more than one sensei at a dojo?

[Matt Stone]

You sound just like the know-nothings I went to school with,

Do I really? Thanks!

the ones I would never dream of talking about martial arts with because it was obvious they considered traditional training laughable.

I don't consider traditional training laughable; quite the contrary. What I find laughable is the pseudo-traditional training, wrapped up in some "grandmaster's" ego trip, that blinds the student to anything outside of what "grandmaster" says it truth.

I am not saying that a traditional instructor needs to know all about life and be a life adviser to students. But you have this superficial attitude that the only thing an instructor is good for is teaching technique.

Again, you err. That isn't all an instructor is good for. They can hold doors open for you, too, or help carry in your groceries...

Seriously, though, my attitude isn't superficial at all. I didn't say that an instructor couldn't provide insight, advice, or guidance. What I said was that it wasn't the instructor's place to offer such things because he/she feels they have that right, or that it is their calling to do so, something too many MA teachers think comes along with the job title...

That is not an instructor that is a coach. A coach's job is to bring student's technique to accomplish a mission-usually winning matches.

I don't think I'd disagree with your definition of coach, but I'd also point out that many mainstream sports coaches have provided their athletes with life lessons of a sort that had a very meaningful impact on the remainder of their lives... I'd disagree that a coach, martial arts instructor, pottery teacher, etc., was as pigeon-holed into their role as you imply in your definition of coach...

This is what DO means-a martial art as a Way of Life to better yourself as a student and as a person.

That could be debated for so long, and from so many different points of view, that we'd burn MT out entirely in attempting it. Understand that until the middle of last century, budo didn't really exist. Bujutsu did. Understand that do started in Japan, and it started as a reaction to the occupation of Japan and the subsequent outlawing of martial arts practice. By couching training in a "character development" environment, it circumvented the fear the occupation forces had of insurrection and rebellion. Going back in history, when the samurai found themselves out of a job, they practiced tea ceremony, flower arrangement and caligraphy instead of trying to convince folks that their emasculated martial training was a better method of developing their refined side...

I'd agree, though, that the modern interpretation of do or dao/tao could be construed as a method by which character development was enabled... Though that isn't the whole of it by far.

You may think of it an outdated anachronism, and your posting suggest more than a little anti-Eastern bigotry.

Oh, this is going to be fun... First, you know nothing of my background. While I tend to want folks to step back and let me handle my own issues, this is one area I know many folks could chime in on. I'm married to a Filipino, I've deliberately pursued living in Japan and Korea, I deliberately pursued living in an area of the US with a high Asian population... So, yeah, I'm anti-Asian. You bet.

Second, I have never said, nor will I say, that traditional training is outdated. Anachronism, yes, but not a bad one. I will say, however, that blind adherence to the directives of a person whose sole focus in life is the practice of a fighting art, regardless of the alleged benefits of that practice, would almost necessarily invalidate that individual's qualification as a life mentor. That having been said, I further do not believe that it is the teacher that teaches the moral lessons in martial arts; experience and training teach those lessons, as the teacher only exists to point the student in the right direction and kick them. It is identical to the saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the dumb SOB take a drink." A teacher does not teach, he/she presents. The student learns through their own effort, or not at all. So all your posturing about actively teaching someone something that is intended to benefit their outside life is just words attempting to validate your ego's desire for justification and recognition. Kill the self, kill the ego; only then can you really teach...

But the practice of traditional martial arts serves an important purpose-a solid foundation to help you through life. I wish there was no need for it.

This is where the co-dependency begins... The solid foundation that exists or fails to exist is not your concern. The student's parents should have imbued the child with that. Perhaps as members of a larger community we have some degree of responsibility for helping our human family learn, but the reality is that in modern America this isn't accepted until it is far too late. At the point you are stepping in, either the damage done is already irreparable, or is so extensive that only the student can remedy it anyway. See the paragraph above. There is a Buddhist tenet that if the Self that sees flaws within the Self desires help, then either a) the damaged Self cannot repair the damage or b) only the damaged Self can recognize what needs to be fixed. Either way, you are cut out of the equation entirely. Point the way, but don't try to either walk the road, nor shoulder the burden, for the traveller.

The fact is, for many students in our organization, mine as well as other instructors', this traditional guidance is often the ONLY guidance they have. We provide guidance that many times their parents don't give them. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is.

The burden for solving all the ills of society must be quite heavy. At some point, you won't be able to carry it alone anymore. Confucius encouraged each person instead to shoulder their own burden, and in so doing, the entire burden could be carried any distance... (Boy, I sure am anti-Asian, ain't I???)

Now, I could say "My responsibility to you is only in class teaching technique. Whatever you do outside class is up to you."

Good! Say it soon, and often! Don't make life easy by taking the student's responsibility away from him!

What happens if that kid gets into trouble with martial arts? Do I still say "He used TKD outside class and it isn't my responsibility?" Of course I don't. I trained him, I am responsible for him. Not just in class, but outside class as well.

What if he gets in trouble without martial arts? Are you still responsible for his gambling, underage drinking, internet porn, traffic tickets, bad checks, late video rentals, and not wearing a condom? Where does your responsibility end? I'm thinking, both legally and morally, at the door to the dojo...

Now adults, granted, are a little different.

Why?

They are responsible for themselves outside class more.

Really? Why? Because they are adults? Is an arbitrary thing like age necessarily disqualifying when we are talking about failing to make moral, ethical and legal decisions? Because, if it is, then there are a whole lot more children in the world of advanced age than we know of...

However, as my students, I am still responsible for their development and growth as martial arts students, both in and out of class.

You aren't even really responsible for their behavior in class, much less outside of class. Teach them the art. Let them train, and the art will teach them the rest. You aren't that important... That was a hard realization to make for me, but putting down the burden of being something I could never be freed me to be what I was capable of becoming. Try it. Your "teaching" will get better...

As far as work, school, family I can give advice if asked or if I know a particular area.

In that aspect, then, how are you any different from anyone else? You are doing, in that aspect, the exact same thing any other person in the student's life could do - providing insight based on experiences. Being a martial arts instructor has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever...

But they can also make their own decisions and learn from them.

Which is as it should be...

But as far as martial artists, they answer to me.

No, they don't. The power you have over them is what they give you and allow you to have. If you take that power from them, not allowing them the choice, then you aren't helping them at all. You are chaining them to your will, and they won't grow the way you claim to want them to. They will exist to serve the inflation of your ego, and nothing more.

The Reverend Kensho Furuya, in his book "Kodo: Ancient Ways" (a fine book, but nothing more than a compilation of articles he'd written for a magazine over a few years), spoke to the nature of a teacher. He pointed out that a "master" was stupid; if he was smart he'd do something far less difficult and far more profitable. A "master" was nothing more than a stepping stone for others to walk on toward their goal. A "master" would never acknowledge anything of the sort. A "master" was nothing more than the sum of experience and training. And so on. I recommend you read it. It is based heavily on traditional Japanese budo and bujutsu training, as well as the Buddhist background Reverend Furuya has (he is a Zen priest in California).

Until then, you'll do whatever you'll do. I just hope your influence remains positive, and focused on the student's needs and not your own.

Enjoy.

 

[Matt Stone]

Matt Stone has the correct.

The time for Armageddon must be nigh... OFK and I agree on something... AGAIN!!!

The rest of you have watched Karate Kid a few too many time.

Amen to that. Granted, it'd be great to have that kind of teacher. The stark reality is that that kind of teacher is rarer than diamonds... That's why he is so valuable when found.

 

[Old Fat Kenpoka]

Matt is correct.

Blind loyalty to a "sensei", close-mindedness to learning from others, the expectation that your "training" will straighten out all elements of your life or your students' lives...these are the elements of a Cult and are have nothing at all to do with good martial arts instruction.

Now, having said that...I was and still am very loyal to my Kenpo Sensei. He has been a very positive influence in my life. But at no time did I ever think he was the only person I should listen to and learn from--in the martial arts, business, or life. More importantly, while violent or criminal behavior outside the Dojo could get me booted, at no time did my Sensei feel like my behavior outside the school was his responsibility.

Also, the Sensei in the original question must have identified an opportunity to fill a knowledge/skill gap in his school or to strengthen the school's financial position before inviting a grappling instructor in. There are many many many schools taking this approach nowadays. A premier Kenpo school in my area offers 3 hours a week of BJJ instruction. The local Kickboxing powerhouse also offers Submission Wrestling and BJJ. Even the local TKD chain boasting thousands of students brought in BJJ instructors to teach their instructors grappling--without diminishing the founder's control or the students' respect for him.

The idea that each school/system/sensei offers a complete path to martial excellence or spiritual enlightenment and deserves unquestioned loyalty is ridiculous. Only religious cults require such blind commitments from their followers.

:soapbox:

 

[RRouuselot]

Matt,

1) You sound just like the know-nothings I went to school with, the ones I would never dream of talking about martial arts with because it was obvious they considered traditional training laughable.
2) I am not saying that a traditional instructor needs to know all about life and be a life adviser to students. But you have this superficial attitude that the only thing an instructor is good for is teaching technique. That is not an instructor that is a coach. A coach's job is to bring student's technique to accomplish a mission-usually winning matches.
3) This is what DO means-a martial art as a Way of Life to better yourself as a student and as a person.

4) You may think of it an outdated anachronism, and your posting suggest more than a little anti-Eastern bigotry.

5) But the practice of traditional martial arts serves an important purpose-a solid foundation to help you through life. I wish there was no need for it.

6 ) The fact is, for many students in our organization, mine as well as other instructors', this traditional guidance is often the ONLY guidance they have. We provide guidance that many times their parents don't give them. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is.
Now, I could say "My responsibility to you is only in class teaching technique. Whatever you do outside class is up to you." What happens if that kid gets into trouble with martial arts? Do I still say "He used TKD outside class and it isn't my responsibility?" Of course I don't. I trained him, I am responsible for him. Not just in class, but outside class as well.
Now adults, granted, are a little different. They are responsible for themselves outside class more. However, as my students, I am still responsible for their development and growth as martial arts students, both in and out of class. As far as work, school, family I can give advice if asked or if I know a particular area. But they can also make their own decisions and learn from them.But as far as martial artists, they answer to me.

1)Matt does a “traditional” art so I think you have grossly misjudged him.

2) Please explain and support your idea that MA teachers have had any sort of training that would qualify them as some sort of “guidance counselor”.

3)Again, most teachers and people I have seen on this and several other boards do not conduct themselves as if they know of or practice the so called “DO” that you mention. There is a Daoist saying in Chinese: “Dao ke dao feichang dao” = ‘What seems like the way cannot possible be the way”

4)Odd…I agree with Matt…and I live in Asia, married to an Asian as matter of fact. Matt lived in Asia and is married to one as well. I fail to see his “bigotry”. In fact I think he is more qualified to comment on it than most people on this thread. I do see is many folks that have never been, or lived in Asia for any length of time have a whacked out chop sockey view of what “asian training” is about.

5)The “way” is found in training….it’s not found in talking about.

6)I find that sad.

 

[Makalakumu]

When we say the dojang/dojo kun what does that mean?

1. I seek perfection of character.
2. I am sincere and honest.
3. I show strong spirit.
4. I control my temperament.

In my opinion, and as can clearly be seen, all of those statements start with "I".

This is "my" path. I "seek" those things. I "am" what I believe. When I say this, I am saying that as a learner, this is my "way".

My students don't come to me for pontification. They come to my dojang and repeat the kun because we share the same way...and then they sweat and fight and learn how to do and fail and do again differently.

Do I need to tell a student, "if you think about failure beforehand you've already failed"?

Might as well get the tattoo. Put that one on the wall. The words make it meaningless.

This has turned into a really deep (and revealing) thread.

upnorthkyosa

PS - I cross trained in lots of arts for 10 years and ended up with a bag full of ****. The lesson I learned is that when you learn an art deeply enough, the missing peices one thought were missing, are suddenly found. You come full circle.

 

[RRouuselot]

PS - I cross trained in lots of arts for 10 years and ended up with a bag full of ****. The lesson I learned is that when you learn an art deeply enough, the missing peices one thought were missing, are suddenly found. You come full circle.

excellent point!

 

[Matt Stone]

When we say the dojang/dojo kun what does that mean?

1. I seek perfection of character.
2. I am sincere and honest.
3. I show strong spirit.
4. I control my temperament.

In my opinion, and as can clearly be seen, all of those statements start with "I".

An important bit to remember is that the dojo kun was instituted in Shotokan so that younger students (children as well as young adults) would have certain principles drilled into their heads so they'd remember them later... Given the rather distant nature of "traditional" teachers, I don't know that they would have taken much of a personal interest in most of their students. If they had a student they were genuinely concerned with, that student would have already displayed appropriate maturity and judgement, and so wouldn't be concern in the first place...

This is "my" path. I "seek" those things. I "am" what I believe. When I say this, I am saying that as a learner, this is my "way".

Ownership. Always a neat thing to see...

My students don't come to me for pontification. They come to my dojang and repeat the kun because we share the same way...and then they sweat and fight and learn how to do and fail and do again differently.

A group of like-minded seekers using mutual support to further their own particular search... Nicely put.

Do I need to tell a student, "if you think about failure beforehand you've already failed"?

The failure is already theirs the moment they accept it as a failure... If they accept it as a stepping stone, a necessary obstacle from which they can propel themselves forward, then there is nothing to tell...

This has turned into a really deep (and revealing) thread.

No matter the person's ire, I'm not trying to offend folks... If I were, there are far shorter and more colorful methods by which to accomplish that goal. I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans are so disappointed with their own lack of identity, their own lack of moral guidance, that they seek out anyone with the slightest hint of an answer. I think it is even more unfortunate when those who cease their search stop and believe they've found the Answer. When the search stops, growth ends. When you think you've found it, that's the proof you haven't yet...

There are just too many people who spent too much time feeling alienated, alone, isolated, lost. Too many that were bullied, pushed around, made to feel inferior. Then they learn martial arts, get a black belt, believe the fantasy, and try to resolve their own issues through their students (or spouses, children, etc.).

To be a teacher you have to first accept you don't know as much as you think you know, as much as you should know, to merit the position in the first place. Then you have to let go of what you really do know, play with it, see it with new eyes in order to present it to someone else. Einstein is reputed to have said that if you couldn't explain something to either a 4 year old or a 4th grader (I don't recall which), then you didn't really know it at all.

So there you go.

Now back to training...

 

[MichiganTKD]

I think some people are misunderstanding what I think the duties of an instructor are. Contrary to some opinions, I do NOT believe that students should be slaves of an instructor. Slaves have no choice. We always had a choice, and I always gave my students a choice.
Realize, even within our organization, some students are very close to their instructor (almost a parent-child relationship, if you will), while some students are not as close. Students are not penalized for not wanting to be close to the instructor. The price they pay is not learning more of what he has to offer. Keep in mind, many instructor/student lessons take place away from class. If the only time you ever see me is in class, you will learn, but only so much. You will not be in the inner circle, so to speak. This is by your choice.
But back to the topic. I believe in the one school-one instructor rule because that one-on-one relationship allows you greater access to the instructor's teaching. Again, it is a measure of trust. It's got little to do with wanting to be a life advisor for the student, although sometimes that comes into play because I want to see my students succeed in life and will push them if necessary.
If I know you are loyal to me even if you have choices, I am more willing to teach you things that others might not get. Either because they choose to physically not be there or are not as interested. Voluntary loyalty has its privileges.

 

[47MartialMan]

I think some people are misunderstanding what I think the duties of an instructor are. Contrary to some opinions, I do NOT believe that students should be slaves of an instructor. Slaves have no choice. We always had a choice, and I always gave my students a choice.
But, kids have no choice in it is their first instructor. They latch onto the first instructor like "first love". Hardly none could compare at those stages of influence.


Realize, even within our organization, some students are very close to their instructor (almost a parent-child relationship, if you will), while some students are not as close. Students are not penalized for not wanting to be close to the instructor. The price they pay is not learning more of what he has to offer. Keep in mind, many instructor/student lessons take place away from class. If the only time you ever see me is in class, you will learn, but only so much. You will not be in the inner circle, so to speak.
Sounds contradictory because the penalty is not bring in the inner circle and not learning more.


But back to the topic. I believe in the one school-one instructor rule because that one-on-one relationship allows you greater access to the instructor's teaching. Again, it is a measure of trust. It's got little to do with wanting to be a life advisor for the student, although sometimes that comes into play because I want to see my students succeed in life and will push them if necessary.
Kids could have succeeded without a martial art instructor.


If I know you are loyal to me even if you have choices, I am more willing to teach you things that others might not get. Either because they choose to physically not be there or are not as interested. Voluntary loyalty has its privileges.
I wonder how much money was spent to get that position? And how much more would be needed?



But, I get what you mean as being extra help. An extra mentor/role model.

Besides a great dad, I still had a couple extras (extra mentor/role model).

If it does good in a indivdual's life, keep adding it on.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Mod. Note.

Please, return to the original topic: Is it a good idea to have specialized instructors?

- MJ
- MT Moderator -

 

[Matt Stone]

I think some people are misunderstanding what I think the duties of an instructor are.

I think there are quite a few people, here and elsewhere, that misunderstand the duties of a martial arts instructor...

Contrary to some opinions, I do NOT believe that students should be slaves of an instructor. Slaves have no choice. We always had a choice, and I always gave my students a choice.

Certainly you provide them the opportunity to make a decision, but you curtail their freedom to choose their courses of action... You say they can choose to see another instructor, but you require them to ask your permission first, permission that doesn't need to be given. So in the end, do they really have a choice? Their choice, if they like training with you, seems to be made for them - train only with you, or not at all.

Realize, even within our organization, some students are very close to their instructor (almost a parent-child relationship, if you will), while some students are not as close. Students are not penalized for not wanting to be close to the instructor. The price they pay is not learning more of what he has to offer.

Why are some students having information withheld, while others who form a personal bond receive more? Aren't they all paying the same tuition? Isn't the same material covered in available classes? If so, then the student limits his/her instruction, not the teacher. The teacher provides the instruction, and the student either attends, learns, and trains, or doesn't.

Keep in mind, many instructor/student lessons take place away from class.

How so? Where and when? How do you determine which students receive this specialized, personal attention outside of class, and which ones don't? This behavior smacks of elitism and a cult-like environment... Neither of which hold much water in the US of A...

If the only time you ever see me is in class, you will learn, but only so much. You will not be in the inner circle, so to speak. This is by your choice.

Why do you pick and choose an "inner circle?" What is the necessity of that? How does it specifically enhance the student's training? If the instruction is being provided for a fee, then you are discriminating against the other students by not making such out of class instruction available to each and every student... Not my rule, that'd be the law of the land speaking. I'd hate to see a disgruntled student file a lawsuit against a successful school based on discriminatory business practices that withheld information from one student based on an arbitrary standard of behavior that isn't specifically addressed somehow in the student's enrollment contract...

But back to the topic. I believe in the one school-one instructor rule because that one-on-one relationship allows you greater access to the instructor's teaching.

Predicated on the presumption that that instructor has everything you want to learn... You have stated that you will refuse further instruction to a student that wants to go outside of your school, against your permission, to further his/her training in techniques you do not provide instruction in. You are limiting your own students' development by adhering to that mindset.

Encouraging a student to stick with one thing before moving on is one thing. Prohibiting their choice by having stated punishments for such behavior is another entirely. In that instance, a single instructor prevents students from going over to the competition, maintain the instructor's "bottom line," and contributes to the enhancement of the teacher ego at the student's expense.

Again, it is a measure of trust. It's got little to do with wanting to be a life advisor for the student, although sometimes that comes into play because I want to see my students succeed in life and will push them if necessary.

I thought you said upthread that you stay out of their lives. Which is it? Do you push them in their personal life, or do you stay out of their lives until asked? One you should do, one you shouldn't...

If I know you are loyal to me even if you have choices, I am more willing to teach you things that others might not get. Either because they choose to physically not be there or are not as interested. Voluntary loyalty has its privileges.

So you present information selectively, based upon their personal loyalty to you? And what demonstrations of loyalty do you require for such privileged instruction? How much more do you charge? I think there are issues here that have yet to be resolved...

Original thread issue(s) - If a school is attempting to pass on an undiluted tradition, whatever its purpose (practical self defense, cultural identity, etc.), then having another instructor will be distracting at best, possibly contradictory and disruptive at worst. It could tear that school apart, since the different instructors may have different training philosophies, significantly different training methods, different expectations for their students, and different assumptions about the goal of training in the first place.

If a school is attempting to provide as many options for training (whether the students are "cross training" or not) for the student as possible, then multiple instructors are a fine idea. Ultimately, though, we are speaking about a public martial arts school running as a business enterprise, aren't we? As such, one sole owner/operator of the business, a CEO of sorts, would need to be identified, and that individual would have the final say in any given situation. Whether his decision makes other subordinate instructors happy or not makes little difference; one final authority would need to exist.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The "right" answer doesn't exist, and any answer will depend on your goals and attitudes toward training.

Enjoy.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

Original thread issue(s) - If a school is attempting to pass on an undiluted tradition, whatever its purpose (practical self defense, cultural identity, etc.), then having another instructor will be distracting at best, possibly contradictory and disruptive at worst. It could tear that school apart, since the different instructors may have different training philosophies, significantly different training methods, different expectations for their students, and different assumptions about the goal of training in the first place.

If a school is attempting to provide as many options for training (whether the students are "cross training" or not) for the student as possible, then multiple instructors are a fine idea. Ultimately, though, we are speaking about a public martial arts school running as a business enterprise, aren't we? As such, one sole owner/operator of the business, a CEO of sorts, would need to be identified, and that individual would have the final say in any given situation. Whether his decision makes other subordinate instructors happy or not makes little difference; one final authority would need to exist.

Six of one, half dozen of the other. The "right" answer doesn't exist, and any answer will depend on your goals and attitudes toward training.

Thank you for sharing your opinion on the thread topic with us. Do you believe that the head instructor should not act as a student during the one class a week that he has invited this specialized grappling instructor in for?

MJ :asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

Thank you for sharing your opinion on the thread topic with us. Do you believe that the head instructor should not act as a student during the one class a week that he has invited this specialized grappling instructor in for?

If the instructor is truly a person of quality, the students won't have any issues with his/her authority by seeing him/her acting as a student, making mistakes like any other student, etc., while learning from another teacher.

If the instructor is a paper tiger, a tin soldier riding on the ego trip derived from controlling his students and their perception of the instructor, then it would be a death knell for him/her to be seen in such a compromising position. His/her authority would be suspect, the students would question everything he/she said, basing their questions on the display of fallibility shown during the other person's instruction.

I've organized 4 Throwdowns through Bullshido.com. We've brought in instructor grade students from at least a dozen different arts. We've had nearly 50 people attend (spread over all 4 events). I've attended the Martial University event in Seattle, and would attend again this year if it weren't for my move to Korea (I report to Korea the same day as the MU event). I've attended seminars for Isshin-ryu Karate and Silat in our area with my fellow students, and it did nothing to jeapordize my "authority" as a senior. I have no problem "being a student" as I've never told my "students" that I was anything but! I don't present myself as a teacher, only an older and more experienced student... I'm not about to try fooling myself into thinking that I have any business "teaching;" I present material and let the material "teach" the student whatever it will.

I've taken up Judo and Systema as a complete beginner. When I started Modern Arnis, it was as a complete beginner, and I specifically asked my teacher to not take my prior training for granted and treat me like I didn't know a thing.

So the folks with whom I train have no problem with me. I suppose if I'd tried to convince them I was the end all/be all, then their seeing another instructor tie me in knots, bounce me off the floor, or KO me might be damaging to my Dungeons and Dragons fantasy life...

 

[Sin]

First of all I respect my teacher’s opinion for several reasons. Mainly because he is on in years and has gained a lot of knowledge. On things pertaining to MA I trust his judgement…on personal matters it depends on what it is. I would not substitute him for a trained, licensed counselor.



Matt,



You hit the nail right on the head.

The whole thing about someone’s MA teacher qualifying as some sort of “life councilor” has always struck me a bit as being “chop sockey” at best.

Does that attitude come from too many bad kung fu movies??? Could be.



I have always trained by the adage “too many cooks spoil the pot” or “if you chase 2 rabbits you won’t catch either and just go hungry”.

Here is an example:

If someone wants to learn stuff for tippy-tap tournaments their self-defense skills will suffer. This is not my opinion but a fact….the fact is you will fight the way you train and if you train for tournaments where most self-defense techniques are not allowed your self-defense skills will not be used and therefore suffer because of it. It would take pages to go into the idiosyncrasies of “why” the two are different and “why” they are not compatible so I will not.

So if you have one teacher teaching tournament style techniques and one teacher teaching serious self-defense skills they have a different agenda.



This thread has reinforced my conclusion that a majority of the practicing MA people don’t understand what it takes to be a “serious” student and to train diligently. I am sure someone will claim that they do train seriously and diligently but judging from the majority of posts here I would strongly disagree since most of what I have read seems to focus on what they can “receive” on a platter from teachers instead of what they can “earn and learn”.

I agree as well, there are somethings I will take my sensei's advice for, due to his first hand experinces. I also agree with Matt, its good to have mroe than one teacher but not two masters.

 

[mj-hi-yah]

If the instructor is truly a person of quality, the students won't have any issues with his/her authority by seeing him/her acting as a student, making mistakes like any other student, etc., while learning from another teacher.

If the instructor is a paper tiger, a tin soldier riding on the ego trip derived from controlling his students and their perception of the instructor, then it would be a death knell for him/her to be seen in such a compromising position. His/her authority would be suspect, the students would question everything he/she said, basing their questions on the display of fallibility shown during the other person's instruction.

I've organized 4 Throwdowns through Bullshido.com. We've brought in instructor grade students from at least a dozen different arts. We've had nearly 50 people attend (spread over all 4 events). I've attended the Martial University event in Seattle, and would attend again this year if it weren't for my move to Korea (I report to Korea the same day as the MU event). I've attended seminars for Isshin-ryu Karate and Silat in our area with my fellow students, and it did nothing to jeapordize my "authority" as a senior. I have no problem "being a student" as I've never told my "students" that I was anything but! I don't present myself as a teacher, only an older and more experienced student... I'm not about to try fooling myself into thinking that I have any business "teaching;" I present material and let the material "teach" the student whatever it will.

I've taken up Judo and Systema as a complete beginner. When I started Modern Arnis, it was as a complete beginner, and I specifically asked my teacher to not take my prior training for granted and treat me like I didn't know a thing.

So the folks with whom I train have no problem with me. I suppose if I'd tried to convince them I was the end all/be all, then their seeing another instructor tie me in knots, bounce me off the floor, or KO me might be damaging to my Dungeons and Dragons fantasy life...

Matt excellent post. I agree that the head instructor's attitude and lead will determine how accepting students are in terms of having their instructor learning alongside of them. I think it takes a mature, secure person to do so. I also think that the sign of a quality instructor is one who remains in touch with the beginner mentality, and continues to seek out new learning without the fear to show it. I have a feeling that Sin's teacher may be such a person. It is why I believe that Sin should trust in his instructor's decision in this and follow his lead. :asian:

 

[mj-hi-yah]

I agree as well, there are somethings I will take my sensei's advice for, due to his first hand experinces. I also agree with Matt, its good to have mroe than one teacher but not two masters.

I agree as well, and Sin I'm glad you've stuck with us here on this and it seems you've taken something good away from it all! Let us know how this new training goes...
MJ

 

[Matt Stone]

I agree as well, there are somethings I will take my sensei's advice for, due to his first hand experinces.

So why would your teacher's advice necessarily carry any more weight than that of any other person with first hand experiences of a given kind? Not that you said his advice would have more influence, but would you give equal treatment to the advice of someone else? Just curious...

I also agree with Matt, its good to have mroe than one teacher but not two masters.

Hell, I don't even get worked up about having one "master." "Master" is an over-rated term and concept. Too many folks give themselves the title, too many folks consider themselves the embodiment of the concept. I was told once, back in Church, that the person who considered themselves a saint were the least qualified for the position. I think it is the same idea here...

I was making a list the other night of all the teachers I've had and who I had to thank for some personal things going on in my life right now. Here we go:

Yiliquan - Sifu Phillip Starr (founder), Sifu Mark Hachey, Sifu Tim Heuertz, Sifu Vince Hardy, Sifu Matt Johnson

Modern Arnis - Guro John Lehmann

Shuri-te Ha Karate-do - Sensei Mitsuo Onozaki

Ryu Te Karate - Sensei Robert Rousselot

Judo - Mr. Brad Ramos

Systema - Brian King, Kaizen Taki, Emmanuel Manolakakis

That's a lot of teachers. I consider most of them family, all of them friends, and I owe all of them far more than they know. My main teacher has been Sifu Starr, and he will remain my teacher for decades to come, regardless of who else I might train with. Maybe that is what some folks mean when they refer to their "master." I know Sifu'd just about crap his pants if I referred to him with that word!

Anyway... Back to work, then on to training.

Enjoy.

 

[47MartialMan]

From what I have come to observe, schools had closed from a difference of opnions of the same teachers in the same system. I only know of one case where a "outside" instructor came in. In time, he had opened his own and "he stole" some students.

And, please, dont post a response like "the other instructor was good enough"....or "the students weren't loyal". A "salesman" can pitch a convince gullable people.

The guy re-opened in a better and larger location, and had lower fees. And, since it was a diiferent martial art than most in the area,....well go figure.

 

[Matt Stone]

*SNIPPED*

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but I think you were trying to relate your experience of having seen schools wherein multiple instructors existed, conflicted, and split due to their differences. The split ultimately led to the closing of the school, and the instructor that split off took some of the students from the original school with him.

Is that close?

 

[47MartialMan]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but I think you were trying to relate your experience of having seen schools wherein multiple instructors existed, conflicted, and split due to their differences. The split ultimately led to the closing of the school, and the instructor that split off took some of the students from the original school with him.

Is that close?

Close, actually the split had both going in dofferent directions and fighting over students.