"Well, the people that started it didn't have teachers!"

[wingchun100]

The subject line of this post comes from a discussion I had with a coworker who wanted to get into wing chun with me. Only thing is, he wanted ME to teach him. I objected for several reasons. 1) I don't even know the whole system so how can I teach him as if I am a Sifu? 2) It's kind of disrespectful to my Sifu. HE is the one who put in all the years to earn that title...so here I come along, knowing only 4 forms and not so great at chi sao as I should be, and I'm going to train someone? 3) This is one reason I didn't tell my friend, but it would kind of be a slap in the face to myself to train him because he expected me to do it free of charge. After all the money I shell out to go, why would I do that?

When I mentioned the first point to him, he said, "Well the people who developed the style didn't have teachers before them who said they couldn't teach because they didn't know the system!"

Just out of curiosity, how would you counter a statement like that? Or would you just say nothing and walk away from the discussion? I know what I lean toward, but I was wondering what others would make of this statement.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Knowledge doesn't spontaneously appear in our brains. Martial Arts systems were developed over generations. It started when Ogg and Ugg were squabbling over some food, and Ogg realized that hitting Ugg in the nose was more effective at getting him to drop the food and run away than jumping up and down and screaming. He passed this on to Ogg Jr, who refined the technique by using a fist instead of a slap. Eventually, Ogg IV added a smack upside the head with a stick to the curriculum. Ogg XXI had a gimpy arm, so he added a kick to the groin to the system (and at the same time, inventing the game of "hacky sack").

Nobody "invented" Wing Chun, or any other system. They only refined the work of others, tailored it to their own personal preferences, and gave it a name.

Nobody knows everything, so the idea that you can't teach until you do is inherently flawed. Personally, I have no problem with students sharing what they know with their family or friends. I would have a problem with them self-promoting to 147th Dan UberSoke of all arts, but not with them sharing what they know. More than a few of our students joined because of an initial exposure from another student.

If your friend wants you to set up a regularly scheduled class, then it's not unreasonable for you to ask to be paid. That's up to you.

 

[Mark Lynn]

The subject line of this post comes from a discussion I had with a coworker who wanted to get into wing chun with me. Only thing is, he wanted ME to teach him. I objected for several reasons. 1) I don't even know the whole system so how can I teach him as if I am a Sifu?

I believe the reason he wanted you to teach him is found in point 3, because since you aren't a full teacher then he expects you to do it for free. But in regards to you teaching him even though you aren't a full instructor, I don't have a real issue with it. I mean you have told him you aren't a full instructor, your not giving him rank, your not really misrepresenting yourself. So I would consider him a workout partner, and to get a workout partner you might need to train the person. No big deal. UNLESS your school has something in it's bylaws/rules or what have you that prohibits such actions.

I wouldn't think your instructor would be upset because
1) You haven't passed yourself off as an instructor, giving rank etc. etc.
2) The guy wasn't going to your instructor and seeking to be a student in the first place, it's not like he is losing any money out of it.
3) By training with you, you might encourage and spark an interest in the art for the guy who, would then go and seek out instruction from your sifu and become a class mate of yours.

2) It's kind of disrespectful to my Sifu. HE is the one who put in all the years to earn that title...so here I come along, knowing only 4 forms and not so great at chi sao as I should be, and I'm going to train someone?

I think it is disrespectful only if you thought of yourself as a teacher and took money away from him by promoting yourself as such. But you haven't. The guy approaches you through a discussion between you two. I take it, it's not like he was checking into your school, and he approached you about your school and you said "hey I'm of this rank train with me." Instead it sounds more like water cooler type of conversation and the guy says "hey that sounds cool maybe you could train me?" Thinking he could try it out, no commitment, no contracts, no hassle and he feels safe with you.

One of my arnis students before she was a black belt met a WC guy and he wanted to learn arnis. He couldn't come to my classes, so she started working with him in her garage; not that she needed it, but she asked and told me about it and I gave her my blessing. I mean this guy wasn't going to be a student of mine anyway so what did it hurt. In fact it helped her by making her look more deeply into her art when he asked questions as to why we do this or why that.

I tell my students; GM Remy would always tell us to find a workout partner and teach them, it made us better practitioners of the art, ultimately better teachers as well. I encourage my students to do the same.

3) This is one reason I didn't tell my friend, but it would kind of be a slap in the face to myself to train him because he expected me to do it free of charge. After all the money I shell out to go, why would I do that?

This is the crux of the matter, you shouldn't. If the guy is expecting you to seriously train him in the role of a teacher and not just a workout partner and he wants you to do it for free. Forget it. He is not respecting you nor valuing your instruction, skill, time, or whatever. Note I differentiate between workout partner and teacher/trainee. In regards to workout partners your using them like they are using you, I get to practice my techniques on them and to do that then I have to show them things and instruct them so I get the right responses for the feedback I'm looking for etc etc. However if I training them or teaching them then my forefront focus should be on them not on my training with them.

This is why to me this is a problem, it can be very frustrating for you as the skilled player to be training a newbie for a workout partner. You must have clear boundaries, clear vision of what the roles are and what is expected of each party. Because it is one thing for me to show my karate buddies some arnis on the side and us to work out. It is another thing to set up weekly workouts and try and teach them arnis because I take it very seriously and if they don't and I'm doing it for free then it is very frustrating for both parties. I'm speaking about friends here, much less a co-worker who expressed possibly some interest in the art I devote a good portion of my time and effort to. I've been down this road with co-workers who were martial artists/semi friends before. It is a pain. However it still kept me practicing the art during dry times as well.

When I mentioned the first point to him, he said, "Well the people who developed the style didn't have teachers before them who said they couldn't teach because they didn't know the system!"

Well that is the reason you have teaching licenses and such that allow you to teach openly. In days gone by you didn't just leave your school and start teaching because someone could very well challenge you, from your old school, or other schools in the area; it was put up or shut up time.

However he is wrong, the teachers in the past did have teachers before them such as Funakoshi (father of Shotokan) had his teacher Itosu and others; GM Remy (founded Modern Arnis) had his teachers such as his grandfather, Bacon, and others; Ueshiba (founded aikido) was a master in another style before he started Aikido and so on and so on.

Just out of curiosity, how would you counter a statement like that? Or would you just say nothing and walk away from the discussion? I know what I lean toward, but I was wondering what others would make of this statement.

How I would counter that statement was that the individual was wrong, but I would expect him to be. People seem to think that especially in martial arts (because of the emphasis on lineage) that knowledge developed in a vacuum so to speak. That one day a person all of the sudden got some enlightenment and all of the knowledge to start their own unique style. But the truth is they learned stuff from someone else (many times several people) and packaged it per their own understanding and then created their method. Some times they had teaching licenses from prior styles sometimes not. For instance I doubt that the Koreans who studied Japanses karate in the 30-40's (prior to WW2) had teaching licenses (in Japanese karate) prior to starting their own Korean Martial Arts (Moo Duk Kwan, Tang So Do etc. etc.) they just did. GM Remy didn't have teaching certs, or licenses, he had his fighting ability and his own unique experience learning the FMAs and Modern Arnis was born.

In regards to saying nothing and just dismissing him, I think walking away from the guy would just make you look arrogant.

 

[wingchun100]

Good points.

I should mention this: another thing is that my instructor didn't start teaching until HE was given permission. I know the argument could be made, "Well that's him...you are a different person," but I lean toward the line of thinking that I shouldn't try teaching until someone (who is an authority on the subject of course) has said I EARNED the right to teach.

 

[Dirty Dog]

How I would counter that statement was that the individual was wrong, but I would expect him to be. People seem to think that especially in martial arts (because of the emphasis on lineage) that knowledge developed in a vacuum so to speak. That one day a person all of the sudden got some enlightenment and all of the knowledge to start their own unique style. But the truth is they learned stuff from someone else (many times several people) and packaged it per their own understanding and then created their method. Some times they had teaching licenses from prior styles sometimes not. For instance I doubt that the Koreans who studied Japanses karate in the 30-40's (prior to WW2) had teaching licenses (in Japanese karate) prior to starting their own Korean Martial Arts (Moo Duk Kwan, Tang So Do etc. etc.) they just did. GM Remy didn't have teaching certs, or licenses, he had his fighting ability and his own unique experience learning the FMAs and Modern Arnis was born.

Well said overall, but one small correction. The Moo Duk Kwan is a school, not a system. The Moo Duk Kwan taught Hwa Soo Do, then morphed into Tang So Do, then joined with the other Kwans to develop Tae Kwon Do, and then splintered, returning to the name Tang So Do, and eventually changing the name of the art to Soo Bahk Do.

On the subject of teaching free...
My wife and two of my kids are students. They certainly get extra training for free. I can hear the chorus of "but that's not the same, they're family" rising, so I'll add this.
Our beginner class starts at 1700. I'm at the dojang around 1600. Any student who wants extra help is encouraged to come in early.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Knowledge doesn't spontaneously appear in our brains. Martial Arts systems were developed over generations. It started when Ogg and Ugg were squabbling over some food, and Ogg realized that hitting Ugg in the nose was more effective at getting him to drop the food and run away than jumping up and down and screaming. He passed this on to Ogg Jr, who refined the technique by using a fist instead of a slap. Eventually, Ogg IV added a smack upside the head with a stick to the curriculum. Ogg XXI had a gimpy arm, so he added a kick to the groin to the system (and at the same time, inventing the game of "hacky sack").

LOL

So that is where the Returning Wave Kick came from in Naihanchi. I always wondered about that.

Nobody "invented" Wing Chun, or any other system. They only refined the work of others, tailored it to their own personal preferences, and gave it a name.

Nobody knows everything, so the idea that you can't teach until you do is inherently flawed. Personally, I have no problem with students sharing what they know with their family or friends. I would have a problem with them self-promoting to 147th Dan UberSoke of all arts, but not with them sharing what they know. More than a few of our students joined because of an initial exposure from another student.

But some schools do have problems with showing family and friends. I've been to schools where unless you are paying you aren't seeing, even family and friends who have to wait for little Johnny to be done with class. Now I didn't train there nor really stay there, but I have seen them.

If your friend wants you to set up a regularly scheduled class, then it's not unreasonable for you to ask to be paid. That's up to you.

I really agree here with Dirty Dog it is not unreasonable for you to ask to be paid if you are taking on the teaching role, however once money is exchanged a whole new line has been crossed and a new relationship started. If money is exchanged then the sifu might have reason to be upset, or what he might have allowed now in his eyes might cross the line.

Many years ago in a commercial martial arts school I offended the instructor by suggesting to another top student that we get together outside of class (on the weekend) and train some. We got together once and worked out, somehow he got wind of it and I got called into the office. I truly didn't think anything of it, but it did bother the owner/chief instructor at the school. We stopped at his request. Now I didn't ask for his permission to do this, because I was use to this at my previous school and I thought it was the norm. In over the past 32 years of study in the MAs this was the only time it was discouraged and I respectively complied.

Point is where us on the board here might say it isn't a problem, it could be a problem with your sifu, if money exchanges hands then I think you might be stacking the deck to have a problem, maybe, maybe not. It is best to err with caution and speak to your sifu about it and what he would or would not permit.

 

[Mark Lynn]

Well said overall, but one small correction. The Moo Duk Kwan is a school, not a system. The Moo Duk Kwan taught Hwa Soo Do, then morphed into Tang So Do, then joined with the other Kwans to develop Tae Kwon Do, and then splintered, returning to the name Tang So Do, and eventually changing the name of the art to Soo Bahk Do.

Thanks for the correction, I was just thinking of Korean School/systems names. Just out of curiosity; is it proper to say that there are multiple Moo Duk Kwan schools?

On the subject of teaching free...
My wife and two of my kids are students. They certainly get extra training for free. I can hear the chorus of "but that's not the same, they're family" rising, so I'll add this.
Our beginner class starts at 1700. I'm at the dojang around 1600. Any student who wants extra help is encouraged to come in early.

My daughter too is my student and she trains for free. I'm not against training people for free or low cost. Except I use to charge a very cheap price for lessons on the side ($5.00) all to try and find people to work out with. So I had some co-workers, some other karate buddies etc. etc. and then I had my close karate friends. My close friends I knew well enough that I'd do anything for them and they me, so I didn't get to irritated if lessons didn't work out, or us not getting together or us getting together. It was definitely mutually beneficial.

However I had my other side line students who stood me up for a haircut on a Saturday (ruining my plans with me family etc. etc.), another one ended up hurting my neck and then I ended up missing work (due to visiting my chiropractor to get my neck straighten out etc. etc.), it just wasn't the same as with my close karate buddies.

On teaching family I really enjoy the time I get to spend with her in class and going to class etc. etc. she is becoming quite the demo partner at times.

 

[wingchun100]

I already know he would not be pleased with this setup, money exchanging hands or not, because a couple other students took to teaching their friends outside of class. From what I understand, I don't think they charged...but they DID act as if they were the "teacher" instead of someone else's student who was simply showing some friends what they know. Now he doesn't mind if people who are his current paying students get together and do some chi sao or whatever over the weekend...because we already are his students. THAT is something he is okay with...just not training non-students outside of class.

 

[wingchun100]

One more thing: if I got together with a karate or tae kwon do or judo practitioner over the weekend, I think he would be okay with that...AS LONG AS I didn't try showing them how to do wing chun.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Thanks for the correction, I was just thinking of Korean School/systems names. Just out of curiosity; is it proper to say that there are multiple Moo Duk Kwan schools?

Depends on who you ask. GM HWANG Kee founded the Moo Duk Kwan and ran the faction that split off from the unification effort to go back to teaching Tang So Do and then Soo Bahk Do. According to the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan, they're the only ones who should be considered Moo Duk Kwan. Most of the rest of us recognize that the various groups (Tae Kwan Do MDK, Tang So Do MDK, Soo Bahk Do MDK) all share common roots and a common lineage, and don't care about the politics.

One more thing: if I got together with a karate or tae kwon do or judo practitioner over the weekend, I think he would be okay with that...AS LONG AS I didn't try showing them how to do wing chun.

The notion that you're going to work with someone and not teach them something of "how to do wing chun" is ludicrous. You can't. Even if the workout is done in utter silence, with no questions asked or answered, and no comments made, I'm going to analyze what each of us did, what worked, what didn't, and why. And if we actually work together - running through exchanges or techniques slowly, etc - then I'm going to learn a fair bit. So will you, I suspect.

Your teachers attitude as you've described it here is not an uncommon one, but I've never agreed with it. Wrap it up in whatever excuses you like, it always seems to me that it boils down to 'if you teach someone then I can't and that impacts my earnings'.

Everybody is a teacher. You don't know everything. I don't know everything. But what I do know, I am happy to share. And in our system, we encourage that attitude in all students.

Admittedly, we're not a commercial school. We're affiliated with the YMCA. Both myself and the Master have full time jobs and there is no incentive to make the school profitable. But I had the same opinion on teaching long before I associated myself with this school.

 

[wingchun100]

Depends on who you ask. GM HWANG Kee founded the Moo Duk Kwan and ran the faction that split off from the unification effort to go back to teaching Tang So Do and then Soo Bahk Do. According to the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan, they're the only ones who should be considered Moo Duk Kwan. Most of the rest of us recognize that the various groups (Tae Kwan Do MDK, Tang So Do MDK, Soo Bahk Do MDK) all share common roots and a common lineage, and don't care about the politics.




The notion that you're going to work with someone and not teach them something of "how to do wing chun" is ludicrous. You can't. Even if the workout is done in utter silence, with no questions asked or answered, and no comments made, I'm going to analyze what each of us did, what worked, what didn't, and why. And if we actually work together - running through exchanges or techniques slowly, etc - then I'm going to learn a fair bit. So will you, I suspect.

Your teachers attitude as you've described it here is not an uncommon one, but I've never agreed with it. Wrap it up in whatever excuses you like, it always seems to me that it boils down to 'if you teach someone then I can't and that impacts my earnings'.

Everybody is a teacher. You don't know everything. I don't know everything. But what I do know, I am happy to share. And in our system, we encourage that attitude in all students.

Admittedly, we're not a commercial school. We're affiliated with the YMCA. Both myself and the Master have full time jobs and there is no incentive to make the school profitable. But I had the same opinion on teaching long before I associated myself with this school.

I disagree. If I train with someone, yes they are seeing the techniques and how they work, but I am not giving them more in-depth knowledge on whatever theory lies behind the technique. Seeing how another style does things versus in-depth learning is very different.

Now you seem to have a history of not agreeing with any point I make, so I expect some kind of reply that completely bashes that statement. But it's all good because at the end of the day, no matter how many times you rip apart what I write, I will still have my opinion...no matter how "ludicrous" others may think it is.

 

[Dirty Dog]

LOL

So that is where the Returning Wave Kick came from in Naihanchi. I always wondered about that.

Ogg kick sack. Ogg get food. Ogg happy.

But some schools do have problems with showing family and friends. I've been to schools where unless you are paying you aren't seeing, even family and friends who have to wait for little Johnny to be done with class. Now I didn't train there nor really stay there, but I have seen them.

That always seems to be to be an attitude born from a fear of competition, an excess of ego, or a desire to paint the art with some brand of mysticism. Or a combination of all. There's no good reason for it that I've ever heard.

I really agree here with Dirty Dog it is not unreasonable for you to ask to be paid if you are taking on the teaching role, however once money is exchanged a whole new line has been crossed and a new relationship started. If money is exchanged then the sifu might have reason to be upset, or what he might have allowed now in his eyes might cross the line.

Many years ago in a commercial martial arts school I offended the instructor by suggesting to another top student that we get together outside of class (on the weekend) and train some. We got together once and worked out, somehow he got wind of it and I got called into the office. I truly didn't think anything of it, but it did bother the owner/chief instructor at the school. We stopped at his request. Now I didn't ask for his permission to do this, because I was use to this at my previous school and I thought it was the norm. In over the past 32 years of study in the MAs this was the only time it was discouraged and I respectively complied.

Point is where us on the board here might say it isn't a problem, it could be a problem with your sifu, if money exchanges hands then I think you might be stacking the deck to have a problem, maybe, maybe not. It is best to err with caution and speak to your sifu about it and what he would or would not permit.

Some teachers insist on a "no compete" contract too. All that tells me is that they are afraid of competition. My Master and Grandmaster not only expect students to teach, but encourage those of sufficient rank to start their own school, if they are so inclined.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I disagree. If I train with someone, yes they are seeing the techniques and how they work, but I am not giving them more in-depth knowledge on whatever theory lies behind the technique. Seeing how another style does things versus in-depth learning is very different.

Now you seem to have a history of not agreeing with any point I make, so I expect some kind of reply that completely bashes that statement. But it's all good because at the end of the day, no matter how many times you rip apart what I write, I will still have my opinion...no matter how "ludicrous" others may think it is.

You asked for opinions, and now you seem upset because they don't agree with your preconceived assumptions. I guess you'll get over it. Or not.

 

[RTKDCMB]

The subject line of this post comes from a discussion I had with a coworker who wanted to get into wing chun with me. Only thing is, he wanted ME to teach him. I objected for several reasons. 1) I don't even know the whole system so how can I teach him as if I am a Sifu?

You don't need to know the whole system to teach it but you do need to know all the basics. That usually means someone who has obtained black belt level but not always. Teaching students is not just a matter of teaching them techniques, you need to be able to see the big picture and be able to plan for the student's future development. You have to see where the individual techniques, strategies, philosophies and drills etc fit into the overall scheme of teaching someone your martial art and only someone who has been through the process up to that level can do that properly. How do you know what the view from the top of a skyscraper looks like if you have only ever been in the lobby?

2) It's kind of disrespectful to my Sifu. HE is the one who put in all the years to earn that title...so here I come along, knowing only 4 forms and not so great at chi sao as I should be, and I'm going to train someone?

It would not be disrespectful to teach your friend but it would be disrespectful for you to bestow yourself the title of Sifu. What you should be careful is that some things in a martial art are dangerous to teach others without the necessary skill and experience (not just the physical danger but also the danger of being taught incorrectly). While I don't see anything wrong with showing your friend a few basics he would be better for his development to learn from a qualified instructor.

3) This is one reason I didn't tell my friend, but it would kind of be a slap in the face to myself to train him because he expected me to do it free of charge. After all the money I shell out to go, why would I do that?

I guess that would depend if your friend wants to learn from you specifically because you are his friend or he just wants to get something for free.

When I mentioned the first point to him, he said, "Well the people who developed the style didn't have teachers before them who said they couldn't teach because they didn't know the system!"

Just out of curiosity, how would you counter a statement like that? Or would you just say nothing and walk away from the discussion? I know what I lean toward, but I was wondering what others would make of this statement.

Probably something along the lines of; "I am not one of the people who developed this system", "The ones who developed the system did not teach it until they developed it and therefore knew the system when they taught it", "Those who developed the system developed it from systems they already knew, they didn't start from scratch" and " They knew a lot more than me".

 

[drop bear]

I Don't teach because I train under people who are better than me. So just train with them. I would be ripping you off teaching you.

My coach wouldn't care less.

The other side of that would be why am I wasting my time training them when I could be training and getting better. And they could be training and getting better.

 

[twins-mt]

I Don't teach because I train under people who are better than me. So just train with them. I would be ripping you off teaching you.

That's the best point of the conversation...

 

[Mark Lynn]

I Don't teach because I train under people who are better than me. So just train with them. I would be ripping you off teaching you.

Of course training with people who are better than you is a no brainer, it's always the first choice. Ripping someone off by teaching them is a matter of opinion.

If as an under belt or a beginner you proclaim you know the system and then teach others as if you know something then your ripping others off. On the other hand, having workout partners and teaching others in that context can be a mutually beneficial situation. But if you have the attitude that you have nothing to gain from that type of arrangement then you are possibly ripping yourself off.

The other side of that would be why am I wasting my time training them when I could be training and getting better. And they could be training and getting better.

I'm not suggesting that a person should give up regular class/training time with their master to instead teach a workout partner or a newbie, in fact I don't think anyone is, that would be foolish. However working with someone off hours is still training. If you are teaching someone and you are showing them foot work drills or working on their punches are you not gaining experience verbalizing them, analyzing the techniques, going through the motions along side of them. If you are holding pads for someone you're learning to be a better pad holder, you can also be seeing another person's tells/body language and such.

Sometimes working with beginners they do things which training in the dojo/school drills out of us. You're practicing submissions and they stick their fingers in your eye, or they rip your finger off so you can't complete the intended hold, "But you can't do that" "Why you were going to choke me out, or lock (break) my arm? I don't understand, I stopped you" "But but that's not allowed!" Sparring once at my instructors dojo a high ranking aikido, or jujitsu BB wrapped my leg for a take down and I hoped forward and countered it by punching him square in the face."Damn there went 15 years of training." he said. Not that aikido or jujitsu wasn't worth taking lessons for 15 years, he was making a joke that I defeated/countered his take down with a very simple punch, something he didn't expect.

Working with a newbie often times things go different, like they have a gimpy wrist, well all of the sudden many disarms in arnis don't work. Well why, you have to figure it out and analyze why this works with my buddies but it doesn't work with this guy. You figure it out he gets better and you do to in the process you've learned something.

 

[MJS]

The subject line of this post comes from a discussion I had with a coworker who wanted to get into wing chun with me. Only thing is, he wanted ME to teach him. I objected for several reasons. 1) I don't even know the whole system so how can I teach him as if I am a Sifu? 2) It's kind of disrespectful to my Sifu. HE is the one who put in all the years to earn that title...so here I come along, knowing only 4 forms and not so great at chi sao as I should be, and I'm going to train someone? 3) This is one reason I didn't tell my friend, but it would kind of be a slap in the face to myself to train him because he expected me to do it free of charge. After all the money I shell out to go, why would I do that?

When I mentioned the first point to him, he said, "Well the people who developed the style didn't have teachers before them who said they couldn't teach because they didn't know the system!"

Just out of curiosity, how would you counter a statement like that? Or would you just say nothing and walk away from the discussion? I know what I lean toward, but I was wondering what others would make of this statement.

IMHO, I don't think that one has to know the entire system before they teach it to others, however, they should have enough time in to put themselves at least past the beginner ranks. They should have a solid understanding of the basics, the forms, etc, and be able to explain, apply, perform, etc, all of this material.

Would this be disrespectful to your teacher? Well, I don't know. I'd say it would all depend on your teacher and if they frown upon that or not. Some teachers encourage and even expect the upper belts to take a lower rank 'under their wing' so to speak, as part of preparing them for their black belt. Now, this isn't to mean that the upper rank has to teach this lower rank privately or give them constant 1 on 1 attention, but simply to give them (the upper belt) experience in teaching. Of course, any time you teach someone something, it makes you get a deeper understanding of the material.

I've had people ask me about my training and some have asked if I'd teach them. Personally, I have no issues with this, and I really don't care about the money. However, on the other hand, I don't want to waste my time either. In other words, if someone isn't going to be serious and dedicate themselves to the training, then I'm not going to waste my time. There have also been times when I've suggested that they'd probably be better off just joining a school, and I'd be happy to guide them in the right direction. I only say this, because my schedule isn't set in stone, so even if the potential student was dedicated, I'd be afraid I wouldn't be able to give them the attention they need.

As for the comment about the founders not having teachers...well, in most cases, their 'teacher' was the school of hard knocks. In other words....let's use Kajukenbo for example. The founders got together, trained with each other, mixed their styles, and then tested it on the street. Of course, what you could get away with that many years ago, would most likely find you in jail, were to you go out and pick a fight just to see if something worked or not.

In the end, I think you made the right choice. If you haven't already, you might suggest he join your school and train under your teacher.

 

[Steve]

Here's my take. If the guy wants to learn "Wing Chun" and you aren't competent to teach him (whether because you're not certified or otherwise qualified), then I wouldn't teach him. I've been training in BJJ for about 8 years now, and I wouldn't want that burden.

However, if the guy just wants to learn "some stuff," get some exercise and isn't worried about whether it's "Wing Chun" I see no harm in working out with him.

There is some truth that at some point, Wing Chun came from something else, which came from something else. However, once the style is formalized, it is a thing. It's fixed. It's a thing that, in order to learn, you will need someone able to teach you.

Regarding the free lesson thing... that's really case by case. Is it an insult to you that he wants free lessons? It really depends.

How good of friends are you with this guy? Is he a buddy? Is it going to be a formal thing scheduled multiple times per week? is there ANY benefit to you or is it just a one way thing? Does the guy add value to your relationship in other ways? As a friend, you might "give" in the area of martial arts, but he's the guy who helps you build a deck or takes you to the beer festivals or invites you over for movie marathons on his 120" HD Projector. In other words, is he a friend or just some guy? If he's a friend, I'd never charge for lessons. I'd consider it just one more thing to share with a buddy.

 

[wingchun100]

Here's my take. If the guy wants to learn "Wing Chun" and you aren't competent to teach him (whether because you're not certified or otherwise qualified), then I wouldn't teach him. I've been training in BJJ for about 8 years now, and I wouldn't want that burden.

However, if the guy just wants to learn "some stuff," get some exercise and isn't worried about whether it's "Wing Chun" I see no harm in working out with him.

There is some truth that at some point, Wing Chun came from something else, which came from something else. However, once the style is formalized, it is a thing. It's fixed. It's a thing that, in order to learn, you will need someone able to teach you.

It's not that I'm not competent. In my personal opinion...if I haven't been promoted to the rank yet, then I shouldn't teach it. Give him a preview? Maybe, so he could see how wing chun is different from what he might know (he used to study some other style...I forget what it was now), but if he wants to learn anything in depth, then he should be there in class with me.

Anyhow, the point of this thread wasn't really to ask what I should do. I had already made up my mind: he does NOT have me as a teacher. I was just wondering what people on this board would think if they were approached in this way.