the surface) before even taking one class.

Is it a guarantee that the school is right for you ? No. There is no guarantee that the instructor(s) is a good teacher. That should be determined by taking a few classes but it can tell you that the instructor is probably not making it up as (s)he goes along and that their may be an independent verification of the quality of the MA being taught at this school if they continue to belong to the mother association.

I still dispute the idea that quality of instruction is something you can expect to know by lineage in most cases. Unless you know someone who already knows about one of the people on the list, it's just a list of random names. Looking for further information, in many cases, just means looking at those instructors' websites or some history page on a website, and having to assume the information there is accurate - and that it actually reflects the quality of the training that person delivers. So, we go from one website's bio to the next, creating a chain of bio's. Without outside knowledge involved, it's not very useful.

I like discussing who I trained under. But it means nothing to most people, until I explain it, then they still only know what I told them, or what tiny bit of history (and it's minuscule) they can find on the web.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Yeah, it happens a lot in Aikido and the related arts (like NGA). Folks refer to themselves as Sensei Smith or Shihan Brown. Drives me a little bit nuts. I actually kind of prefer just first names in class, but I'm used to being called by last name (either "Mr. Seymour" or "Sensei Seymour" or "Seymour Sensei") as an instructor. When I visit my old school, I get the Mr./title treatment. My own students are less consistent.

The school expects titles to be used; it's a respect and tradition thing. But I don't personally. And I'm fine when people in class just call me Mark. There are some people in the program who are really strict, and they may remind newer students about titles, but I don't see the point. Except for people who outrank me. I'll remind students to use their titles.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The school expects titles to be used; it's a respect and tradition thing. But I don't personally. And I'm fine when people in class just call me Mark. There are some people in the program who are really strict, and they may remind newer students about titles, but I don't see the point. Except for people who outrank me. I'll remind students to use their titles.

That's a pretty good synopsis of my own approach.

 

[Yokozuna514]

I still dispute the idea that quality of instruction is something you can expect to know by lineage in most cases. Unless you know someone who already knows about one of the people on the list, it's just a list of random names. Looking for further information, in many cases, just means looking at those instructors' websites or some history page on a website, and having to assume the information there is accurate - and that it actually reflects the quality of the training that person delivers. So, we go from one website's bio to the next, creating a chain of bio's. Without outside knowledge involved, it's not very useful.

I like discussing who I trained under. But it means nothing to most people, until I explain it, then they still only know what I told them, or what tiny bit of history (and it's minuscule) they can find on the web.

Respectfully, I can appreciate that we do not agree here but I think you may misunderstand my point when it comes to quality of instruction and lineage. Having the head instructor (or all instructors) list their lineage is important in the sense that the instructors have no issue with being checked out by a prospect (or anyone else that cares to look deeper). A prospect, may or may not know the names but if they care to know more about the style or art, they may start to understand where the instructor received their training. Some schools or instructors are more prestigious than others so that may also give a prospective student a hint as to the quality of instruction they can receive but it is not a guarantee. Nothing can replace actually trying out a few classes to see if it is a good fit for YOU but I think that the more the lineage is left out or diminished the bigger the clue that not everything is as what it may appear.

Sure, the instructor may be very good at what they are doing.....blah, blah, blah but if they do not care enough to explain where they received their instruction, why should any of their students care about the instruction they are receiving from them ? True, not everyone places a lot of emphasis on that but I am pretty sure that if you went to medical school at Harvard, it isn't something you are going to hide or not tell people about even if they wouldn't know the instructors you learned from there. Does going to Harvard make you the best doctor in the world ? Maybe not, but it pretty much says that you aren't a dummy either.

 

[jks9199]

Thank you, that is what I was trying to say. With over 300 schools in the Houston Area I need to use the websites to reduce the number of schools to a manageable number to try.
Once you get to a school if you are experienced you know if it is real and if it is a good fit for you.

Why not start with a map. I bet the majority of those 300 schools are too far from you to be convenient and practical to train at. Then I'd look at hours and class structure; are the classes being taught at times you can attend, and how are they run? Are they taught by rank, by age, by some combination... Do children and adults train together? Fees are almost certainl another point of consideration... For TKD specifically, then, I'd also suggest looking at who they're affiliated with, like the Kukkiwon -- if that's something that matters to you. Worrying about who the instructors were taught by would be a later consideration, I think. YMMV...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Respectfully, I can appreciate that we do not agree here but I think you may misunderstand my point when it comes to quality of instruction and lineage. Having the head instructor (or all instructors) list their lineage is important in the sense that the instructors have no issue with being checked out by a prospect (or anyone else that cares to look deeper). A prospect, may or may not know the names but if they care to know more about the style or art, they may start to understand where the instructor received their training. Some schools or instructors are more prestigious than others so that may also give a prospective student a hint as to the quality of instruction they can receive but it is not a guarantee. Nothing can replace actually trying out a few classes to see if it is a good fit for YOU but I think that the more the lineage is left out or diminished the bigger the clue that not everything is as what it may appear.

Sure, the instructor may be very good at what they are doing.....blah, blah, blah but if they do not care enough to explain where they received their instruction, why should any of their students care about the instruction they are receiving from them ? True, not everyone places a lot of emphasis on that but I am pretty sure that if you went to medical school at Harvard, it isn't something you are going to hide or not tell people about even if they wouldn't know the instructors you learned from there. Does going to Harvard make you the best doctor in the world ? Maybe not, but it pretty much says that you aren't a dummy either.

That all comes back to what can be verified. See, if a medical school has no reputation, at all (and I don't even know the school by name) then knowing someone got their training there is not helpful. I think you and I may actually be saying the same thing, but from opposite sides. My point is primarily that knowing someone's lineage only helps if you know (or can really find out) something about that lineage. So, if the lineage includes Bill Witt (high-ranking instructor in a branch of Aikido), then that might be helpful, because there's a reasonable amount of chatter in the community about him, so it'd be relatively easy to verify that lineage and place some confidence in Witt's reputation.

But if that lineage includes Gerry Seymour, you'll have no real luck finding much out about his qualification. There's just not much chatter about me. Nor about my primary instructor. Nor about the instructor before that. A small amount about the instructor before that (who was primary instructor to the other two). None of my other instructors are even traceable on the Web. So my lineage doesn't provide any useful information, unless you happen to know someone in the know in NGA circles (a small population). Now, turn that around and say I'd trained directly under Bowe Shihan. Well, that would be easier to get some information about, though you'd still know very little - there's not a lot of talk on the Web about even Mr. Bowe, and almost none of any note about the founder of the art (Morita Shodo).

So, in some instances - and more so in some arts - it can be useful information. But only if there's useful information available to go with it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why not start with a map. I bet the majority of those 300 schools are too far from you to be convenient and practical to train at. Then I'd look at hours and class structure; are the classes being taught at times you can attend, and how are they run? Are they taught by rank, by age, by some combination... Do children and adults train together? Fees are almost certainl another point of consideration... For TKD specifically, then, I'd also suggest looking at who they're affiliated with, like the Kukkiwon -- if that's something that matters to you. Worrying about who the instructors were taught by would be a later consideration, I think. YMMV...

This is where I was heading. Narrow the field with what you know is pertinent, then look into what's left. If you find there are 15 schools left, then you maybe decide to visit the 5 that look most promising on the website (including lineage) first. If none of those work out, you go to the next 5.

 

[TSDTexan]

You should not always live under your teacher's shadow no matter how famous he was.

fame does not equal competency.

 

[JR 137]

That was my point earlier - it can be useful, but only if you already know something about what is listed there. My current rank is a translation from where I was in the NGAA to my curriculum. So, nobody granted me the rank, nor did I promote myself. I know some folks who were promoted by folks they don't train with, without testing, often including someone from outside their art. Posting that promotion on their website would seem meaningful, unless you know the circumstances and understand that it's an honorary rank (that's typical within mainline NGA), and really doesn't matter either way.

I personally have no issue with people promoting themselves in honorary levels, if they do it reasonably. I had one instructor I know suggest that to me - just keep my rank until I have a student ready to rise to that rank, then raise myself one rank. Since the rank really has no meaning if you're independent, I can see no harm in that, though I didn't choose that path. To me, it's as innocuous as a TKD school advertising Karate, because that markets better in their area.

So, for BJJ, posting lineage can be a helpful thing. Their lineages are easier to track - more visible - and it's not hard to find someone who can verify if the lineage appears legitimate. For less-open arts, fragmented arts with multiple associations that don't get along, etc., the information can be less than enlightening.

Good point in that it’s really only useful if you know the names. Let’s say I listed Bill Wallace, Joe Lewis and Buka on my website as my teachers. They’re all quite famous ( ) in MA circles, but they’re definitely not household names, except @Buka

A person off the streets isn’t going to know them nor probably care much. If I named someone like Mas Oyama or Gichin Funakoshi, they may think that’s more legit because it’s an Asian name but probably still wouldn’t care either way.

The listing of the teacher(s) is most likely for the MAist with some experience or the type to got to research the hell out of everything.

But as @Danny T was saying, I could see it being viewed as someone inflating their resume if there are a lot of teachers listed. I’d be a little suspicious if I saw, say 6 or more. I’d start questioning how long they trained under any of them and if the guy is listing people he’s worked out with a few times and/or attended a seminar or two.

But it could quite possibly get me in the door to see the teacher. Whole benefit of the doubt thing.

 

[TSDTexan]

While I dont want to threadjack.
I do want to posit a thought.

If you had the choice between having witnessed a man (or woman) use a martial art in a manner that left them mildly injured or bruised against 5-7 attackers OR A famous martial artist like Chuck Norris, JC Van Dam, etc

Which of these two would you ask to become a student of?

Of course, I might want to take Chuck Norris... for it gives a higher likelihood that the art will less likely become extinct (I will have a lot more students potentially).... but everyone who trains their will live in the shadow of the famous artist. (at least for 70 to a hundred years) Eventually... the glory will be reflected. Oh.. he trained under Xyz, who was ABC, who trained directly under Chuck Norris, Yeah... you should see about enrolling at his/her dojo.



But I am more interested in efficacy, and practical functional martial arts. I am not a hipster who wants to study a martial art that is obscure, just to be nonmainsteam.

But in the end, I want a place that is like a family, that studies an art that can help me prepare to deal with the issue of sudden phisical violence. And hand that on to the next generation, perhaps with improvements.

I would most likely choose option 1.

 

[dvcochran]

The school expects titles to be used; it's a respect and tradition thing. But I don't personally. And I'm fine when people in class just call me Mark. There are some people in the program who are really strict, and they may remind newer students about titles, but I don't see the point. Except for people who outrank me. I'll remind students to use their titles.

Agree. I am much more concerned with a student giving/showing respect in general rather to an one person.

 

[Balrog]

Most Martial Arts schools websites do not say who the instructor's masters was.
I am looking for a school. I don't care what degree black belt you are. I care about who taught you.

I am the chief instructor at West Houston ATA Martial Arts (www.WestHoustonATA.com). I am a 6th Degree Black Belt, Master Instructor.

My instructor is 7th Degree Black Belt, Senior Master Larry Spencer.

His instructor is 7th Degree Black Belt, Senior Master Sam Phrumjuntun.

His instructor is 9th Degree Black Belt, Grand Master In Ho Lee.

 

[Danny T]

I am looking for a school. I don't care what degree black belt you are. I care about who taught you.

But you won't be training with who taught me. You will be training with me.
And I've had a lot of teachers over the many years. Some for a couple of years some for 3-5 years, some for longer. I'm not considering those who were just a seminar or a 3-5 day camp.
Boxing, Wrestling, Shotokan, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, Kali, JKD, Tai Chi, Hapkido, Tai Chi, CSW, BJJ, there are others not listed because it was less than 2 years of training in. Then there is the shorter period of training like; Military Combatives, Madnadnock & Control Force Police Tactics, Small Arms Tactics, etc...

Most I've trained with were very good in their own right as toward skill, some not so much as instructors, while some have been excellent instructor's. If you don't know them how does that help you? And if you do know them how does that help you as to me being a good instructor? It doesn't.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I used to list my instructors.

Even if I have said that I don't want to live under my teacher's shadow, I still like to take this opportunity to honor my teachers and also their teacher.

My Chinese wrestling teacher's teacher - Chang Fong-Yen (nickname - the phoenix Chang).

My Chinese wrestling teacher Chang Tung-Sheng (nickname - the wrestling king).

My long fist teacher's teacher Han Ching-Tan.

My long fist teacher Li Mao-Ching

 

[MetalBoar]

Well, I can only speak for myself and perhaps speculate a little about how my experiences might be different from a lot of people and perhaps more similar to the OP's. I've studied martial art's primarily in 3 different metropolitan areas. The smallest of which had a population of ~ 1 million and the other 2 (the vast majority of my experience) ~ 4 million each. Both Phoenix AZ and Seattle WA have large martial arts communities. Like Houston, I expect that there are a few hundred schools within a mostly workable distance of where I live or work here in Seattle. There were probably more available to me in Phoenix because the traffic and road layout isn't completely broken like it is here. When I was younger, single and more dedicated I was willing to travel farther and the numbers were even larger. That's a lot of schools to evaluate and even when I was young and single I didn't have time to go watch, much less participate in, a class at each of them.

So, in this situation I have to filter my choices somehow. Lineage, by whatever name you want to call it, is not at the top of my list but I do think there are a variety of ways that it can be helpful. To use Wing Chun as one example, from my understanding Keith Kernspecht's EWTO has a particular way of teaching Wing Chun that divides the students into a lot of different grades and structures the curriculum to match. Some people like it and others hate it. Then there's Integrative Wing Chun that I've heard has been working to add ground work and perhaps other things to modernize or update their curriculum. Again, there are mixed opinions about that. Some other styles have their own focus or more unusual take on the art. In Seattle, we've got James DeMile's Wing Chun Do and John Beall's art of Tsun Jo Wing Chun which both have some roots in Wing Chun through Bruce Lee but are most definitely not classical WC (for better or worse I couldn't say). If somebody is part of one of these lineages it can tell me a bit about how they might teach. More significantly, if they list DeMile or Beall as their instructor I know that I'm probably not going to learn classical Wing Chun from them if that's what I want.

Stepping back from Wing Chun for a moment, there are at least a couple of instructors/organizations in the Seattle area that I consider to be close to out right frauds (not naming any names for a variety of reasons) and a few others that aren't fraudulent but are teaching arts in ways that don't lead to the results I want to achieve. If someone lists any of these people as their primary instructor I know that they should be lower on my list or crossed off entirely. And if you think about it for a moment I bet you can name a few Internet martial arts celebrities that you think are frauds or near frauds. Would you be excited to train with someone who was proud to name them as their primary instructor? Overall, I think lineage is more useful for filtering for undesirable characteristics in a school than it is for identifying desirable characteristics, but it can be helpful as a starting place for that too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, I can only speak for myself and perhaps speculate a little about how my experiences might be different from a lot of people and perhaps more similar to the OP's. I've studied martial art's primarily in 3 different metropolitan areas. The smallest of which had a population of ~ 1 million and the other 2 (the vast majority of my experience) ~ 4 million each. Both Phoenix AZ and Seattle WA have large martial arts communities. Like Houston, I expect that there are a few hundred schools within a mostly workable distance of where I live or work here in Seattle. There were probably more available to me in Phoenix because the traffic and road layout isn't completely broken like it is here. When I was younger, single and more dedicated I was willing to travel farther and the numbers were even larger. That's a lot of schools to evaluate and even when I was young and single I didn't have time to go watch, much less participate in, a class at each of them.

So, in this situation I have to filter my choices somehow. Lineage, by whatever name you want to call it, is not at the top of my list but I do think there are a variety of ways that it can be helpful. To use Wing Chun as one example, from my understanding Keith Kernspecht's EWTO has a particular way of teaching Wing Chun that divides the students into a lot of different grades and structures the curriculum to match. Some people like it and others hate it. Then there's Integrative Wing Chun that I've heard has been working to add ground work and perhaps other things to modernize or update their curriculum. Again, there are mixed opinions about that. Some other styles have their own focus or more unusual take on the art. In Seattle, we've got James DeMile's Wing Chun Do and John Beall's art of Tsun Jo Wing Chun which both have some roots in Wing Chun through Bruce Lee but are most definitely not classical WC (for better or worse I couldn't say). If somebody is part of one of these lineages it can tell me a bit about how they might teach. More significantly, if they list DeMile or Beall as their instructor I know that I'm probably not going to learn classical Wing Chun from them if that's what I want.

Stepping back from Wing Chun for a moment, there are at least a couple of instructors/organizations in the Seattle area that I consider to be close to out right frauds (not naming any names for a variety of reasons) and a few others that aren't fraudulent but are teaching arts in ways that don't lead to the results I want to achieve. If someone lists any of these people as their primary instructor I know that they should be lower on my list or crossed off entirely. And if you think about it for a moment I bet you can name a few Internet martial arts celebrities that you think are frauds or near frauds. Would you be excited to train with someone who was proud to name them as their primary instructor? Overall, I think lineage is more useful for filtering for undesirable characteristics in a school than it is for identifying desirable characteristics, but it can be helpful as a starting place for that too.

I'll say I think part of the OP - and your point - is about a tendency nearly all of us have of wanting to find the right school. What I was trying to get at in one of my earlier posts is that there isn't one. In an area that size, with that many choices, there are probably dozens of "right" schools, and you only need to find one. So you don't need to evaluate or filter every school. You just need to filter a handful of them that are convenient (okay, so we've started with a very coarse filter of "convenience"). You pick a handful that are near home, or near work, or on the route between. You check their web sites for red flags - things that tell you they're unlikely to be a good fit - then look at the schedule of those that didn't get knocked out. Then go visit a few of what's left. In all likelihood, you'll find something you like in one of those.

This process only changes if there's something specific you're looking for. I personally don't know the lineage of some of the folks I trained under. I never asked, and I'm not sure if they ever mentioned it or not. That's true of two instructors who had the largest influence on my approach to my primary art (neither are/were practitioners of my primary art). I could list them on my bio, but I could literally only list their names. Neither was in an association when I trained with them, and I couldn't list their instructors if I wanted to.