Responsibility of an instructor

[theletch1]

I'm curious to know what you all feel the responsibility of an instructor is in regards to aspects of self defense that may not be covered by your primary art. Do you, as an instructor, have a responsibility to explore situations that your primary art may not cover if you have experience in that aspect? I train in aikido but have experience on the ground. I've been lucky enough to be teaching my art for about a year. My art doesn't dwell on what to do if you find yourself taken to the ground. Do you feel it's my responsibility to work ground defense with my students or is it my responsibility to tell my students that they should go elsewhere for that aspect of training so that I can remain "true" to the letter of my art?

I want to hear from instructors and students alike. Students, do you want your instructor to go a little outside of your art to give you a more rounded experience so long as they have experience with it? or do you expect them to leave it out of your training so that you are only getting the "pure" essence of your art.

I do not believe, BTW, that there is any such thing as a "complete" art.

 

[Guardian]

My personal view as an instructor and student that all aspects of teaching the Martial Arts should be explored to an extent. I don't hold to the letter of the art, never have and never will. I believe when I instruct, I am there to teach someone how to defend themselves and be able to go home at the end of the day alive and well.

Now if that means incorporating ground, stand-up techniques, then that's what I will do, if I can't teach ground very good (which is the case), then I get an instructor friend of mine or associate to come in and teach it, at least that's I how look at it. I don't instruct very often anymore in my chosen art and the little I do instruct is in my SD practice now, so my views might be outdated by some and not politically correct in todays society of making money and such, but oh well, that's me.

 

[Kacey]

I do my best to cover all general possibilities, knowing, as I do so, that there are always going to be possibilities that I will miss, that could one day cause my student(s) to be hurt.

With that in mind, however, I also concentrate primarily on the key facets of TKD - because that is what I know best. Too much information too fast will cause more problems than solves, leaving students trying to remember what to do in which situation; instead, I concentrate on several basic techniques that can be used in a wide variety of situations, and discuss and demonstrate how to modify techniques for different situations.

While TKD is a hard style, focusing on strikes, there is a requirement to demonstrate hol-sin-sul (self-defense) at black belt, a 2 minute routine against an opponent that is created by the testing candidate, which focuses on holds, releases, controls, pressure points, throws and sweeps. Toward that end, there are specific techniques taught at each rank that give students techniques to use - most of the ones we use came from Hapkido. Those techniques also provide a wider range of responses so that one can respond at the appropriate level; it may not, after all, be appropriate to punch or kick someone hard enough to drop them for grabbing your wrist in a crowded bar.

 

[MarkBarlow]

I don't think it's possible to be "all things to all men" and I feel I'd be doing my students a disservice if I went too far from our core techniques and strategy. On the other hand, I do make an effort to bring in qualified instructors from other arts so the students can see what's out there. My sensei did this with the explanation that it's important to know what you might have to fight down the road.

 

[MarkBarlow]

...and I'm a firm believer in following the prime rule of the medical profession, "First, do no harm." Too many instructors provide wrong information, teach worthless techniques and attempt to instill ridiculous behavior patterns in their students. We're here to guide, to offer direction and to provide instruction, not to create Kobra Kai Kadets or Shaolin Temple wannabees.

 

[theletch1]

Kobra Kai! I like that. I guess my way of doing things is best described like this. We have five classes each week that all students are welcome to attend. My class is one where the rules of what is and is not in the curriculum are a little more relaxed. When I teach the aikido I teach it as it was taught to me. I may teach the same technique 5 different ways to get it acrossed to 5 different students but it's still the same technique taught during the other 4 classes. Where my class differs is that I'll do scenario training, street clothes training and play around with a lot of "what if" stuff. During all of this I keep in mind the core techniques of our art and will show the students unorthodox ways of emplementing them. I was surprised to find how many of the techniques from aikido will work from the ground or from a chair. We usually stop a technique when uke taps or if something goes bad and both students wind up on the ground. Tapping is always a stop, however, hitting the ground should not be a stopping point if both students have enough experience with the techniques in their tool box to play with them. It doesn't matter how slow they work through the situation on the ground as long as they don't just get up and reset. That, to me, is a bad training habit. It's outside of my art but something that I feel everyone should at least experience.

Now, address Mark. I have given long, hard thought to the very thing that you mention about teaching bad technique and rediculous behavior patterns. I take what I do very seriously. Some would say that I obsess over it. I'm not teaching UFC style MMA in the dojo. I don't teach folks to intentionally go to the ground. Quite the opposite. That's the last place any of us want to be. What I do teach are some very basic counters and escapes to allow the student to get back to their feet and get away or re-engage if needed. I tell ya, I've gained a whole new level of respect for my instructors since beginning to teach myself. I always thought it was just "Well, do A then B and C will follow." Not so.

 

[foot2face]

My master used to tell us that if our TKD only worked on other TKDist then it was useless. He also held BBs in Hapkido and Judo and would incorporate their techniques into our training, not to also make us proficient grapplers but to challenge our TKD skills. We learned how to use our TKD against someone who was trying to throw, lock or take us down. Long after I left my school I continued training like this, frequently sparring with practitioners of other styles, not to learn their techniques but to gain better understanding of my own. I've often felt that one of the most common shortcomings of MA training is that one usually only gains experience in dealing with a practitioner of the same system.

I'm not a big believer in mixing MAs, I feel it often leads to competing philosophies, something that can hinder effectiveness. If studied thoroughly enough, I believe any singular system can answer any question asked of it. It many not be the best solution but good enough to get the job done.

 

[MBuzzy]

My PERSONAL opinion is that an instructor's first duty is to their students. A close second, is their duty to their art. To keep it traditional and as "whole" as possible. But if an instrcutor sees a very obvious area lacking, I feel that they should definately do their best to incorporate this.

Now, that doesn't extend to adding things that simply don't belong. For example, Soo Bahk Do is a weaponless art. I don't think it is right to ADD weapons to traditional Soo Bahk Do...since it isn't SUPPOSED to have weapons. If you want to learn weapons, cross train. But we don't focus on ground fighting, although it HAS a groundfighting aspect. So if the instructor KNOWS that part, they should definately share it with their students.

 

[jks9199]

If you change, add, or just monkey with the techniques and principles of your style too much, you'll move away from the style. To make an extreme example, if someone tried to teach "aikido" that consisted mostly of kickboxing style strikes... something's wrong.

But, if you claim to teach practical self defense, you have to do some basic research, and be sure that what you're teaching is realistic and appropriate. You have to prepare your students for some of the other things they may encounter.

And I'm not suggesting that there's no room to be open to new ways of teachng or new exercises. Just that you have to be clear about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how it's different.

 

[theletch1]

If you change, add, or just monkey with the techniques and principles of your style too much, you'll move away from the style. To make an extreme example, if someone tried to teach "aikido" that consisted mostly of kickboxing style strikes... something's wrong.

But, if you claim to teach practical self defense, you have to do some basic research, and be sure that what you're teaching is realistic and appropriate. You have to prepare your students for some of the other things they may encounter.

And I'm not suggesting that there's no room to be open to new ways of teachng or new exercises. Just that you have to be clear about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how it's different.

That, my friend, is to the heart of what I'm talking about. Great response.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Luckily I was taught "if it works use it and teach it"

Yes I have a core art but much was covered in it so I can useualy keep close to what is in it but I have no problem bringing in something from a different art if I think or know it works on the street

 

[pstarr]

Absolutely. For example, my art(s) never taught handgun defenses simply because they hadn't been invented by the time these systems were created...

You can stay true to your art but provide your students with a complete education-

 

[still learning]

Hello, Responsibility of an Instructor is to teach " What they learn and learn how to teach it!

Martial arts: many are specialize in certain techniques which they feel is all you need ? ...when you reach a certain skill level!

Aikido, Karate, Tae kwon do, and many others do not train in ground work like they to in BJJ...because they feel there is NO need to go there if the techniques work! Martial arts of the old days, felt NO need for ground training if you work hard in your style of martial art training....

Today because of BJJ...done in the rings of MMA...has proven that learning ground work is a good idea! Plus many street fights do go to the ground and many times back up again..


Today if you art is still specialize? ....you may have to go to other schools to learn what you want to learn? (NOT the teachers responsibility)
You sign up for what he is teaching only! unless they are a progressive type of martial art school....

Remember ONE does not need to know everything? ...just a master a few good techniques to survive....NO two fights will ever be same...

Should learning more? ...belong to the learner ....who is responsibility?
One is not limited...to one way only....so many things to learn...can you master them all?

Best to learn a few good things .....Aloha

Aloha ( we learn shopping at Wal-mart? ...is a good technique to saving $$$)

 

[morph4me]

If you're teaching self defense, and the techniques that you're teaching are not at odds with the prinicples of your art, and you have a thorough understanding of what it is you are teaching, then it is your responsiblity to teach it. If you're teaching the martial art that you were taught, then it is your responsiblity to teach the techniques that fall within the confines of your art.

While some arts lend themselves to using whatever is useful, other arts are narrower in scope, or don't introduce techniques outside the core curriculum until the higher ranks.

Since I know that NGA is a self defense art, and is advertised as such to students, it is your responsiblity to as Guardian said, "teach someone how to defend themselves and be able to go home at the end of the day alive and well."

 

[thesandman]

I have a 5th degree black belt in Tang-soo-do, jujitsu and aikido. I hold black belt ranks in modern arnis, shotakan and kenpo. I have under black ranks in tai-chi, kung-fu, den mak, and kendo.

I gotta tell you, sometimes I don't remember what move came from what system. I'm only certified to instruct tang-soo-do, jujitsu, akido and modern arnis. If a move I'm teaching does not fall into one of those styles, I always tell my students so. After more than 10 years of teaching though, I must admit more than one student has come to me asking "What style is that from?" and I can't honestly tell them.

The responsibility of an instructor to a student is to honestly persue the students goals. Sometimes I have students training specifically for the art. In that case I stay as traditional as possible for the things I stress. Sometimes I have students training for self defense. For them I focus more on real world applications. Others are in it just for the fitness of mind and body. For them I focus on other things.

They all are exposed to the same material, it's just a difference of what is focused on for each student. This sometimes can simply be in the way each thing is explained.

 

[bdparsons]

To me it comes down to a matter of competency. What am I qualified to teach? I would do my students a grave disservice to try and teach them something that I'm not qualified or competent in. If I feel that it is important enough for them to be exposed to, then it should be by bringing in a qualified instructor and I should learn along with them. My experience base should be such that I will then be able to help the students to understand how the "new stuff" they're learning can and should integrate with what they are already being taught.

So, as badly as an instructor wants to expose their students to different forms, arts, or situations, they must first take stock of their own limitations. To disregard this fosters too many "jack of all trades, master of none". Knowing "of " something does not make you quaified to "teach" that something.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

 

[Balrog]

I look at martial arts training in somewhat the same way I look at college. You have a major, which is your primary martial art. You have electives that support that major, which is cross-training in other martial arts. You can, if desired, take a minor, which is extensive cross-training in another martial art.

In our school, Taekwondo is our major. We also teach other martial arts, such as Escrima, BJJ, etc. Our goal is not to become expert in them, simply knowledgeable about them. They are our electives. If a student wants to know more about BJJ, I'll either go learn it and pass it on (hey, doesn't hurt me to learn more!), or find a good school for them to cross-train in.

I think that training like this "fills in the gaps", so to speak.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I'm curious to know what you all feel the responsibility of an instructor is in regards to aspects of self defense that may not be covered by your primary art.

Personally I would think that if your students are paying to learn Aikido than you should be teaching Aikido, and if your art doesn't teach ground defense than I wouldn't dwell on it.

Do you, as an instructor, have a responsibility to explore situations that your primary art may not cover if you have experience in that aspect?

This depends on what you are teaching and what you are advertising or telling your students you are teaching. If you say you are teaching Ueshiba sensei's method of Aikido than you need to teach that. But for our own personal growth as instructors if you feel the desire to explore other situations (or methods of defense against attacks you might not be familar with) I believe that is the way to go. But just because you explore something or have an interest in it doesn't mean you need to nor have to teach it to your students.

I train in aikido but have experience on the ground. I've been lucky enough to be teaching my art for about a year. My art doesn't dwell on what to do if you find yourself taken to the ground. Do you feel it's my responsibility to work ground defense with my students or is it my responsibility to tell my students that they should go elsewhere for that aspect of training so that I can remain "true" to the letter of my art?

I don't believe you have a reasonsibility to work ground defense, nor tell them they need to go elsewhere to learn it since the art you are teaching doesn't dwell on it. However if questioned about it by a student then you have to be honest about explain that the method you are teaching doesn't really deal with ground defense and then you are at the cross roads. You can...
1) Refer them to someone else or
2) Tell them that if there is interest you can set aside a couple of classes to work on ground fighting techniques that aren't found in Aikido if the rest of the students in the class are interested.

This way you are remaining "true" to the letter of your art and yet you are giving your student(s) the chance to learn some valuable techniques from you if they so chose in an area outside of your (and their) chosen art.

I want to hear from instructors and students alike. Students, do you want your instructor to go a little outside of your art to give you a more rounded experience so long as they have experience with it? or do you expect them to leave it out of your training so that you are only getting the "pure" essence of your art.

I do not believe, BTW, that there is any such thing as a "complete" art.

To be honest many times students don't know what they want in this aspect, because they are students and not really educated on what their art really contains (which is why they are looking towards the instructor for instruction). I mean you could show them ground techniques and tell them this is a technique from Aikido and I wager they wouldn't know the difference. But is this right? I don't believe so.

However if you are teaching "self defense" or from that mind set then I believe you need to leave the "art" (whether Aikido, TKD, JKD, insert any name here) behind and focus on self defense and to me it doesn't matter where the technique came from the important thing is. Is it valid or not? Forget about where it came from, and keeping an art "pure".

For instance I'm teaching a American Karate TKD class, and the association that I came up in says it's American because we use self defense techniques or kicking techniques (for example) from non Korean arts. However we do the old ITF forms. OK I use whatever works when I'm teaching self defense (age appropriate of course) keeping to some core principles that I learned from various instructors from other various systems. Other instructors use other techniques. I don't have a problem with this because I had the freedom to develop this way and the very name American Karate TKD shows that it is a composite system and we promote this.

However if I was teaching a 600 year old sword art, or Kodakan Judo, or ITF TKD, or Tomiki Aikido than I would teach their system and their method of self defense (or their techniques) if that is what I was advertising I was teaching.

Mark

 

[Mark Lynn]

To me it comes down to a matter of competency. What am I qualified to teach? I would do my students a grave disservice to try and teach them something that I'm not qualified or competent in.

I agree and disagree here. Normally I say you are right you need to be qualified to teach. But if you are a black belt or an advanced belt under black rank and you see a drill or a technique, a new way to apply an arm bar, a wrist lock, a kick, a strike, or a move (application) from a kata that is found in your kata even if it is a different kata, and it came from a completey different style, art, or method of defense; would you not be "qualified" to teach it? I believe you would be.

I don't think that theletch1 meant he was going to teach the art of ground fighting, I thoought he was going to teach a few techniques to deal with what might happen if you get taken to the ground. And for that I think any instructor who knows the material however limited it may be is qualified to teach it, even if they are not instructor rank in that other particular system.

If I feel that it is important enough for them to be exposed to, then it should be by bringing in a qualified instructor and I should learn along with them. My experience base should be such that I will then be able to help the students to understand how the "new stuff" they're learning can and should integrate with what they are already being taught.

Sounds good and right however as an instructor are you going to be paying the whole bill to bring in a "qualified" instructor? Are you going to be having your students help pay for the instruction, after all you are bringing in the guy to help them out? However what happens if your students don't want to pay the extra fee? What happens if they have to miss because of work or going to Grandmas house? Will they be excluded from learning the material when you cover it in your classes since they weren't exposed to the material by a "qualified" instructor. I mean the other students were exposed to it by the "qualified" guy along with you so they can continue to learn it during your unqualified teaching time, but what about the guy who missed it in the first place? Couldn't he gain from your unqualified instruction as well?

I'm not trying to be a smart *** here, or give you a hard time. I just believe that as a instructor you know whether or not you can teach the different material and who is to say you are or aren't qualified. Again in regards to limited instruction on a given topic. I'm not talking about a complete system here.

So, as badly as an instructor wants to expose their students to different forms, arts, or situations, they must first take stock of their own limitations. To disregard this fosters too many "jack of all trades, master of none". Knowing "of " something does not make you quaified to "teach" that something.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute

Again I agree and disagree. One of the things GM Remy Presas always stressed to us was to go home and teach the material we learned at the camp or seminar. He didn't care about your rank, rather he knew that by teaching something you learned the material better and that you benifited as much if not more than the student you were teaching the stuff to. And I believe this is true.

I think we get hung up on belt ranks and titles to much at times. Prior to testing for my 1st black in Presas Arnis (a combination of GM Remy and GM Ernesto's systems) under Hock, I was approached by a couple of other martial art instructors who were co workers. They wanted lessons but I was only deemed worthy of their time (so to speak) after I took the test. What was the difference of me passing a test and having a rank to them, they never saw the test, nor my certificate even, but once they heard I passed in conversation with me then I was "qualified" to teach them. This went on for months till after the test then they got serious about possibly taking lessons. All I wanted was someone to train with prior to the test and they wouldn't give me the time of day.

Where I agree with you on your last part of your post I quoted is that years ago I took Wado. Studied it for almost two years and due to my prior training in TKD I was ranked as a brown belt (although I never tested officially for the rank). OK I remember the forms and drills and such but I would never try and teach Wado because I don't feel qualified to teach the system. I'm not a Wado stylist, I don't move like a Wado student, etc. etc. so I'm not "qualified" to teach it.

Mark

 

[Mark Lynn]

I'm curious to know what you all feel the responsibility of an instructor is in regards to aspects of self defense that may not be covered by your primary art.

In my previous post I was trying to make a point about the difference between what we teach and or promote and self defense.

I believe this is important because I believe the two get confused often on the dojo floor due to us sticking with our "art" when it comes to self defense. If I am telling my students that I am teaching them self defense than frankly their safety and giving them the tools to survive a violent encounter I believe are paramount and keeping the pure art be damned.

But often times I believe we as instructors see techniques that are taught in a art that might fill a void in our parent art and we adapt it to become part of our art. In American Karate TKD it might be something as ssimple as a outer wrist turn takedown or throw against a straight in thrust. Now the technique probably came from instructors getting some education in the throwing arts (say jujitsu) but now we import the technique into our curriculmn as the way we were taught or how we saw it done. Never rexamining the technique to see if it really works or not. And this is the danger.

How do we know what the circumstances/applications of the technique were in the first place? Since the same technique with slight modifications is used for several different attacks such as lapel grabs, or hand grabs etc. etc. could it be that this was taught in a way of applying the technique against a straight thrust from a weapon as well. However to make the technique work in a real situation takes a deeper understanding of the strategy and tactics to defeat a edged weapon attack that get glossed over by the pure mechanical application of the technique. So then instructors pass the technique onto their students just teaching the mechanical aspect and the students then become instructors and pass it on and so on and so on.

If I am teaching self defense then I need to teach the tactics, strategy, etc. etc. to defeat the attack as well as the mechanical method to hopefully do it. If we don't then we do a disservice to our students by giving them a false sense of security. An example of this happen to me just the other day when I filled in for a instructor. We were going over self defense techniques and for the students next rank they had to do knife defense and the attack was against this straight thrust and their defense was the outer wrist turn. Now the defense was executed properly for her rank but it would never have worked in real life. Somebody with years of training can pull this off but a under black belt rank I doubt it. The school also doesn't spend the time to train the techniques right because of all of the requirements for this rank the self defense aspect isn't really there. Like I said for her rank the defense was executed right she took me down with the lock applied to my wrist so it was enough for her to probably pass her exam for her next rank (in ragards to that technique). But I believe this gives the student a false sense of security that they can magically snatch a fast moving thrust out of the air and apply that lock and then take the person down and subdue them.

So coming back to the qoute above, I believe in teaching self defense that instructors need to put it as a priority and teach all aspects of self defense the mental and physical. It is our duty and responsibility to our students if this is what we are promoting we are teaching. We shouldn't use "self defense" as just another item to be checked off at the next belt exam or not take the time to properly teach it to our students. To due this we as instructors need to take an honest assesment as to what we are teaching and how we are teaching it and how is the message getting across to our students and see if we don't need to change and adapt our current techniques and methods.