How I feel about people changing schools, instructors, lineages, etc.

[Gerry Seymour]

its endemic at at lot of tma schools, they have a cultish sence of ownership of the,students and a religious zeal that theirs is the one true way

I'm curious why you say it is endemic. I've done most of my training in relatively traditional schools, and have only run into it in places, and more focused on someone moving to another instructor within the same style, where a conflict already existed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can you elaborate on that?

I find that folks with experience outside their primary art are better questioners. They are more likely to explore the movements and focus on what works, and tend to develop a deeper understanding of he principles. They are - to use @drop bear 's term - less dogmatic. I believe those are desirable qualities in an advanced student.

 

[oftheherd1]

I find that folks with experience outside their primary art are better questioners. They are more likely to explore the movements and focus on what works, and tend to develop a deeper understanding of he principles. They are - to use @drop bear 's term - less dogmatic. I believe those are desirable qualities in an advanced student.

OK. I just never encountered that in the schools I attended.

As a teacher, I personally thought if a person didn't have knowledge from other MA experience, it was my job to ensure they did completely understand what I taught. I had a good idea what was going to be harder for them to understand because of the things I didn't always understand when I began to study. Other things I could tell by watching what they did and if it was successful or not, and if not, why.

For that reason I didn't care if they had previous training or not, unless it interfered with what I taught to the detriment of the technique. I began the study of Hapkido expecting the rigidness of my previous Tae Kwon Do training. There, everybody did everything the same way. Period.

To my consternation, I was told the Hapkido I was being taught had no rules on how to do a technique. The way taught, having been perfected over a long time was expected to be the best way. But what really mattered was whether I could achieve the correct result of the technique efficiently. And truly, usually the way taught was the best way.

I wasn't encouraged, but I had the liberty to try another way, whether due to my lack of understanding what was taught, or my body or whatever. On the few occasions I did so, I always gave up on my inefficient experiments, and came back to learn the way I had been taught.

As a teacher, I was always willing to answer questions, but frankly, I didn't get that many. I was teaching proper ways to do things. Sometimes beginning students with experience in Chair-Kung-Fu might ask the plausibility of some movie or TV scene. But not more.

I just can't quite see your thought process that you think a student has to bring experience and knowledge you aren't willing to teach if they didn't have it when they arrived. And, they might not be promoted to BB because of that lack.

I don't know. Maybe I'm too dense and I still don't understand your explanations.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

OK. I just never encountered that in the schools I attended.

As a teacher, I personally thought if a person didn't have knowledge from other MA experience, it was my job to ensure they did completely understand what I taught. I had a good idea what was going to be harder for them to understand because of the things I didn't always understand when I began to study. Other things I could tell by watching what they did and if it was successful or not, and if not, why.

For that reason I didn't care if they had previous training or not, unless it interfered with what I taught to the detriment of the technique. I began the study of Hapkido expecting the rigidness of my previous Tae Kwon Do training. There, everybody did everything the same way. Period.

To my consternation, I was told the Hapkido I was being taught had no rules on how to do a technique. The way taught, having been perfected over a long time was expected to be the best way. But what really mattered was whether I could achieve the correct result of the technique efficiently. And truly, usually the way taught was the best way.

I wasn't encouraged, but I had the liberty to try another way, whether due to my lack of understanding what was taught, or my body or whatever. On the few occasions I did so, I always gave up on my inefficient experiments, and came back to learn the way I had been taught.

As a teacher, I was always willing to answer questions, but frankly, I didn't get that many. I was teaching proper ways to do things. Sometimes beginning students with experience in Chair-Kung-Fu might ask the plausibility of some movie or TV scene. But not more.

I just can't quite see your thought process that you think a student has to bring experience and knowledge you aren't willing to teach if they didn't have it when they arrived. And, they might not be promoted to BB because of that lack.

I don't know. Maybe I'm too dense and I still don't understand your explanations.

I doubt you're dense - let me see if I can clarify a bit.

When I speak of questions, it's things like, "Why do we do x? Won't that leave us open to y?" Or, "Wouldn't it be easier to just..." I seem to get those questions much earlier and more often from folks who've trained in something different. And that shows they are questioning what I teach, in a healthy, skeptical, yet trusting way. I think that approach builds the best martial artists. And - here's an important point - it helps protect instructors from becoming complacent. I have a student with Shotokan experience, who often asks why we couldn't just use a strike. And I remind him we can, and that we're practicing another alternative. Then we take a couple of minutes to explore the advantages of each approach. He's the best questioner I've had, and it keeps me more consciously thinking about whether there's something I need to point out about a weakness or opening we create in a technique.

As for understanding, it's mostly about them having heard some of the principles explained by other instructors (even in the same art). We all have our own language of how we explain our art. And sometimes, that language isn't a great fit for a student. If they can link in something they learned from someone else - maybe even just a different phrase used to explain "weight dropping" - it gives them a handle to better understand what we say. For this purpose, I find seminars are a good medium.

So, from that last point, I don't really see a need for a student to go study another art for several years. But I'd be cautious about promoting someone to BB who hadn't been to some seminars and maybe taken a few months of classes somewhere else. If they manage the understanding and questioning without that exposure, I'm okay with that. I've just seen it develop more consistently among those who do go to seminars or train elsewhere - especially with instructors who question things.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

OK. I just never encountered that in the schools I attended.

As a teacher, I personally thought if a person didn't have knowledge from other MA experience, it was my job to ensure they did completely understand what I taught. I had a good idea what was going to be harder for them to understand because of the things I didn't always understand when I began to study. Other things I could tell by watching what they did and if it was successful or not, and if not, why.

For that reason I didn't care if they had previous training or not, unless it interfered with what I taught to the detriment of the technique. I began the study of Hapkido expecting the rigidness of my previous Tae Kwon Do training. There, everybody did everything the same way. Period.

To my consternation, I was told the Hapkido I was being taught had no rules on how to do a technique. The way taught, having been perfected over a long time was expected to be the best way. But what really mattered was whether I could achieve the correct result of the technique efficiently. And truly, usually the way taught was the best way.

I wasn't encouraged, but I had the liberty to try another way, whether due to my lack of understanding what was taught, or my body or whatever. On the few occasions I did so, I always gave up on my inefficient experiments, and came back to learn the way I had been taught.

As a teacher, I was always willing to answer questions, but frankly, I didn't get that many. I was teaching proper ways to do things. Sometimes beginning students with experience in Chair-Kung-Fu might ask the plausibility of some movie or TV scene. But not more.

I just can't quite see your thought process that you think a student has to bring experience and knowledge you aren't willing to teach if they didn't have it when they arrived. And, they might not be promoted to BB because of that lack.

I don't know. Maybe I'm too dense and I still don't understand your explanations.

By the way, the kind of questioning you're doing in this thread - that's what I'm talking about. You're not challenging me in some disrespectful manner. You're asking questions and putting forth your experience and opinion. I appreciate that in my students, as much as I do here.

 

[oftheherd1]

I doubt you're dense - let me see if I can clarify a bit.

When I speak of questions, it's things like, "Why do we do x? Won't that leave us open to y?" Or, "Wouldn't it be easier to just..." I seem to get those questions much earlier and more often from folks who've trained in something different. And that shows they are questioning what I teach, in a healthy, skeptical, yet trusting way. I think that approach builds the best martial artists. And - here's an important point - it helps protect instructors from becoming complacent. I have a student with Shotokan experience, who often asks why we couldn't just use a strike. And I remind him we can, and that we're practicing another alternative. Then we take a couple of minutes to explore the advantages of each approach. He's the best questioner I've had, and it keeps me more consciously thinking about whether there's something I need to point out about a weakness or opening we create in a technique.

As for understanding, it's mostly about them having heard some of the principles explained by other instructors (even in the same art). We all have our own language of how we explain our art. And sometimes, that language isn't a great fit for a student. If they can link in something they learned from someone else - maybe even just a different phrase used to explain "weight dropping" - it gives them a handle to better understand what we say. For this purpose, I find seminars are a good medium.

So, from that last point, I don't really see a need for a student to go study another art for several years. But I'd be cautious about promoting someone to BB who hadn't been to some seminars and maybe taken a few months of classes somewhere else. If they manage the understanding and questioning without that exposure, I'm okay with that. I've just seen it develop more consistently among those who do go to seminars or train elsewhere - especially with instructors who question things.

I can agree with all but the last. I still think it is my job to teach or I can't hold them responsible. But as I see you don't necessarily either. I can see where it would be an advantage. Thanks for the explanation.

EDIT: Where it could be an advantage was proved in my mind, several years back when a man started posting "What to do about Dudes" You Tube videos. I will never forget the problems many had accepting his demos. One went so far as to try it at his dojang (to his credit). The problem was he had no experience to see everything he was seeing, much less to understand and apply it. He pronounced it total bogus and learned nothing. In my experience, if you aren't careful, sometimes students do that. They will loosely go through the motions, all the time saying to themselves, "I'll never do that in a real situation."

 

[oftheherd1]

By the way, the kind of questioning you're doing in this thread - that's what I'm talking about. You're not challenging me in some disrespectful manner. You're asking questions and putting forth your experience and opinion. I appreciate that in my students, as much as I do here.

Awww. Shucks.

I notice you do that as well.

Actually, I agree and wish there was more of that here at MT.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you are aware of this why stick with his school? It shows that your teacher is very insecure and he doesn't want his students to become better than him, which should be the goal for any teacher in my opinion.

Because it doesn't bother me. I'm probably the idea student because I like Jow Ga Kung Fu more than I like other systems. My opinion is that Jow Ga has everything that I need to deal with fighting so I don't have that feeling or need to really seek anything else out. My entire mission is to show that Jow Ga Kung Fu is effective and to be a good representation of Jow Ga Kung Fu and I really can't do that if I'm trying to work techniques outside of the 3 systems that make up Jow Ga. I have had a lot of opportunities that I normally wouldn't have had in other schools.

 

[drop bear]

I find that folks with experience outside their primary art are better questioners. They are more likely to explore the movements and focus on what works, and tend to develop a deeper understanding of he principles. They are - to use @drop bear 's term - less dogmatic. I believe those are desirable qualities in an advanced student.

You get forced to evolve.

 

[Zephyor]

"It is important to draw wisdom from different places. If you take it from only one place it become rigid and stale."
I heard the idea back back when i was a kid, watching cartoons n stuff... Daggnabbit!!! Ol' Iroh did it again.... mumblin' stuff i only get to understand in time... quite a long one i must say.

 

[drop bear]

I'm curious why you say it is endemic. I've done most of my training in relatively traditional schools, and have only run into it in places, and more focused on someone moving to another instructor within the same style, where a conflict already existed.

Recently encountered this in an interesting way. Somone suggested a move was pretty silly. And the response was they should refer to their instructor. And create a deeper understanding of their art or other such faith based junk.

Looking inwards for an answer that just may not be there. Is a common martial concept. Which seems to just be circular reasoning.

A technique doesn't work = you dont understand the technique = when will I understand the technique enough to know? = when the technique works.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Recently encountered this in an interesting way. Somone suggested a move was pretty silly. And the response was they should refer to their instructor. And create a deeper understanding of their art or other such faith based junk.

Looking inwards for an answer that just may not be there. Is a common martial concept. Which seems to just be circular reasoning.

A technique doesn't work = you dont understand the technique = when will I understand the technique enough to know? = when the technique works.

Yeah. The problem is it's actually true, until it isn't. If a single-leg isn't working, and feels silly, it's because it's being done wrong. If a 2-hand-grip-from-the-rear, throw-to-the-side feels silly, it's because it's being done wrong. If it looks more complex than necessary, it's because it's more complex than necessary (other techniques almost always available to do the job more simply).

 

[drop bear]

Yeah. The problem is it's actually true, until it isn't. If a single-leg isn't working, and feels silly, it's because it's being done wrong. If a 2-hand-grip-from-the-rear, throw-to-the-side feels silly, it's because it's being done wrong. If it looks more complex than necessary, it's because it's more complex than necessary (other techniques almost always available to do the job more simply).

Someone will be able to show it working.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A technique doesn't work = you dont understand the technique = when will I understand the technique enough to know? = when the technique works.

If your opponent is a beginner, anything that you do will work. If your opponent is on your level, your technique

- doesn't work because your opponent understands how to counter it.
- works because you know how to counter your opponent's counter.

 

[JR 137]

Yeah. The problem is it's actually true, until it isn't. If a single-leg isn't working, and feels silly, it's because it's being done wrong. If a 2-hand-grip-from-the-rear, throw-to-the-side feels silly, it's because it's being done wrong. If it looks more complex than necessary, it's because it's more complex than necessary (other techniques almost always available to do the job more simply).

Quite often...
The student is doing the technique wrong; grossly or subtly.
The student may be doing the technique correctly, but isn't setting it up correctly.
The partner isn't working correctly with the student so the student can truly learn the technique correctly in the beginning stages.
The student doesn't have faith in the technique, therefore not really giving the technique a real chance, resulting in the student going through the motions so he/she can just move on to the next thing.
Often times a technique seems over complicated until it's trained for long enough, then it becomes second nature and the student wonders why it took them so long, or wonders why they thought it was hard before. Take a look at kata: a white belt sees a 5th kyu doing a kata and thinks to him/herself "I'll never be able to do THAT!" They learn it, and at 3rd kyu it's pretty easy and are asking why they still do it. I remember going through that, and still do every now and then. Two nights ago I was in class with myself and two new sandans. It was kata class, and they were learning what to me sees like a ridiculously complex kata, to them a somewhat hard kata, and to the teacher (6th dan) it's a long kata that's simple with the only realistically hard part being memorizing the correct order of moves.

Many times someone else can explain the technique in different terms and all of a sudden have the technique "click" for the student. This doesn't have to involve going to a different school. A different instructor at the same school can make it understandable, as can another student (junior or senior), or even a video or book.

The problem becomes when the teacher doesn't put things in terms the individual student understands. The teacher may be excellent and reaches just about everyone else effectively, but that doesn't mean that teacher's a good fit for that individual.

Sometimes, the technique is just crap.

Sometimes, I just ramble on

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The partner isn't working correctly with the student so the student can truly learn the technique correctly in the beginning stages.

This is often the issue, IME. Techniques need a good "feed" for learning. If you're going to practice a single-leg, and I don't get close enough, I'm not setting up a situation where you should reasonably do that. Or if I come in with my upper body low and forward - probably not going to be good, for a beginner's starting point.

Often times a technique seems over complicated until it's trained for long enough, then it becomes second nature and the student wonders why it took them so long, or wonders why they thought it was hard before.

This, too. In NGA, for instance, many of the "Techniques" ("classical form" in my nomenclature) include movements to set the technique up. These seem very complicated, until the student learns to recognize the real "starting point" for the technique is halfway (or more) through it. Then, they learn to recognize when the technique is available (they are in the right position, and their opponent is too) and use it from there, rather than having to manufacture it. From that point of understanding, it's not complicated, and the classical form feels simpler, too, since the student recognizes it as part set-up, part technique.

Many times someone else can explain the technique in different terms and all of a sudden have the technique "click" for the student. This doesn't have to involve going to a different school. A different instructor at the same school can make it understandable, as can another student (junior or senior), or even a video or book.

Very true. This has been part of my experience - I've had 3 chief instructors (school changed hands twice, passed along to the next most senior person), and at least 3 (depending how you count them) other instructors, just within NGA. Then there were all the other students I worked with, some of whom were quite good at explaining things from their own point of view.

Add to that the insight I've gained from reading (including some things I've read on MT and other fora), and from seminars and cross-training. This is why I advocate all my students getting some experience outside my program. I'm currently the only instructor, and I consider that sub-optimal.

The problem becomes when the teacher doesn't put things in terms the individual student understands. The teacher may be excellent and reaches just about everyone else effectively, but that doesn't mean that teacher's a good fit for that individual.

See above - more instructors (even temporary) means more ways of looking at things.

Sometimes, the technique is just crap.

Sometimes, I just ramble on

You ain't the only one, brother.