What You Teach and Who You Teach It To.

[MJS]

In another thread I started, Exile and I were discussing the use of potentially deadly combat oriented techniques, the results of those techniques and why its important to make sure the people learning these things understand the law.

I commented that schools that have hundreds of students would most likely drop to a handful, if they only taught to a select group due to the nature of what was taught. So, to avoid sidetracking that thread, and at his request, here is that thread to talk about that subject.

So, if you had a school, and the focus was serious self defense, including having them know the law, the ramifications of their actions in a SD situation, only taught to adults, and only ones that were really serious about training, and ran the risk of only having a handful of serious students, vs. 300 students in a commercial setting, would you do it?

 

[tshadowchaser]

I would prefer to teach 10 serious minded individuals whom I know I can trust with what I show them to having a large school anyday

 

[Blindside]

I'm doing it now.

A large part of that has come from teaching an art whose primary function is the use deadly weapons. You can't get away from legal and moral responsibilities in that setting.

That said, in many cases the "deadliness" of what is being taught in most unarmed arts is vastly overstated. It doesn't take a black belt to figure out that gouging a guys eye out is going to hurt someone, or crushing his throat and stomping his head into a flat shape is going to be "deadly."

My personal take is that I won't teach kali to those under 16, under the assumption that if the State can license someone to drive 75mph in a 2000 pound car, they have already licensed them with a weapon far deadlier than I'll ever teach them.

I've never had an interest in teaching in a large school, on my kenpo black belt test I was asked what my image of my perfect school was. I replied; "five guys in a garage." That really hasn't changed since then.

Lamont

 

[Drac]

So, if you had a school, and the focus was serious self defense, including having them know the law, the ramifications of their actions in a SD situation, only taught to adults, and only ones that were really serious about training, and ran the risk of only having a handful of serious students, vs. 300 students in a commercial setting, would you do it?

I would always prefer a smaller school, makes the instruction seem more personal..Being an LEO I often point out the ramifications of their actions, that same as I do for police cadets...

 

[Deaf Smith]

In any martial arts school, or shooting school, the teacher should have a way know what the students temperment is.

In a martial arts school it's knowing of the student displays anger early in their training. Or displays a lack of empathy to others (like they kind of like hurting the other students.)

Then, before the student gets to the more serious, 'lethal', methods the teacher can either help the student overcome their problems or tell them it's time to leave.

Shooting schools tend to ask for such as a CCW permit, or evidence of good character (letter from a police chief or such.) The CCW, like the Texas CHL where we have a FBI background check, tends to weed out criminals and nuts (your mental health records are checked.) Long time ago before we had CHL licenses, I did have to have a recomendation from the police chief, which I got.

So those are the ways one keeps undesirables from learning to much. BUT, don't kid yourself, there are people who will teach those things to criminals, cause they are criminals themselves. Many such methods are not top secret and can be found out easly.

Deaf

 

[Xue Sheng]

So, if you had a school, and the focus was serious self defense, including having them know the law, the ramifications of their actions in a SD situation, only taught to adults, and only ones that were really serious about training, and ran the risk of only having a handful of serious students, vs. 300 students in a commercial setting, would you do it?

Yes, but I certainly would not quit my day job

I have seen this in 2 schools I use to go to.

One, Wing Chun, taught only adults and serious self-defense and had no more that 6 students (and that was a big class) on the floor per class.

Another taught, my first sifu, now teaches only form and pretty much bad form at that and he has hundreds of students and a lot of money.

But I would still rather to what my Wing Chun sifu did and teach the real thing with SD attached and since so I would teach Taiji, and as my wife says, I'm to serious, it is likely I would have, at best, only 6 students.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

So, if you had a school, and the focus was serious self defense, including having them know the law, the ramifications of their actions in a SD situation, only taught to adults, and only ones that were really serious about training, and ran the risk of only having a handful of serious students, vs. 300 students in a commercial setting, would you do it?

I'd be more inclined to do so as a special class for adults only, as the other 290 students may produce future serious adults. There is something very rewarding in working with the kids, even though they aren't ready for that kind of training.

On that note, I will say that I don't think I'd ever want to be juggling 300 students (EEK!). With that many though, I could make the required uniform a red speedo, red cape and a crested helm and call my school, 'Sparta.'

Daniel

 

[billybybose]

My teacher,his teacher,and his teacher,won't teach for money because they want to keep control over who they teach and how they teach.Sensei says he's big on the law and the do side of the arts because they are lethal and he wont dumb down the curriculum.At any given class there may be six to ten people.He runs a kids class to because alot of kids here are raised by alchys and crack heads and he thinks if he can instill in them a moral code that can compete with the code of the street they might have a chance in life.Time will tell I guess.

 

[still learning]

Hello, All martial art techniques can be lethal.....just pushing someone to ground and having them head their head on the concrete can kill someone..

Punching someone in head or body can create some serious damages...

Can you only teach NON-lethal techniques? learning to speak correctly? maybe?

If you are going to teach students...best to teach them everything...they should be aware of the dangers ...and learn to defend against them incase it is being use against them!

When your students are on the streets...it could be a life or death survial (fighting back)....your students should know how to end a situtions...quickly....like being rape and possible being kill after?

Most people know how to use a knife for cutting meats and vegetables ....would it be funny not to teach knife attacks besides just the defense?

How come you did not use the knife to save your life? ..OH...we only learn how to defend against one.....

Do you know where and how to use a knife effectively? slashing, cutting, paring, vein cuts and so on? ....

Aloha, Teach everything you know......and teach them to use it wisely...

 

[Guardian]

In another thread I started, Exile and I were discussing the use of potentially deadly combat oriented techniques, the results of those techniques and why its important to make sure the people learning these things understand the law.

I commented that schools that have hundreds of students would most likely drop to a handful, if they only taught to a select group due to the nature of what was taught. So, to avoid sidetracking that thread, and at his request, here is that thread to talk about that subject.

So, if you had a school, and the focus was serious self defense, including having them know the law, the ramifications of their actions in a SD situation, only taught to adults, and only ones that were really serious about training, and ran the risk of only having a handful of serious students, vs. 300 students in a commercial setting, would you do it?

I like the philosphy of my Kempo Instructor, he teaches only a select few people, he doesn't advertise and no one under 16, usually no one under 18, but he did allow a 16 year old once as a favor for a friend, but this 16 was very serious about his training.

I would follow his way of thinking. A small serious class.

I gave up instructing folks on a regular basis when I retired. I do instruct some friends here and there or co-workers and their kids now and then, but nothing dangerous, just basic self-defense with the understand it's to be used as a last act, not the first thing that comes to mind and a lot of it is mostly redirecting aggression away from themselves.

 

[tellner]

Good question.

It boils down to risk and benefit. What's the potential for abuse? What are the consequences of abuse? How useful is it for the students to practice this stuff?

I'd teach Judo and Kendo to anyone from little kids on up. It's good for them. The training develops lots of character, physical fitness, coordination, a good attitude and so on. Besides, six year olds whacking away at each other in bogu is awfully cute.

The benefits are great. The risks are minimal. The potential for abuse is pretty small.

Disabling combatives? I wouldn't teach boys until they were past the hormonal storms of the mid teens. Girls I might, might start a little earlier. The potential for bad things is much higher.

My Silat guru doesn't even like to teach real knife work to students who have been with him for many years. It's just too easy to kill someone if you know what you're doing.

In traditional cultures you generally knew your potential students. If they weren't from your village they were from the next one over. A lot of the vetting was already done. Now you have to be more observant.

 

[Josh Oakley]

In another thread I started, Exile and I were discussing the use of potentially deadly combat oriented techniques, the results of those techniques and why its important to make sure the people learning these things understand the law.

I commented that schools that have hundreds of students would most likely drop to a handful, if they only taught to a select group due to the nature of what was taught. So, to avoid sidetracking that thread, and at his request, here is that thread to talk about that subject.

So, if you had a school, and the focus was serious self defense, including having them know the law, the ramifications of their actions in a SD situation, only taught to adults, and only ones that were really serious about training, and ran the risk of only having a handful of serious students, vs. 300 students in a commercial setting, would you do it?

It's a tough question and I've been under teachers at both ends of the question. Now that I run a school myself, it's a very real and personal question.

On the one hand, I really want to only teach serious students who are adults. This would help me maintain quality control, and allow me more time one on one with the students. I always have to remind myself of the law of raspberry jam: the wider you spread it, the thinner it gets.

On the other hand, I want to help as many people as I possibly can. I can best do that in a commercial setting. After a certain point I need help, which means another instructor, which means I have to give up some control over the classes.

This is something I wrestled with for a while. In the end I chose the "300" model. While I don't believe in watering down martial arts, I think teaching children is good, because I have students that have survived some really bad encounters because of their training. The '300' model also allows me to teach full-time, which allows me to focus specifically on martial arts. This has helped me hone my own understanding of my art and enables me to give more to my students. I actually have had to take on other instructors, but I check on the students from time to time to make sure their skills are on par with my students' skills.

Not everyone who joins me sticks around very long, but I make sure they get as much as they can out of it, and many people who started out as hobbyists have gotten more serious about it over time. Many people, contrariwise, who have started serious quit when their interests fade. Time and pressure really tests the mettle of my students.

Now for those students who are really serious, I confess I spend more time and energy on, and show them things I don't show other students. I teach private lessons, so I can make sure they get what they came for.


I understand why people stick with small student bases. I also understand I walk a tight rope managing a large student base. But in the end I find it worth the risk. People will agree or disagree with me on this, but if they really want to see if what I'm doing is working, my words aren't enough. I invite you to come watch a class and judge my students. If what I'm doing is worthwhile, it should show through my student's abilities.

 

[SteffenBerg]

I'd be curious to how you define "serious self-defense"?

I don't know what it means, but whether it's for "self-defense" or for fun, I would much prefer a smaller group than a large commercial school. Probably because a lot of my own training have been in smaller clubs or in a private / semi-private setting (with the exception of BJJ and Aikido).

My teaching experience have been limited as I've only taught on three occasions. The first time over about a 5 year period (with my teacher - I usually taught, he watched); the second time as an assistant instructor at a school for the masses; and the last for about a year and half (in my backyard / garage dojo).

In the first and last group I only had a handful of students that eventually whittled down to 1 or 2 individuals... mostly because we trained "old school".

Probably not a popular opinion but, I believe that most people who enter schools these days don't have the time or the inclination to study and train hard... so I would imagine it would be easy to "dumb down" a curriculum for the masses. And I think that's fine... there are a lot of arts that have thrived because they've done this. And a lot of people have benefited from the increased well-being, fitness, competitive spirit or what not. But I think it's dangerous and irresponsible to tell a student they are learning "self-defense" just because they learn some techniques that they can do fast and "powerful" against a relatively cooperative partner. Or telling them simply that it is good self-defense because that's what you've been taught by your teacher...

My personal experience having dojo hopped on three continents have been that most arts taught these days are not suitable for self-defense the way they are taught... and my personal opinion is that most students wouldn't really want to learn that way (even if they think they do).

Just my 2 yen.

Stef

 

[MJS]

Man, I forgot about this thread. Sorry about that, as I want to answer a few questions. I'll start off by saying this....everyone opens a school for various reason...some for extra income, some as their bread and butter. For those where its the B&B, having more students, will result in more income. So to gear or limit it to certain people would cut into that money.

I don't own my own school, but I do help with the teaching from time to time at the school I train at. I stick to the material that is required, however, there are times, when the person is ready, I'll go into the what if areas, and if the person I'm working with is really serious about the training and SD, I may throw a few other things in. My teachers do that with me. For example, my Arnis class is pretty small, so sometimes, my teacher will let the newer folks work on their own for a few, pull me aside and give me the next level, so to speak.

The question was asked, what is serious self defense? Good question. IMHO, I think I would say it leans more towards the RBSD stuff. Now, this isn't to say that the other stuff thats taught in Kenpo, TKD, Ninjutsu, etc. isn't effective. This is to say that the main focus is the KISS principle. We want to teach the most effective things, in the shortest amount of time, with the highest results. So, toss out kata, standing in a static stance for half the class, and add in bag work, scenario training, legal aspects of the training, etc. Go into a more in-depth study on weapons, how they work, various ways to use them, ways they can be used against you.

Could I take Kenpo tech A, teach it to someone and they pick it up, apply it, make it work, the whole 9 yards? Sure. Could the next student have a hard time with it? Sure. Does that mean it has to be thrown out? Not at all. Hell, there're Kenpo techs. that I'd probably never do, yet I teach them, for the above reason...maybe someone else will have better luck.

I would also say that all material thats taught has other levels to it. Is everyone ready for that? Will they ever be? Who knows.

I've had some of my best workouts with the small, serious groups. I do things in my private lessons with my Kenpo teacher, that he probably does not cover in the group classes. Some of the guys in the Arnis group want to take some of the techs. and start pressure testing them a bit with stick sparring. Is every Arnis student up for that? Probably not, and thats fine. They're happy learning A. Other want to expand to B, C and D.

 

[stickarts]

I enjoy teaching both large classes for the community and sharing martial arts with as many people as possible, and also teaching the smaller more serious classes for those that want to get deeper in. I get a lot of satisfaction with both groups. Many times the students that started out just for fun get hooked and join the more serious minded. Either way, if training makes their lives better then I acheived my purpose.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I have been in big classes and in small private classes. I have also taught to large groups and to small tiny groups. Personally I like the atmosphere of about six people as that is enough to have several different partners and also keep a higher level of quality control. So I would definitely vote for a smaller group and yet I have seen people pull off teaching larger groups very effectively. As to the nature of what we teach and how things can be deadly. Well I think you need to also teach the legal side of what we are doing and how far a practitioner can go to protect themselves. This is essential in the end for personal protection skills.

 

[Rich Parsons]

In another thread I started, Exile and I were discussing the use of potentially deadly combat oriented techniques, the results of those techniques and why its important to make sure the people learning these things understand the law.

I commented that schools that have hundreds of students would most likely drop to a handful, if they only taught to a select group due to the nature of what was taught. So, to avoid sidetracking that thread, and at his request, here is that thread to talk about that subject.

So, if you had a school, and the focus was serious self defense, including having them know the law, the ramifications of their actions in a SD situation, only taught to adults, and only ones that were really serious about training, and ran the risk of only having a handful of serious students, vs. 300 students in a commercial setting, would you do it?

Actually, this is what we do. We have a handful of instructors and less students. But none of us are looking to make money off of our teaching or instruction.


Now, I do teach seminars, and for example at my last one, I made sure people understood that learning sword and dagger techniques was for historical purposes and that the techniques should not be used on just anyone. Most of the people laughed when I said this. But the LEO's and Lawyers and other Governmental officials in the crowd, looked at me and had a serious look on their face. They understood my comment about this being for historical training purposes and that I do not support the random acts of cutting and stabbing people.

While in the past I have had a child or two at the seminar, I have offered the parents the option to have their child not present for a portion, and I would work the child or children after hours to make sure they got something for their time and money. But that I wanted the parent(s) to understand that the host asked for this subject and that if they did not want their child to learn it I would support their actions and make sure they felt like they were covered.