In the martial arts there are good instructors and bad instructors. Bad instructors would include but are not limited to those instructors who focus on the advancement of the art and the advancement of their school but not the interest of the students. The students and what they want to get out of it when they sign up for training in the martial arts is very important. After all, running the school is dependent on students, without any students there would be no school. For a student to become a good martial artist they have to find out what works best for them. As this one instructor put it, if he were to teach his students to fight the same way he fights he would only be producing imperfect, unreliable clones of himself. Instead, he teaches his students how to find out how they can fight most effectively. A teacher that is so rigid as to give his students an absolute structure that cannot be deviated from is a bad teacher. Structure is important but there is a point where there can be too much structure. A teacher learns from his students as well as teaches them, as a matter of fact you learn the most from teaching. An instructor who will not learn from his students is very arrogant and a bad instructor and probably will not keep his students. Martial arts training is not like basic training in the military. A student's opinions and desires are supposed to actually mean something.
Bad instructors
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Cirdan
Senior Master
Having instructed both I can safely say they can be very similar. For one thing those who shut up and train become good soldiers or martial artists, while whiney know-it-alls don`t.
This is a rather narrow-minded view of instruction. If the above were the case, then would the founders of the various martial arts systems, such as Funakoshi, Ohtsuka, Miyagi, Mabuni, Chibana, and even more modern ones such as Robert Trias, be considered as bad instructors? For that matter, what about those the likes of Greg Jackson (Gaidojutsu)?
The advancement of the art and school are the primary foci. Otherwise, why bother with having a direction?
Of course. However, it's not about the art itself, but rather how you present it, and how you operate as the administrator of your dojo.
This is too broad of a paint brush with which you are painting. A good instructor follows a core of fundamental instruction, and this fundamental instruction is going to be the same for everyone in the dojo. The performance of the said fundamental techniques can be modified if, for example, a student has some debilitating injury that prevents him from following the textbook mechanics.
Once a student has a solid grasp of the fundamental techniques, then he's ready to learn the more advanced material. I would dare say, that the said student is already considered a "good martial artist" at that point, even though he hasn't done much "figuring out for himself."
Out of curiosity, are you familiar with how the Japan Karate Association teaches? They are still one of the most prevalent organizations in the world of Karate, and have a proven track record of generating excellent students and instructors.
They follow a very rigid structure when it comes to training, and the bulk of students who go through the JKA's meat grinder (and I affectionately use that term) and earn their black belts are going to be excellent students, despite (or probably because of) following this rigid structure. They will all have the same core of strong fundamental techniques, and can certainly fight effectively.
Good fundamentals are good fundamentals. You can never have too much structure when it comes to giving your students a good set of fundamentals.
Regarding your military basic training comment, you may want to re-think that. In many an excellent martial arts school, the student is expected to follow orders, get a good sense of discipline, and carry out those orders with a LOT of repetition. The learning comes first, and the student's (or trainee's) desires and opinions do not override the advancement of school / military.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Wow, you'd hate Koryu… it's pretty much everything you think is "bad"… ha!
I'll put it this way… in Koryu, what the students want to get out of it, realistically, is completely and utterly irrelevant. They don't matter. At all. Not important. Don't care. It's not about them.
Sure… but it also comes down to what the point of having the school (system) in the first place is… if it's to continue the art, then if there aren't any students that want to learn it, but want to do something different, then there's no point having any students at all.
What makes a "good martial artist" is largely dependent on the art in question. To be a good Iaidoka, or Kyudoka, you do have to do exactly what is shown, as it is shown. You don't try to figure out the way to do it that works for you… you have to learn to do it the way the art says it's meant to be done. That's a big part of the challenge (as a martial artist) in these systems… going beyond what "you" would do, in order to embrace a different approach to things, not just doing what you'd do anyway.
Which might be the case in his system, depending on what it is… it's that way in some of the things I do, and exactly the opposite in others.
Garbage. What you mean is that you have no understanding of that teaching methodology.
Uh… no.
You know… this is all sounding very familiar….
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/17.../115210-good-instruction-bad-instruction.html
Hmm….
Why?
Again, it depends entirely on the focus of the school. You do know that the big problem with modern martial arts, the so-called McDojo structure, is largely about catering specifically to students wishes. trends, fashions, fads etc, in order to keep the money coming in, yeah? And, in doing so, lose entirely the focus of the actual art they're supposed to be teaching in there first place?
In other words, what you're suggesting as "bad" is actually very "good" in a number of cases… and what you're saying is "good" is at the heart of what is seen as "bad" in martial arts today. It's just not that black and white.
I do not agree with your assessment of "bad instructors". However, my first instructor was indeed a bad instructor, so I am intimately acquainted with the idea and all the headaches and hardships that go with it. Fortunately, he didn't last in the Arts too long.
Have been with good instructors that taught a no nonsense, no talking, no fooling around class. They where not friends with the students and did not give a damn if a student stayed or went. They only wanted people who wanted to train, work hard and learn.
Had bad instructors who cuddled everyone and never had a hard class in there entire as an instructor. They wanted the school to make money and sold everything they could think of with the school name on it. Testing was a joke as everyone passed if they paid the testing fees.
And I have seen instructors that where somewhere in between.
The ones I stayed with where from the first group. I found out if you stayed long enough you learned a hell of a lot and even became close to some of the.
Had bad instructors who cuddled everyone and never had a hard class in there entire as an instructor. They wanted the school to make money and sold everything they could think of with the school name on it. Testing was a joke as everyone passed if they paid the testing fees.
And I have seen instructors that where somewhere in between.
The ones I stayed with where from the first group. I found out if you stayed long enough you learned a hell of a lot and even became close to some of the.
Yet another repeat thread... Don't you ever learn?
Maybe we should talk about bad students. You know. The ones who just never seem to learn...
Danny T
Senior Master
There are Teachers, Instructors, Coaches. Some are all three but most are not. Rarer still, is an excellent martial artist who is also an excellent Teacher, Instructor, and Coach.
There are times one must teach vs instruct, instruct vs teach, then there are times only coaching is required.
The thing is to give the student what the student 'needs' when he/she needs it and balance it with what the student thinks he/she wants. If I were to only give the student what they want it would take a much longer time to attain the skills, attributes, and abilities required to become any good in the martial arts and the cost to the student would be greater. Is that fair or proper to them?
I do agree that the individual is most important but also are the pedagogical methods the different arts use.
A teacher will utilize several different strategies for there is no single universal approach suiting all situations. Some strategies are better for particular skills and/or fields of knowledge, others are better suited to certain student backgrounds and/or learning styles and abilities. (physical and mental)[FONT="][/FONT] Good teachers do this.
Instructors are just that instructors. They present the information. Usually in an explain, show, explain again, have the student experience through drills or exercises and then review.
Coaching is about directing or prompting for a particular outcome. For example; when feeding pad work tapping the student on the side of the head to prompt him/her to keep the hand up to cover that side of the head.
All are need at some time during the learning, skill development, and application periods. All have their time that is best for the individual as well as the art.
There are times one must teach vs instruct, instruct vs teach, then there are times only coaching is required.
The thing is to give the student what the student 'needs' when he/she needs it and balance it with what the student thinks he/she wants. If I were to only give the student what they want it would take a much longer time to attain the skills, attributes, and abilities required to become any good in the martial arts and the cost to the student would be greater. Is that fair or proper to them?
I do agree that the individual is most important but also are the pedagogical methods the different arts use.
A teacher will utilize several different strategies for there is no single universal approach suiting all situations. Some strategies are better for particular skills and/or fields of knowledge, others are better suited to certain student backgrounds and/or learning styles and abilities. (physical and mental)[FONT="][/FONT] Good teachers do this.
Instructors are just that instructors. They present the information. Usually in an explain, show, explain again, have the student experience through drills or exercises and then review.
Coaching is about directing or prompting for a particular outcome. For example; when feeding pad work tapping the student on the side of the head to prompt him/her to keep the hand up to cover that side of the head.
All are need at some time during the learning, skill development, and application periods. All have their time that is best for the individual as well as the art.
What is the goal or purpose of Basic/Induction training? Answer that, and you'll find the answer to your question.
donald1
Senior Master
It's nice when my instructor asks for the students opinions what they like and such. It would be a bummer if he didn't care about the students opinions truly but that's not why people join martial arts. I don't know what you mean by rigid but teachers teach the way they do for a reason. But one thing to know before you start judging a teacher and assuming whether he/she is a bad teacher it would be a good idea to see how his students train, the ones that quite are just that and the ones that stay can become good students but like dirty dog said about good student bad students. It's important for the teacher to be good but just as important to have good students that are serious about what there learning
Best of luck
Best of luck
blindsage
Master of Arts
There are good teachers and bad teachers, but methodology doesn't make one good or bad. Different methodologies work for different people, both teachers and students. I'm not a fan of military, strict, top down style teaching, not because it's bad or can't work, because it's not me. It's not my preference. What makes a teacher good or bad is more about what works. Are the students good? Are they satisfied with the teacher and his/her methods? Then their a good teacher. Period. If you don't like the way that teacher teaches you don't have to study with them. Nobody's the worse for wear. But to say a teacher is bad because they don't line up with your preferred method is just short sighted and ignorant.
There are many different kind of instructors. those who have
1. something to offer, are willing to offer, know how to teach.
2. something to offer, are willing to offer, but don't know how to teach.
3. something to offer, are unwilling to offer, ...
4. nothing to offer, ...
The 1st kind of instructors are hard to find. There are also good students and bad students too. A good instructor may be hard to find. A good student may be even harder to find.
I just wanted to share this, because I used the term "bad" instructors as a reply to this thread. I wanted to you guys to know where I was coming from.
My first main instructor from the early 1970s....
Had bogus trophies made up, posing as the grand champion of the most prestigious Karate tournaments in the country held during the 1960s. He was never even at those tournaments.
Self promoted himself from 2nd dan to 4th dan in three different arts. One of which he never even trained in.
Hit on every married woman that entered the dojo, especially parents of students. (he was married)
Privately, unbeknown to others, borrowed money from students to remodel or further equip the dojo, did neither and never repaid the monies.
Lied about anything that he thought would make himself appear tougher, smarter or more experienced in Martial Arts. Took out ads in the newspaper saying he taught everything from Shaolin Kung Fu to American Kenpo to "Combat" Karate. He was never in a Shaolin or Kenpo school, not even for a cup of coffee.
I could go on for pages, (literally) but you get the drift. As I said, this was the early 1970s, I don't think anyone would even try to get away with any of that now. But it's why, to this day, I have no patience for dishonorable instructors. I don't really care about their ability, I care about who's teaching other people. I know "bad". I wish I didn't.
My first main instructor from the early 1970s....
Had bogus trophies made up, posing as the grand champion of the most prestigious Karate tournaments in the country held during the 1960s. He was never even at those tournaments.
Self promoted himself from 2nd dan to 4th dan in three different arts. One of which he never even trained in.
Hit on every married woman that entered the dojo, especially parents of students. (he was married)
Privately, unbeknown to others, borrowed money from students to remodel or further equip the dojo, did neither and never repaid the monies.
Lied about anything that he thought would make himself appear tougher, smarter or more experienced in Martial Arts. Took out ads in the newspaper saying he taught everything from Shaolin Kung Fu to American Kenpo to "Combat" Karate. He was never in a Shaolin or Kenpo school, not even for a cup of coffee.
I could go on for pages, (literally) but you get the drift. As I said, this was the early 1970s, I don't think anyone would even try to get away with any of that now. But it's why, to this day, I have no patience for dishonorable instructors. I don't really care about their ability, I care about who's teaching other people. I know "bad". I wish I didn't.
Hong Kong Pooey
Blue Belt
Please tell me someone called him on his bogus claims and beat the cr@p out of him?
And you filmed it
Please tell me someone called him on his bogus claims and beat the cr@p out of him?
And you filmed it
Sadly, it did end badly, and publicly. But not because of his bogus claims, because of his demeanor towards certain people in the arts. He was seriously injured by, of all things, a PKA world champion who shall remain nameless. Hospitalized for week. He didn't deserve what happened to him, even as dishonest as he was. It was ugly and I sincerely wish it had never happened. But, as they say, you live by the sword...
Martial Arts probably isn't the safest place to con folks. Especially drawing attention to yourself.
I don't think that you can truly advance the school or advance your art without focusing on training good students. Your students are the future of the art and the school. In order for your art to grow, and your business to grow, you need to produce high quality students that stick with it for a long time, who will become high quality instructors themselves and train more good students.
That being said..... you offer what you offer. I think you should be receptive to the needs and interests of the students, and be flexible to try to make sure that what you offer is useful and appealing to your students and market - but at the same time, you can't let the students dictate what's going to happen in the class. So there's a balance there.
That being said..... you offer what you offer. I think you should be receptive to the needs and interests of the students, and be flexible to try to make sure that what you offer is useful and appealing to your students and market - but at the same time, you can't let the students dictate what's going to happen in the class. So there's a balance there.
With basic training in the military what the recruit wants to get out of it is completely irrelevant. The recruit is just supposed to do as he's told and not ask any questions. The whole idea is to shape the recruit into a tool to be used by the government for whatever purpose they've got. When somebody signs up to learn martial arts they've got a reason or reasons for doing so and those can vary. Some people want to lose weight and get in shape. Some people want to learn self defense. Some people want to develop themselves mentally as well as physically and a person might have multiple reasons for taking up the martial arts. So those reasons should be taken into account and a good instructor will do that. Now, a know it all is not going to progress that much but there is nothing wrong with a student who asks questions about stuff they don't understand during breaks or before or after class. If anything a know it all wouldn't ask questions because as far as they're concerned they know it all and so they don't need to ask questions. A student who does ask questions on the other hand is admitting that they don't know it all because by asking a question that means they don't know whatever it is they're asking. And, lots of good teachers will actually want students to ask questions.
Similar threads
