Teaching ability vs. Technical abilty

[IcemanSK]

We MA folks are really fond of our discussing (endlessly) whether rank, technical ability, lineage or any list of other things make a good instructor. I feel like I need to weigh in on this & give my thoughts based on my years of observation.

I've come to believe that teaching ability has very little to do with whether or not one has technical ability in MA. Experience does, however, play a huge part in one's ability to teach MA, but technical skill does not. What I mean is, just because someone can perform techniques well, does not mean they are my first choice to teach.

I've trained under a man who was a skilled kickboxer. He retired & then trained other fighters. By the time I met him he could barely walk due to a brain tumor. Yet he could explain the technical aspects of his Art in great detail without needing to demonstrate. Also, Master Schmidt of Combat Hapkido fame teaches from a wheel chair. I'm sure his his ability to teach a side kick is probably pretty good after all these years.

I've seen 20 year old athletic brown belts stumble over how to explain a side kick (or correct one in another person) & 45 year old un-athletic, overweight soccer mom green belts teach an entire room of eager kids a belt form in an hour.

There are many great teachers out there who are also great technicians (Wallace, Inosanto, just to name two). But there are many other folks in many a training hall who can share information & enthuiasm for their Art without being the finest example of skill in their Art. All that glitters is not gold: their are a few diamonds in the rough, too.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I agree. And you will find this is true in more than the martial arts. In most every scholastic endeavor, Performance ability and teaching ability are not biconditional. My stepdad is a biologist and a damn good one. So is his co-worker, but my stepdad is the better teacher, because he's able to engage the information, break it down, reword it, and explain the concept in different ways to different people.

What I will say is you can't really teach material you don't know. And in martial arts, if you don't gain a degree of technical proficiency, it's difficult to teach it to someone else. This is why, no matter how good a teacher is, if they never got a handle on the roundhouse kick's fine points, they aren't likely to teach a roundhouse kick effectively. I can say that from experience. I'm cleaning up another instructor's students, and the instructor in question never really understood the roundhouse kick himself. It shown in his students.

Technical proficiency and teaching proficiency build off each other, but they are indeed separate skills.

 

[kwaichang]

The ability to communicate the nuances of a technique depend upon vocabulary and linguistic ability. Sadly our educational system has diluted that quality in many students.

In the school I attended (back in the stone age) after you made it to Shodan, if you wanted to and paid the extra fee, you could attend a class which (if you passed) certified you as a Sensei. Not all took it and not all passed it.
It's a challenging thing to teach what you know.

 

[MBuzzy]

Agree with Iceman, and partly agree with Josh....

I have to argue that you must have a degree of technical ability to teach. Now, granted, it helps. Sometimes it is necessary, but there are plenty of people who can't DO something at all, but are some of the best coaches in the world. Look at most of the football coaches out there - how many were star players? How many even played? There are plenty of teachers and coaches out there that have little to no technical ability.

So it is difficult to teach someone else, but not impossible. And I have to say that in a lot of cases, the technical ability is what makes some teachers just that much better than the others.

Now, the inverse is definately the issue. I whole heartedly agree that technical ability does not make a good teacher. I know plenty of people who are high ranks and EXCELLENT practitioners that can't teach anyone. I know know plenty of people who are not great at their techniques, but who are incredible teachers.

 

[IcemanSK]

Buzzy pointed out something that we've seen in the world of sports. That is, how many of the finest athletes make great coaches?

Two boxers come to mind: Freddie Roach & Leon Spinks. As a fighter, Freddie was only really known for one thing...he was tough. But he never was a world-beater with gloves on. But now, even with Parkinson's Syndrome, he is a world-class trainer.

Leon won the world heavyweight title in his 13th pro fight. From Muhamed Ali, no less! 15 years ago Leon was working off some community service hours for a DUI at the boxing gym where I trained. I thought it would be a good opportunity for me. However, Leon could not articulate what he was trying to teach us. It was really sad.

 

[kwaichang]

ok, IMO we're on a slippery slope here.

"And a booming voice declared: smile and be happy, for it could be worse. And so I smiled and I was happy and things got worse."

 

[IcemanSK]

I agree that my anecdotes are extreme examples. I'm not looking to say that "if one has talent then they probably can't teach." I simply want to say that just because someone does not posses physical skill does not mean they cannot teach.

 

[MBuzzy]

You know, we have a similar problem in the military (I think I've brought it up before, but this is a good place too!). Officers and high ranking enlisted have some limited leadership training along the way, but for the most part, their ability to lead is assume based on rank. In most cases, rank is made through technical ability, i.e. doing your job well.

And yet, we have a good many very high ranking people who are horrible leaders. They are GREAT officers, maybe they're good at administration, or logistics, or making large scale events happen, but that doesn't mean that they can lead troops over a hill into danger. Or for that matter, just because you can lead troops over a hill, doesn't mean you can lead a peace time unit to success. And leadership is often based just on rank. Once you hit certain ranks, it is assumed that you can lead. I know it isn't exactly the same, but we do the same thing here.

You hit Cho Dan, and it is assumed that you can teach - based on technical ability and rank rather than real teaching ability.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I look for both. If the instuctor can't do, well then how do they know....

But if they can't teach, then it does not matter what they know.

Deaf

 

[JWLuiza]

Yes, in many schools, teaching ability is assumed. But the best athlete isn't always the best coach.

It's always the instructors who have both that can stimulate the most students. It's harder to pull students into learning if your technical ability isn't as good, but that doesn't mean you can't be the best teacher... just an obstacle to overcome.

 

[jks9199]

Yes, in many schools, teaching ability is assumed. But the best athlete isn't always the best coach.

It's always the instructors who have both that can stimulate the most students. It's harder to pull students into learning if your technical ability isn't as good, but that doesn't mean you can't be the best teacher... just an obstacle to overcome.

Some of the best boxing coaches haven't been outstanding fighters themselves. Similarly, some of the best martial artists haven't been great teachers -- and some of the best teachers (as in the folks who produced some of those great martial artists) haven't been standouts technically or when fighting.

Steve Perry had a scene in one his Matador books (Matadora) where the main character comes to a school for bodyguards. When the primary instructor there demonstrates their fighting system, the heroine asks to see a student, saying something like "There are masters of an art, and masters of that art..."

In short, there are different sorts of mastery...

 

[Hawke]

Guru Dan Inosanto told a story about how his father told him to look for good teachers and not necessarily good fighters. He said look for someone that can transfer the knowledge.

He mentioned a family member (I think cousin) who can listen to music and just play it. He did not study music. He can imitate the notes on a piano, but cannot teach it. He cannot transfer his knowledge to others.

I have seen other people assume if you have studied 20 years, hold a black belt in 5 different arts, or your instructor is well known you must be good.

For me the amount of refinements are more important than number of years. If you can find a teacher that can show you the refinements you are indeed fortunate.

 

[kwaichang]

Wow, Inosanto Sensei is a Guru too? I had no idea.
I had the pleasure of meeting him yrs ago at a tournament; we were both staying at the same hotel; a real nice guy and willing to talk with a lowly student of the arts about most anything.

 

[Hawke]

Different countries have different words for teacher.

China: Sifu is a combination of teacher and father.

Japan: Sensei is born first or one who has gone before.

Korea: Suseung-nim is teacher and Sabom-nim for a 4th degree and above.

FMA use the term Guru/Guro for teacher.

If you google Guro Dan Inosanto you can see his full title. Until now I have never heard him addressed as Sensei, but I guess that makes sense. He sees himself as a teacher. The martial art community sees him as a damn good one too.

 

[championmarius]

I ask this:
Is teaching ability more impacted by skill or talent?

I would say that the less talented, but equally skilled teacher is the superior. They had to compensate for their lack of talent with a greater degree of leaned skill. Whereas a more talented individual has to rely less on knowing how to do it, and just doing it (a lesser amount of learned skill.)

"He who can, does. He who can't, teaches"

 

[MBuzzy]

I ask this:
Is teaching ability more impacted by skill or talent?

I would say that the less talented, but equally skilled teacher is the superior. They had to compensate for their lack of talent with a greater degree of leaned skill. Whereas a more talented individual has to rely less on knowing how to do it, and just doing it (a lesser amount of learned skill.)

"He who can, does. He who can't, teaches"

That depends very strongly on your definitions of the words skill and talent. If you define them as talent being a natural ability and skill being a practiced and learned ability, I would agree.

Skill is much more indicative, because you have spent the time learning...and if you have a high level of skill, probably have been taught by a number of different teachers, both good and bad, and gotten a good idea of what constitutes a good teacher and a bad teacher.

 

[kwaichang]

Well said.

 

[Kacey]

Now, the inverse is definately the issue. I whole heartedly agree that technical ability does not make a good teacher. I know plenty of people who are high ranks and EXCELLENT practitioners that can't teach anyone. I know know plenty of people who are not great at their techniques, but who are incredible teachers.

I know a few of those myself... as well as some who are both technically good and incredible teachers. There are plenty of people who can't perform - or can't perform as well as they used to - who are great instructors.

I look for both. If the instuctor can't do, well then how do they know....

But if they can't teach, then it does not matter what they know.

What if they can't do anymore? There are plenty of seniors out there who have an incredible amount of technical knowledge, and are great instructors, but who cannot perform at a high technical level any more for reasons related to age and/or injury. A friend of mine, for example, spent decades in high impact sports (mostly long-distance running) and was preparing for his V Dan test when he had to have a double hip replacement. There are things he just cannot do anymore (like kick above his waist) - but that doesn't affect his knowledge or his ability to transmit that knowledge, only his ability to demonstrate kicking techniques above a certain height. But his technical knowledge is vast, and even more impressive is his ability to impart that knowledge to others.

I agree that it helps immensely to have been able to do the techniques you're teaching at some time in the past - but there are plenty of reasons why instructors can't do them anymore. Will you discount a talented instructor because age and/or injury prevents him/her from performing at the level of a younger/uninjured person? I won't.

 

[MBuzzy]

I still feel that it is completely possible to be an outstanding instructor and have very little, if any technical ability.

There are parents in our class who can teach, talk knowledgeably, and correct with no experience. You do gain a lot just by sitting in a class every night for a few years. Mostly, when those parents do start, they move incredibly fast...even through higher requirements.

 

[terryl965]

I will answer only for me, I can teach anybody proper technique it has been part of my life for forty five years, but with that being said certain thing my poor old body just are not able to do anymore. So I beleive one can teach at the highest level even though they are not technically the same as once was.