Chinese Secrecy

[Andrew Green]

Traditionally, Chinese masters used a very nonsystematic format. They expected their disciples to struggle to glean the tiniest bits of information from their lessons. In ancient times, people kept their fighting skills secret for various reasons. They used the knowledge to defend their lives and the lives of loved ones, and sometimes they used it to cause trouble. Either way, it was best to keep the skills concealed lest their practice attract too much attention. East Asians also believed that no precious skill should be taught too freely: A student’s struggle to acquire ability would test not only his discipline and commitment to the art, but also his commitment to his teacher.


http://blackbeltmag.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=464


==========

I'm curious as to what the CMA folks here think of this article, while it does list a number of things that are indeed poor teaching methods, how common is this? How where you taught?

How about folks from other styles? How do things get taught in your school? and of course, to put into context, what style of martial arts do you do?

 

[tradrockrat]

I'm not a CMA guy, but I was trained Bando in a very modern way by a man who was a teacher for a living. Not a MA teacher, a college teacher. I thank the heavens every day for that.

In my experience, many MA's - not just CMA's - make the mistake that osmosis and mysticism seperate the true learner from the poor learner.

I find it laughable that in this day and age people who actually WISH to teach their art don't bother to learn how to actually teach. They overlook the fact they no longer live in the old days or teach for the old reasons, but instead are teaching to make a living. I've asked otherwise rational instructors about this and one told me that he didn't want to teach someone who wasn't as dedicated to the art as the students that first learned and perfected the art were.

I replied - OK, so why don't you really make sure thay want to learn by seeing how seriously they commit to your classes and then really teach them the art in the a systemitic way?

His reply - We have a system and this is it.

I was stumped, and as I respected this man I didn't press the issue, but I never trained with him either though he asked several times if I wanted to.

Today we know more about how people learn than ever before and have numerous tried and true methods of instruction, but MA's are very slow to change...

This is my take and JMHO so feel free to tell me where to stick it if you disagree

 

[exile]

I find it laughable that in this day and age people who actually WISH to teach their art don't bother to learn how to actually teach. They overlook the fact they no longer live in the old days or teach for the old reasons, but instead are teaching to make a living.

Tradrockrat---agree w/you 100%.

 

[charyuop]

Most of the students starting a Martial Art school don't have MA background...how can they possible know if a teacher leaves out something, if he only gives them a trambling basic knowledge or he/she actually treats the student with respect teaching what it is supposed to be taught?

 

[shesulsa]

What strikes me about this article is the negativity generated from it. There are disparaging comments regarding his perceived (and, apparently, the generally perceived) two sides of the MA instruction coin.

Rather than discuss positive methods of instructing, sifu's main method of course in that article could be considered destructive when analyzing the betterment of martial arts instruction. Perhaps it was meant to be a critique only ... but what is the productivity in that?

Personally, I'm sick and tired of reading that things are black and white or red and blue and there is no in between or that it's hard to find. Tired of reading why we can't find middle ground, why this is wrong because that works better in this scenario and that scenario will likely never happen and yadda yadda yadda.

:shrug:

What are we doing to bridge this gap? How do we make instruction in instruction more available to the Martial Arts world? Gosh, isn't that what makes TMA so valuable, still? That many old-style or pseudo old-style TMAists do indeed teach people who can teach how to teach well? And should this be part of required curriculum or a supplemental program for those who wish to teach in the future? And who would teach it? How do we accredit people for this purpose?

Seems like an easy article to write when you're submitting something short to BB Mag if you don't have to address the tough questions.

 

[Andrew Green]

The article struck me largely as a self-promotion, point out that everyone else isn't teaching "properly" as a means of improving interest in his school. Of course most articles are...

"How to teach" is availabale to martial arts instructors, and always has been. Just takes someone willing to go and look. But any library will have at least a few books on how to coach people, educational theory, performance training, sports pyschology, etc. And a University Library will likely have a even larger selection.

I think the other mistake martial artists tend to make is to assume rank = teaching ability. And the higher someones rank is, the better teacher they must be. When in truth, the two sometimes have very little correlation.

We also have a funny stereotype about how martial arts are "suppose" to be taught. That the instructor should be hard, not really explain anything, just make you do it and a "dedicated" student will get to a high skill level in some bizzare way. Largely brough on by Kung Fu movies and Mr. Miyagi.

 

[shesulsa]

"How to teach" is availabale to martial arts instructors, and always has been. Just takes someone willing to go and look. But any library will have at least a few books on how to coach people, educational theory, performance training, sports pyschology, etc. And a University Library will likely have a even larger selection.

I think the other mistake martial artists tend to make is to assume rank = teaching ability. And the higher someones rank is, the better teacher they must be. When in truth, the two sometimes have very little correlation.

These are good statements. However, I doubt highly that many higher ranking color belts (who are generally expected to begin teaching via demonstration) and new instructors are likely to research teaching and coaching beyond their own experiences in receiving such. And then we can get into what is teaching and is it different from instructing? Long-term teaching involves personal development and is really not quite the same as showing syllabus, proper foot placement, meaning of movement, etcetera ... wouldn't you say?

We also have a funny stereotype about how martial arts are "suppose" to be taught. That the instructor should be hard, not really explain anything, just make you do it and a "dedicated" student will get to a high skill level in some bizzare way. Largely brough on by Kung Fu movies and Mr. Miyagi.

Who is this "we" you speak of? Are you saying that your opinion is that the population at large is of this opinion? What approximate percentage would you say of the population at large (in the West, let's say) seeks martial arts tutelage and what percentage of that population would you say expects this kind of instruction?

 

[Carol]

The article left me with the impression that the author feels like teaching is unidirectional. Information only flows one way. No where in the article does the author talk about instructors learning how their students learn.

Unidirectional teaching may work well for someone on the seminar circuit, or someone who does 6 week self defense classes. However, I think a martial arts insstructor needs to take a vested interest in a student's learning and understand not only what they learn, but how they learn it.

To me, the difficulty is not in balancing the approaches as he says. I think most observant assistant instructors can put together a balanced approach with very little prompting. The challenge is knowing what to balance, how to balance it, and how dynamic the balance needs to be.

That knowledge, can only come from instructors that can receive information as well as they can disseminate it. Yet the author was surprisingly silent on the concept. For an article that challenges teachers to think about the methods of one's teaching, it surprises me that nothing was spoken about the effectiveness of one's teaching.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I find it laughable that in this day and age people who actually WISH to teach their art don't bother to learn how to actually teach. They overlook the fact they no longer live in the old days or teach for the old reasons, but instead are teaching to make a living. I've asked otherwise rational instructors about this and one told me that he didn't want to teach someone who wasn't as dedicated to the art as the students that first learned and perfected the art were.

I am a CMA guy and I am not going to tell you were to stick it because you are not wrong, for the most part.

My 2nd Sifu (and he is an old Chinese guy from old school CMA, Yang style Taiji) taught Tai Chi with applications, Qigong, push hands, free style push hands, etc, basically real tai Chi for 9 years. 3 years ago he started talking about retiring from his full time job to open a fulltime tai Chi school. All of us that had been there a while thought "GREAT" and we were very wrong. He changed his style to a point where he now teaches only form and does not care if it is correct. He has a lot more students but no old students left. We all have stopped going but his new students are collecting forms left and right no applications, no internal, no push hands just sloppy forms.

As for Chinese masters keeping secrets, yup they do. But now for the unpopular part of the show. Generally they know that most westerners do not really want to train they way they should to be real CMA people. And if they want to make a living teaching CMA they have to lighten up. My first Sifu taught us Chen the way he would teach in China. The class started with 40 people and ended with 6. He never taught that way again and his classes got so packed you hardly had room for the form.

My current Sifu for non sport Sanda (Qinna Gedou) will not teach a class on Sanda for multiple reasons One is, as he says, training is hard and boring and most people will not train and he only wants to teach what he was taught in the way he was taught it. Also this is not the way he makes his living either.

I recently attempted to return to Xingyi training as well, but my schedule and the teachers schedule simply would not match up but he is teaching Tai Chi for a living as well and he also is very good at Xingyi and Bagua and he is an American. His Tai Chi classes are very successful but he has separated them into various groups, beginner, intermediate, advanced, push hands, martial applications and his Push hands and martial classes are the smallest. He also told me that he would really like to have a successful Xingyi class but he could never get enough people interested in the training because it was first hard and second not pretty. Last I knew he was trying to combine Bagua with Xingyi in one class to keep the numbers up to make it profitable enough for him to continue. But my hat is off to him because he absolutely refuses to water Xingyi down to gain students, He still insists on starting every class with at least 12 minutes of standing in santi. And I absolutely appreciate his attitude, the first class he said this. “If while you are doing standing training if you feel pain let me know, then I can adjust you stance to where it should be to try and help, but if while standing your leg muscles hurt I don’t want to hear it, your training Xingyi”

If you go to China to train and find a real teacher and you complain or don’t train or show up late or don’t show up a few times or tell him or her that you don’t want to do martial arts you will be either asked to leave or told not to show up anymore. In America they have to accommodate you if they want to have a school that makes money. In China if you want to have a school that makes money you have to train your students hard or you have no students.

Probably not the most popular thing I could post but I appear to be good at that today. But this is the truth at least from my point of view.

OK all have at me.

 

[HG1]

But my hat is off to him because he absolutely refuses to water Xingyi down to gain students, He still insists on starting every class with at least 12 minutes of standing in santi. And I absolutely appreciate his attitude, the first class he said this. “If while you are doing standing training if you feel pain let me know, then I can adjust you stance to where it should be to try and help, but if while standing your leg muscles hurt I don’t want to hear it, your training Xingyi”

Sounds very familar.

Beginner class qi gong & stance training explanation is limited to: proper technique/alignment & a statement this will help build the foundation of your kung fu - nothing else. Encouragement is given but it's all on the student to make it happen. Those that work, get stronger & start to understand the method to the madness.

It's a proven method but does tend to drive away the prospective student who is on the fence.

I knew I really wanted this so for me, being forced to 'do' kung fu was easy.

 

[tradrockrat]

These are good statements. However, I doubt highly that many higher ranking color belts (who are generally expected to begin teaching via demonstration) and new instructors are likely to research teaching and coaching beyond their own experiences in receiving such. And then we can get into what is teaching and is it different from instructing? Long-term teaching involves personal development and is really not quite the same as showing syllabus, proper foot placement, meaning of movement, etcetera ... wouldn't you say?

Yes I would say. You are correct and this is a very important part of real teaching as opposed to showing or telling. If you are going o expect students to become teachers tneh they should be required to learn how to teach. There should be a class on teaching skills and strategies. As a teacher, it is a never ending learning experience for me to continually try to develope my abilities to teach.

The article left me with the impression that the author feels like teaching is unidirectional. Information only flows one way. No where in the article does the author talk about instructors learning how their students learn.

Absolutely! If you are not learning from your students, you are not paying attention. All of the teaching strategies in the world won't help if you won't pay attention long enough to figure out which ones will work for which students.

But now for the unpopular part of the show. Generally they know that most westerners do not really want to train they way they should to be real CMA people. And if they want to make a living teaching CMA they have to lighten up. My first Sifu taught us Chen the way he would teach in China. The class started with 40 people and ended with 6. He never taught that way again and his classes got so packed you hardly had room for the form.

This is the slippery slope of trade offs. You are absolutely right in what you say and it is a very real issue in a class that is strictly voluntary. how do you keep the money coming in if the student base is unwilling to do it the traditional way? This is the question that teachers have been trying ot answer for ever. In education, it has led to watered down curiculums and teaching to the test to give the impression of real learning. In the dojo, where nobody has to be there if they don't want to it is even harder. I erally don't have the answer, but I have seen one strategy that seemed to work for one school. They had a seperate class called the blackbelt teachers club that only added a few dollars a month to their fees, but it was strictly by invitation only. That class was taught in a hard core way and the students were the ones who had shown the willingness to pay their dues - usually only 4 -6 higher ranking students. This class introduces the harder exercises and included education on how to teach the beginning belts as a student teacher. It was a brilliant idea IMHO and it worked well. now the instructor had no qualms about teaching an easier core class and holding back certain things from the general population - teaching them what they can handle is how he put it - and working with a few real serious students to get them the complete system knowledge.

 

[tshadowchaser]

They overlook the fact they no longer live in the old days or teach for the old reasons, but instead are teaching to make a living

I must disagree with this statement a little. Some teach to pass on the knowledge they have and may not charge or run a business. Some only want the most dedicated students and will "weed out" ((% of those that come through their doors.
No these are not your common business men or the common teachers but there are some people out their even today who only teach many things to those who have proven themselves

 

[tradrockrat]

I must disagree with this statement a little. Some teach to pass on the knowledge they have and may not charge or run a business. Some only want the most dedicated students and will "weed out" ((% of those that come through their doors.
No these are not your common business men or the common teachers but there are some people out their even today who only teach many things to those who have proven themselves

actually, I agree with you 100%. After I posted that a reread it I realized my post sounded like all MA teachers were "in the business" and I thought "Oh ****, what about the guy who just teaches a few chosen students?"

Especially because my teacher was one of them. Doh!

I'd like to take this post as an opportunity to recognize the teacher who only teaches on his / her own time and for free in an effort to teach something they think is special and reserved for only the most dedicated.

But I must alo say that if one runs a comercial dojo - they are most likely trying to make a living at it.

 

[pstarr]

A number of traditional Chinese martial arts teachers who I know DO teach the full art, but only to select students. Everyone starts in the same place and those who demonstrate that they really want to learn the "real material" - if they are good people - will be taught.

Sadly, most students just want to be "spoon fed" some easily digestible pablum and they're more than happy with that-

 

[Shrewsbury]

Chinese martial arts are taught three ways.

Public, this is what 99% of what everyone is doing and teaching and even many of the asian "masters" have only been taught this way.

second is closed door, reserved for the advanced students and inheritors of the system, very, very few know any of these teachings.

third is family method, no not the family methods most say they teach today, but really a method reserved for family memebers only and never shown nor shared with non family.

these three methods have been the staples of cma's teaching for centuries, and unfortunatly has caused a huge watering down effect of the arts.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sadly, most students just want to be "spoon fed" some easily digestible pablum and they're more than happy with that-

Sad but true. And what is worse is that they are not willing to work for it and then complain they are not being taught. And then if the Sifu actually tries to train in a real CMA style they leave because it is to hard or to violent, etc.

Chinese martial arts are taught three ways.

Public, this is what 99% of what everyone is doing and teaching and even many of the asian "masters" have only been taught this way.

second is closed door, reserved for the advanced students and inheritors of the system, very, very few know any of these teachings.

third is family method, no not the family methods most say they teach today, but really a method reserved for family memebers only and never shown nor shared with non family.

these three methods have been the staples of cma's teaching for centuries, and unfortunatly has caused a huge watering down effect of the arts.

Agreed, and in the US there it is that 99% you generally find because If you want to have a profitable CMA school in the USA you have to water it down or you won't have students.


​

 

[Shrewsbury]

Agreed, and in the US there it is that 99% you generally find because If you want to have a profitable CMA school in the USA you have to water it down or you won't have students.

Yes and this is because 99% of people do not really want to train daily and for life, they are seeking the secret elixor or magic pill, sory but as in all arts, your natural talents can get you so far, but to really excell and understand and to reap the benefits you have to put in the time, no ther way about, and by the way even 6 days at the school is not enough, it must be intergrated into daily life.

 

[Andrew Green]

Does changing the way something is taught, in order to make it easier to consume by more people neccessarily mean watering it down? I hear this a lot, but I don't think any student has ever complained that they wanted the stuff they are learning "watered down." Taught different perhaps, but not watered down.

Although I do think that some instructors lack the knowledge of teaching and coaching to be able to teach most people to a high level, so they end up watering it down as the only way they are able to keep people going.

But isn't it possible to keep a high standard, a high level of detail and expectation, get people to a high skill level using modern teaching methods and make it doable by a larger % of the population?

 

[Flying Crane]

I think the article makes some good points, particularly with regard to having two ways of teaching nothing: first, by teaching nothing, and second, by teaching too much to the point of overload.

I think certain things definitely need to be explained in detail, and seem to fit well within a Western notion of proper education techniques. I have seen too many people, for example, throwing sloppy sidekicks. The kick has a certain way it is thrown, with the foot positioned like this, and the ankle like this, and extend and thrust the leg like this, and strike with this portion of the foot, etc. If this kind of detail is not given, then a sidekick is sloppy and a student will hurt himself if he ever tries to land it, even on a heavy bag, not to mention in a real self defense situation. All the basics need this kind of detail, or they are worthless. This includes all the kicks, stances, hand strikes, blocks, and footwork.

But other things in the Chinese martial arts simply don't fit well into a Western notion of proper education techniques, in my opinion. They are complex, and have many levels to them. A student begins by learning the gross movements, which are built out of properly learned basics. But the gross movements don't include everything. If a teacher tried to give the student everything, all the details at once, the new material would not be understandable. A student needs to grapple with the gross movement for a while, before he is ready for some refinement. And there may well be many levels of refinement, each requiring a prolonged period of work, before the student is ready for the next.

Many people think that every time they go to class, they need to be taught something new. But that is not true. Sometimes a student has taken a big bite, and needs time to chew, swallow, and digest before they take another bite. This means they simply need to come to class and keep working on the material, under the instructors watchful eye. Corrections are given where appropriate, but the student does need to wrestle with it a bit.

Often, new information is given when a student shows he is ready for it. This can come in the form of the student asking questions. When you are ready to ask the question, you are ready for the information. Prior to this, you don't even understand it well enough to ask the question. How do you expect to understand the material, if it was presented to you in a Western style lecture, with all the details given at once? You might understand in a superficial level, but you haven't really grasped it. You could probably regurgitate the material in a Pop Quiz, but that doesn't mean you understand it yet. It is too much info and you aren't ready for it yet.

Just this last Saturday, I had a moment like this with my sifu. We were discussing Tai Chi Chuan, which I have studied under him for almost nine years now. The discussion lead to some questions I had, and the answers suddenly opened my eyes and helped me to better understand the basic theory behind Tai Chi Chuan. But until I was ready to have that discussion, and ask those questions, I wasn't really ready for the information. It would not have meant much to me prior to this. (incidentally, my questions were sparked in part by comments that I had seen in some of the discussions here on Martial Talk. I guess you really can learn some things on the internet).

So I guess what I am saying is that when I hear comments referring to learning theory and technique and such, I think that some things in the martial art would be well taught with this approach. But others would not, due to the nature of the material. Martial arts are simply too progressive and ongoing for some of the Western teaching techniques to be effective, at least all the time.

And I would like to agree with many of the comments that others have made, in that many people don't want to work hard enough to learn real Chinese martial arts. So they don't. They are taught the gross movements, and that suffices as a form of exercise, which is what most of them want anyway. Those that are willing to work hard, and want to know the deeper levels of the arts, and who prove their worth and character to the sifu, will be taught the good stuff. But again, be prepared to work for it, and wrestle with it. Very little is handed over on a silver platter.

 

[Flying Crane]

Does changing the way something is taught, in order to make it easier to consume by more people neccessarily mean watering it down?

I think that it doesn't have to mean this, but often it does.

In my opinion, martial arts are not for everyone. This goes against the popular notion today, that everyone can do anything. But I believe it just ain't true. Sure, anyone who wants to, deserves the chance. And they may be able to learn a few things, and even practice it for the rest of their lives if they are dedicated. But most people will never be able to learn and master a martial art to a high level. The training to accomplish this is too tough. Most people lack the physical ability, and the commitment to do so. It may not be their fault. Maybe issues in their personal life prevent it, people have other obligations in life, that's OK. But the tradeoff means that your kung fu will always be at a lower level. That's just reality.

So to make something easier to consume by more people generally means that standards are lowered. The end result is: watered down.

Any school that wants to have a large enrollment will either have a watered down curriculum, or else will have a lot of people who are forever held at a low rank. And if it is a business, this will be a disaster, as your students leave for somewhere else where they can get rank easier. After all, there are so many examples around us today that reinforce the notion that ANYBODY can get a black belt. In my opinion, this should not be true, but many teachers have made it true.