# more than one sensei at a dojo?



## Sin (Mar 9, 2005)

Soon my school may be getting another instructor, my sensei now is well versed in many arts.  the Sensei coming to the school is a grappling instructor.  do you guys think its a good idea to have specialized instructors?


----------



## gakusei (Mar 9, 2005)

Sure. Learn from the best people you can find.


----------



## clapping_tiger (Mar 9, 2005)

Of course. I would rather get a heart transplant from a specialist than just a regular surgeon.


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 9, 2005)

Sure, I think it's an excellent idea to have more than one instructor in a dojo.  Having different instructors for different aspects of an art will only add to your ability to learn the finer points of certain techniques.  Having more than one instructor in a dojo that teach the same general thing can only help to reduce the student/instructor ratio and give you more one on one time with the instructor (so long as both instructors are teaching the same techniques the same way).  Your question makes me wonder if there may be some worry about loyalty issues with in your dojo.  That's a whole other question.  As for simply have more instructors, yes, more (qualified instructors) is better.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 9, 2005)

_If you are going to learn them, why not learn from the best._


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 9, 2005)

We had a problem with this. it is best that the exosting instructor train with the newboie for a few workouts. And, how ell do they know each other.\? We had experince a huge conflict with the same thing.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 9, 2005)

In our organization, there can only be one Instructor per class. The problem I see is conflicting messages. Let's say you have a situation where a Tae Kwon Do and a Kenpo instructor are part of the same class. The TKD instructor would undoubtably think that aspects of kenpo training are questionable, and ditto for the kenpo instructor. How do you keep the students from getting confused? You've got the TKD teacher teaching high kicks, and the kenpo teacher teaching that they don't work.
Same thing with, say, TKD and grappling or BJJ. Each side practices curricula that the other doesn't always agree with. How do you work that out?
I think it's better to have the One class-One instructor rule.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 9, 2005)

Shoot,

We've got instructors in the same organization that don't agree. And they're all Tae Kwon Do. How would I expect two or more separate stylists to get along?


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 10, 2005)

Sin said:
			
		

> Soon my school may be getting another instructor,
> 1) my sensei now is well versed in many arts.
> 2) the Sensei coming to the school is a grappling instructor. do you guys think its a good idea to have specialized instructors?


 
 1) Which arts is he well versed in?
 2) Who is he and what art does he teach?


----------



## Sam (Mar 10, 2005)

I cant imagine only one instructor. You'd only get one perspective one everything! *counts on fingers, and then toes* We have like 12.


----------



## Sin (Mar 10, 2005)

The new guy does a lot of grappling witch my sensei hasn't had  lot of practice in.......and the classes would be seperated, they would alternate from instructor to assistant. Depending on what the material for that class is.  i haven't met the other guy but I don't think there will be an ego problem honestly.


----------



## TigerWoman (Mar 10, 2005)

Well, I think that the new instructor should be TKD versed-know our orientation-do some sparring at least.  I would welcome a grappling instructor, he would be an expert and have a wider background to draw from. Just wouldn't want conflicting instruction. TW


----------



## clfsean (Mar 10, 2005)

An old addage... 

You can't have two tigers on one mountain...


----------



## Sin (Mar 10, 2005)

The guy wouldn't be there full time, only about once a week, more if we wants to come to the class.    The guy works at the YMCA here in Ky, that is where my Sensei met him.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 10, 2005)

Sin said:
			
		

> Soon my school may be getting another instructor, 1) my sensei now is well versed in many arts. 2) the Sensei coming to the school is a grappling instructor. do you guys think its a good idea to have specialized instructors?


 1) Which arts is he well versed in?
   2) Who is he and what art does he teach?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 10, 2005)

clfsean said:
			
		

> An old addage...
> 
> You can't have two tigers on one mountain...


Sure! A mother and cub!


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 11, 2005)

How about this:
No man can serve two masters.

A dojo or dojang is like a home, with the father and the children. You can no more have two instructors in the same school than you can two fathers in the same house. Only one can be responsible for the upbringing and education of the students. It is possible to have a guest Instructor to learn how to defend against X style, but not two teachers under the same roof full time.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 11, 2005)

No man can serve two masters.
Slavery? 


Yes, two masters as long as they are not in the same school.


----------



## theletch1 (Mar 11, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> How about this:
> No man can serve two masters.
> 
> A dojo or dojang is like a home, with the father and the children. You can no more have two instructors in the same school than you can two fathers in the same house. Only one can be responsible for the upbringing and education of the students. It is possible to have a guest Instructor to learn how to defend against X style, but not two teachers under the same roof full time.


What about a mother and father teaching the children those things which each of them are most knowledgable in?  I don't see the two instructor thing as a problem if the balance of power and differences in curriculi are handled properly.


----------



## Sin (Mar 11, 2005)

I have loyalty to my Sensei, and not this new guy. I have learned so much from my Sensei that I respect him and consider him a good friend and teacher.
    i'm also not going to call this new guy Sensei, unless my sensei says so....(Hope that wasn't to criptic.)

But I do look forward to working out with this guy and what i can learn from him.

The whole thing where you can't serve two masters, I belive that you serve yourself and all those who serve you.  i started martial arts for my health and my well being, i'm going to collage for my well being.  but i have great respect for those who helped me on my road to self-improvment, and more times than non, they become treasured friends of mine.


----------



## ppko (Mar 11, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> How about this:
> No man can serve two masters.
> 
> A dojo or dojang is like a home, with the father and the children. You can no more have two instructors in the same school than you can two fathers in the same house. Only one can be responsible for the upbringing and education of the students. It is possible to have a guest Instructor to learn how to defend against X style, but not two teachers under the same roof full time.


I am going to have to disagree with you here, as long as the arts mesh well with one another and they are taught together than there should be no problem with this situation.  It brings a new outlook for the students and will also give them a better chance on the street, ie what sorks for you might not work for all of your students but this guy might have some of the missing pieces.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Mar 11, 2005)

Sin said:
			
		

> I have loyalty to my Sensei, and not this new guy. I have learned so much from my Sensei that I respect him and consider him a good friend and teacher.
> i'm also not going to call this new guy Sensei, unless my sensei says so....(Hope that wasn't to criptic.)
> 
> But I do look forward to working out with this guy and what i can learn from him.
> ...


If you trust your Sensei, than there should be no problems.  He is initiating this new class for reasons of his own.  From what I've read here it seems that your Sensei is fairly secure with it.  If he wasn't it is doubtful that he would have invited this other instructor into your school to begin with.  Your instructor is offering you an opportunity to broaden your experiences.  I see no reason for you to not embrace this learning opportunity.  In terms of what protocols to follow with this new instructor I suggest that you ask your Sensei what he would like you to do - follow his lead.   :asian:

MJ


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2005)

Sin said:
			
		

> Soon my school may be getting another instructor, my sensei now is well versed in many arts.  the Sensei coming to the school is a grappling instructor.  do you guys think its a good idea to have specialized instructors?



Is this grappling inst. going to be teaching his own seperate class or is he going to be assisting your current inst. with classes?  

IMO, I see nothing wrong with having a variety of instructors, however, if they are going to be teaching classes, then they should have a solid background in whatever it is that they're going to be teaching.  

Mike


----------



## Sin (Mar 11, 2005)

He'll be asisting and have his own class, it depends on if he can make it or not to the class


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 11, 2005)

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				Originally Posted by *Sin*
_Soon my school may be getting another instructor, 
  1) my sensei now is well versed in many arts.  
 2) the Sensei coming to the school is a grappling instructor. do you guys think its a good idea to have specialized instructors?_


 Sin, 

 I am curious as to why you have not answered my 2 questions......

   1) Which arts is he well versed in?
   2) Who is he and what art does he teach?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 11, 2005)

Having two instructors in a school is ok as long as it dose not turn into a power struggle as to whom everyone owes allegiance to or who actually is running things


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 11, 2005)

You can learn various techniques from different black belts, but you can have only one Sensei or Sa Bum Nim. It is my opinion that, since your Instructor's job is to guide you as a martial artist (that Do thing), you can have only one.
You can have several mentors or uncles, but only one father. The mentors can help guide along, but the ultimate guide must be your Instructor. If I feel that your loyalties are divided among several, I cannot have you as a student. There must be trust to your Instructor. 
And it is not a cult or slavery, because you can leave anytime. Slaves or cult members cannot leave. This is one of the principles of the Hwa Rang-loyalty to King (or Instructor).


----------



## masherdong (Mar 13, 2005)

The more, the better.  It is good to have a variety of instructor's at the dojo, so that you can take a little from each one and come up with your own style of sparring or techniques.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 13, 2005)

masherdong said:
			
		

> The more, the better. 1) It is good to have a variety of instructor's at the dojo, 2) so that you can take a little from each one and come up with your own style of sparring or techniques.


 1) Only if everyone has the same agenda..which is rarely the case. 



   2) Yeahnothing like having someone with little or no experience making up their own style.  That's all we need is another "McDojo" on the planet.


----------



## masherdong (Mar 13, 2005)

> 1) Only if everyone has the same agenda..which is rarely the case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That isnt what I meant.  I mean to use in tourneys and competitions.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 13, 2005)

masherdong said:
			
		

> That isnt what I meant.  I mean to use in tourneys and competitions.


    Either way.

 Instead of trying to pick up a few tricks here and there why not study diligently from one or two good teachers so you actually learn something worth while.


----------



## Adept (Mar 13, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> he mentors can help guide along, but the ultimate guide must be your Instructor.


 You've said this a couple of times now, but haven't gone any further with it. I'd like to know why you feel this way.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 13, 2005)

Because I believe in the traditional way. The traditional way says that the instructor-student relationship is like the parent-child relationship. By this I mean that my job as instructor is much more than just showing a student techniques. It is to guide the student in their overall development as student and person. That is a primary difference between traditional and mixed martial artists. MMA see their instructor as simply a coach, one who shows them the required techniques to get the job done. In that aspect, you can learn from as many instructors as you want, because all they are doing is coaching in different techniques.
My perception of an instructor is much deeper, as is most traditional stylists. Learning technique is simply the beginning. Your instructor is almost a mother/father figure. How many fathers can you have? One. Many uncles but one father, the person who is responsible for your ultimate growth. Not only do they teach you their technique, but you also grow under their rules and philosophy. MMA undoubtably see this as stifling. Traditionalists see it as providing a firm foundation.


----------



## Sam (Mar 13, 2005)

Why do you think that you can't learn things from more than one instructor? Why would instructors rarely have the same 'agenda'? Agenda implies that they have a list of things to do for their own motives - all the instructors at my studio have the same objective - teach students and share what they know.
as for "my job as an instructor... is to guide the student in their overall development as student and person"
Yeah, I would agree with that... but if all the instructors are pointing in the same direction, what's the problem? It sounds as if you have had a bad experience with this or something. 


oh yeah, and this: "the person who is responsible for your ultimate growth" I think that would ultimately be you (the student). If you think about it, no one can really teach you anything. They can only show you and then you decide if you take that and implement it or disreguard it.


----------



## still learning (Mar 13, 2005)

Hello, Everyone can teach us something. Having another teacher is good!  Since he is specialize in grappling he will be adding news ways for you to learn. Lucky you.
 Every year at our at Seminars most of the top rank instructors teach a certain part of the classes and we have many different classes, but each teach a certain way,on the same stuffs. Good to get a different view. ....Aloha


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 13, 2005)

I just skimmed through the 30+ posts in this thread, and I was really taken aback at the wannabe kung fu movie attitude some folks want to have...

The "master-student" relationship is not culturally present in the US.  The closest comparison we can have to the Asian martial arts master fantasy archetype is the relationship between parent and child.  It must be understood that having this kind of relationship with a person that is essentially a stranger is potentially damaging to the student...

Here's the thing of it.  The martial arts teacher has *absolutely no qualifications whatsoever* to be passing on "life guidance" to his/her students.  The myth that a martial arts teacher by definition is qualified or capable to guide a student in something other than martial arts training is a bunch of BS.

So for someone to say that the relationship between student and teacher is akin to a parent-child relationship displays a real lack of awareness of the role that different people play, and speaks to a poor decision making process on the part of the person subordinating themselves to the whim and will of some person who teaches others to fight!

It is yet another instance of non-Asians attempting to align themselves with aspects of foreign cultures in an effort to identify with something, to fill a void in their life.

A guy learns to fight from some other guy.  That first guy then opens a storefront in a minimall, and attempts to eke out a living by teaching others to fight.  Does that person necessarily have any training, education, or qualifications to enable them to counsel one of their fighting students on life issues?  Hardly.

There can't be two "sensei" in one dojo.  Period.  There *can* be multiple teachers, but they'd better have the same business goals.  The maxim that "a man can't have two masters" doesn't mean that you can't have two teachers, it means that you can't devote yourself fully to two separate tasks - one will always suffer.

Wise up, folks.  If you are consciously aware of the roleplaying game you are engaging in, fine...  At least you are engaging in it purposefully.  If you are doing it because you think that is the way things are supposed to be, try to remember you aren't living in the Far East of 100 years ago...


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 13, 2005)

Our organization has periodic seminars. At these seminars, different instructors will present lectures or workshops on different topics. Gup and Dan students from many different branches will attend to learn history, philosophy, technique, etiquette etc. When I am there, I am respected by the students as an instructor, but not as THEIR instructor. I am not responsible for them the way their instructor is. That is one of the definitions of an instructor-the one who is responsible for you. The black belts who learned under me and were recommended to black belt by me I am responsible for. They cannot just go to another instructor and say "please teach me." This is a grave insult.
I am sorry if Matt "Minister of Blades" fails to appreciate this. His attitude just proves my point. MMA do not understand traditional manners and etiquette. It doesn't matter whether Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Karate, Kung Fu etc.. The principle is the same. A traditional karate instructor will teach the same way.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 13, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Because I believe in the traditional way. The traditional way says that the instructor-student relationship is like the parent-child relationship. By this I mean that my job as instructor is much more than just showing a student techniques. It is to guide the student in their overall development as student and person. That is a primary difference between traditional and mixed martial artists. MMA see their instructor as simply a coach, one who shows them the required techniques to get the job done. In that aspect, you can learn from as many instructors as you want, because all they are doing is coaching in different techniques.
> My perception of an instructor is much deeper, as is most traditional stylists. Learning technique is simply the beginning. Your instructor is almost a mother/father figure. How many fathers can you have? One. Many uncles but one father, the person who is responsible for your ultimate growth. Not only do they teach you their technique, but you also grow under their rules and philosophy. MMA undoubtably see this as stifling. Traditionalists see it as providing a firm foundation.


I agree, but it ashame when the parent charges for this development.


----------



## Adept (Mar 13, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> The traditional way says that the instructor-student relationship is like the parent-child relationship.


 Who said that? And when? And where? And why?

 These are important questions. Blind faith in anything, just because you were told to, seems foolish in my opinion.



> How many fathers can you have? One.


 Define father for me.



> I am not responsible for them the way their instructor is. That is one of the definitions of an instructor-the one who is responsible for you.


 In what way? Responsible for their martial arts progression? Responsible for their level of skill? Responsible for their behaviour? For making sure they meet their loan repayments?

 I think it is the student that is responsible for themselves. 



> They cannot just go to another instructor and say "please teach me." This is a grave insult.


 Their decision to be taught by someone else would be because they feel they can learn more, or better, from someone else. I can see how this would be an insult to a persons skill as an instructor.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 13, 2005)

It depends on how the payment system is set up. For your monthly dues, you are learning the school's curriculum. However, teaching does not end when class is over. I have had many learning experiences with my instructor away from class in various settings (his office, his home, dinner, other people's homes etc.). What we learn in class is the class curriculum-basics, form, free fighting, some etiquette. That is what you pay per month for.
Outside class, we learn philosophy, TKD politics, how to conduct ourselves, why things in TKD are done the way they are etc. Also, our instructor questions us about how things are going in our lives-school, work, family etc. Those are part of the WAY of TKD. It is part of the growing process as a student and instructor. You cannot put a price on that.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 13, 2005)

Yeah, Vader-define father. Where have you been to raise a son?


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 13, 2005)

Adept,

What I am talking about is the traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do Way. If you practice a traditional martial art, you practice the manners, philosophy, etiquette and culture of the native country as imparted into that art.
That does NOT mean that you become Korean. Far from it. However, there are values and ways of thinking in traditional Tae Kwon Do that are there because of where it came from. Namely, Korean thought. One of these is the concept of following your Instructor as you would your father. Now, if you do NOT subscribe to the traditional concept, as I am well aware you do not, it would be meaningless to you. Bruce Lee said "absorb what is useful." That worked for Bruce Lee, who seemed only to be interested in fighting. It probably also helped contribute to the fact that he died when he was 33. He was not a very peaceful person.
Also, don't assume that traditionalists are slaves. We are not. A slave cannot leave his Master under penalty of death or severe injury. My students can leave anytime. I've never said "You must stay under me." They stay under me because they choose to. If they go to another instructor without permission, I will no longer consider them my student, but they can still leave. Some of them have also seen how other instructors operate. They've never come back and said "Why don't you do this?" In fact, the ones who have witnessed other instructors from different organizations have told me how lucky they feel to be under me. So I must be doing something right.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 13, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Adept,
> 
> What I am talking about is the traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do Way. If you practice a traditional martial art, you practice the manners, philosophy, etiquette and culture of the native country as imparted into that art.
> That does NOT mean that you become Korean. Far from it. However, there are values and ways of thinking in traditional Tae Kwon Do that are there because of where it came from. Namely, Korean thought. One of these is the concept of following your Instructor as you would your father. Now, if you do NOT subscribe to the traditional concept, as I am well aware you do not, it would be meaningless to you. Bruce Lee said "absorb what is useful." That worked for Bruce Lee, who seemed only to be interested in fighting. It probably also helped contribute to the fact that he died when he was 33. He was not a very peaceful person.
> Also, don't assume that traditionalists are slaves. We are not. A slave cannot leave his Master under penalty of death or severe injury. My students can leave anytime. I've never said "You must stay under me." They stay under me because they choose to. If they go to another instructor without permission, I will no longer consider them my student, but they can still leave. Some of them have also seen how other instructors operate. They've never come back and said "Why don't you do this?" In fact, the ones who have witnessed other instructors from different organizations have told me how lucky they feel to be under me. So I must be doing something right.


Somewhat agree.
But the students that went to "look" at other instructors, were they under your tutelage first?


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 13, 2005)

Yes.

And they didn't go to test the waters, so to speak, usually they just happened to be in the area when another intructor was teaching. Could be several ways of doing this. Recommendation from a friend (Is this guy any good?), being in a gymnasium that another instructor uses during a sports meet, vacation. Sometimes it is simple curiosity. I used to do the same thing myself. Didn't go to another Instructor to learn, but wanted to see who he was and what his deal was. Always came back grateful for where I practiced.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 13, 2005)

But you teaching them first could have given them a subconcious degree of biased comparison?


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 14, 2005)

Well I would hope so. Nobody wants a student with no sense of loyalty. True instructors (as opposed to coaches) put a great deal of work into ensuring that their students are taught well on many levels. I certainly hope they are biased toward me! I would consider myself a failure if my students didn't look at me any differently than the guy down the road.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 14, 2005)

It happens that students like their FIRST teacher and set out for comparisons. it can be confusing for them if the first one was bad. No offense directed to you, just a general statement


----------



## Adept (Mar 14, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> Adept,
> 
> What I am talking about is the traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do Way. If you practice a traditional martial art, you practice the manners, philosophy, etiquette and culture of the native country as imparted into that art.


 Again I ask, says who? Who insists that you must have only one instructor? When did they say that? Where were they when they said it? Why did they say it?



> One of these is the concept of following your Instructor as you would your father.


 Many civilisations around the globe have many examples of multiple fathers. Orphaned children in many areas of the world became children of the village as a whole, children who lose their father at an early age or whose mothers have re-married, etc. It is possible to have multiple father figures.

 Genetics does not the father make, but I'm certain that wasn't your position.

 Having said that, I once again ask, who? when? where? why?

 Lets not fall into the trap of the ham...

_A woman is cooking a christmas ham. Before she puts it in the oven, she slices an inches thickness of each end. Her daughter sees this and asks why.

 Her mother says she isn't sure, she does it because her mother and her grandmother did it.

 A few days later, the daughter is speaking to the grandmother and asks here about it.

 "I dont know why your mother and grandmother do it, but I always did it because the ham was too big to fit in the pan!"_

 If there really is some ancient text describing a ban against mutliple instructors, then fair enough. Thats how you want to train, and I wont hold it against you. 



> Now, if you do NOT subscribe to the traditional concept, as I am well aware you do not, it would be meaningless to you. Bruce Lee said "absorb what is useful."


 Despite my current training ethos and methods, I started my martial arts career in traditional TKD. So I do know where you are coming from, and I can appreciate TMA for what it is.



> That worked for Bruce Lee, who seemed only to be interested in fighting. It probably also helped contribute to the fact that he died when he was 33. He was not a very peaceful person.


 Without trying to drag the thread off topic, I think that is a gross over-simplification.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 14, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> I just skimmed through the 30+ posts in this thread, and I was really taken aback at the wannabe kung fu movie attitude some folks want to have...
> 
> The "master-student" relationship is not culturally present in the US. The closest comparison we can have to the Asian martial arts master fantasy archetype is the relationship between parent and child. It must be understood that having this kind of relationship with a person that is essentially a stranger is potentially damaging to the student...
> 
> ...


 




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



    Matt, 



    You hit the nail right on the head.

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

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



 I have always trained by the adage too many cooks spoil the pot or if you chase 2 rabbits you wont catch either and just go hungry.

    Here is an example:

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

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



 This thread has reinforced my conclusion that a majority of the practicing MA people dont understand what it takes to be a serious student and to train diligently. I am sure someone will claim that they do train seriously and diligently but judging from the majority of posts here I would strongly disagree since most of what I have read seems to focus on what they can receive on a platter from teachers instead of what they can earn and learn.


----------



## Bod (Mar 14, 2005)

Far better a dedicated grappling instructor than your sensei going to a seminar and then proclaiming himself a 'grappling expert'.

This shows openess and good judgement on your teacher's part. Traditional (not sport) karate is designed to prevent grappling - that's what all the low stances, punches from the hips and rising blocks are actually about. A little grappling will confirm this.

If your sensei can make things work with this instructor then your training can only improve.


----------



## Sin (Mar 14, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sin*
> _Soon my school may be getting another instructor,
> 1) my sensei now is well versed in many arts.
> ...




I haven't posted in a wile, hence the late post, also i sometimes do not read all of the posts.   but all post are appresiated none the less.

Honestly, what i learn is a mixed martial art.  based on several arts....RyuKyu, Akido, and Karate-do.  

And you, Robert, know who my instructor is.  although I will repeat his name only for there sake.  Sensei Livingston.


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 14, 2005)

Bod said:
			
		

> ......Traditional (not sport) karate is designed to prevent grappling - that's what all the low stances, punches from the hips and rising blocks are actually about. A little grappling will confirm this.


 
 Uuhhh....not really. 
 I think you need to investigate why karate uses low stances, punches from the hips and rising blocks.......


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 14, 2005)

Lots of quotes from lots of folks.  Please pardon the lack of references to who said what; I prepped my response in MS Word so I could go back to it during breaks at work...



> Our organization has periodic seminars. At these seminars, different instructors will present lectures or workshops on different topics. Gup and Dan students from many different branches will attend to learn history, philosophy, technique, etiquette etc. When I am there, I am respected by the students as an instructor, but not as THEIR instructor.



There is nothing wrong with that statement at all...  While I dont believe in obsequious displays of respect just because so and so is a black belt (a black belt really doesn't qualify you for anything, much less more respect than any bum on the street), being courteous toward a visiting instructor, recognizing that individual for their accomplishments, is fine. 



> I am not responsible for them the way their instructor is. That is one of the definitions of an instructor-the one who is responsible for you.



The only thing that an instructor is responsible for is the training of his/her students in the techniques and standards of that style.  Providing life counseling, advice on personal situations, etc., are beyond his/her concerns.  Perhaps once a lifelong relationship has been established the student may want to prevail on the teachers longer well of experience, thats one thing.  For a teacher to assume that, because he or she is a martial arts teacher, he/she necessarily has an inbuilt calling toward moral and ethical instruction and supervision, is another expression of the Mr. Miyagi and Daniel-san fantasy.  Dave Lowry wrote an excellent column about this in Black Belt ragazine a few years back...

Case in point...  Ive known my teacher for nearly 20 years.  Over that time, Ive gotten to know him and I trust his insight in certain areas.  If I have a question, I know I can go to him as a resource, like I could go to my parents, an uncle, etc.  He doesnt, however, make a show of getting involved in my life, offering unsolicited advice, passing judgment on the actions of students, etc.  It isnt his place to do that.

The teacher that assumes it is his/her place to do so, assumes too much...



> The black belts who learned under me and were recommended to black belt by me I am responsible for. They cannot just go to another instructor and say "please teach me." This is a grave insult.



In whose culture?  This is the Miyagi fantasy, and the out-Asianing the Asians behavior, rearing their ugly heads again.  Your students (and mine as well) pay for their instruction.  We provide a service in a service oriented economy.  We cannot dictate who they go to for what service.  In American culture, we go to the person that will give us what we need.  You are expecting your students (with the above cited behavior) to adopt the cultural norms and mores from an alien culture on no other authority than yours... an authority that does not carry any real weight.  It really is akin to the Jiffy Lube guy saying that you should never go to another mechanic unless you ask his permission first.  Who is he to place that restriction on you?  We might not like a promising student "going over to the competition," but it really isn't our choice...

If you have a long standing relationship with someone, a friend lets say, and that friend offers you something, perhaps help in moving your house, are you honor bound to accept it?  No.  By our culture, we can choose how to do things ourselves.  If a doctor gives you a certain prognosis, we get a second opinion.  If we dont like the advice an attorney gives us, we release him and obtain the services of another.  There isnt much in our culture that supports your version of assumed responsibility.



> I am sorry if Matt "Minister of Blades" fails to appreciate this. His attitude just proves my point. MMA do not understand traditional manners and etiquette.



Thats hilarious!!!  Im not a MMAist!!!  Ive studied a traditional Chinese style since 1985!  I have lived in Asia (Korea from 1989  1990, Japan from 1999  2002, and Im going back to Korea in May), and I think Im at least a little aware of Asian cultural etiquette.  But the point of it all is that *Im an American, living in America*, and as such, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Okinawan, etc., cultural patterns of behavior are affectations by martial arts students.  They are not part of our societal upbringing, and are 95% of the time misunderstood by those people who force them on their students!  For that matter, check the title of this thread!  _Two_ sensei in one dojo?  Nope.  If you want to get traditional, there can only be one, and it is his/her dojo, period.  "Traditionally" speaking, there'd never be a second instructor brought in, especially if it were from another style!  More on that later...



> It doesn't matter whether Tae Kwon Do, Aikido, Karate, Kung Fu etc.. The principle is the same. A traditional karate instructor will teach the same way.



Unless that person opens their mind fully and realizes what things are beyond their place, knowledge and training.  Heck, if your students are content with your mucking about in their lives, fine.  I prefer not to burden my students with my advice and I stay out of their lives unless they ask me for something  they have enough to worry about on their own without deciding whether they are hurting my feelings for not obeying foreign patterns of etiquette.



> Agenda implies that they have a list of things to do for their own motives - all the instructors at my studio have the same objective - teach students and share what they know.



Instructors have agendas, especially when their art clashes with the stated objectives, methods, and theories of another art.  Not all MAists, as we can see readily via the internet, are the banner bearers for ethical conduct, nor do they necessarily accept other arts as equals.  In those instances when two or more instructors of significantly different traditions partner up, often there will be at least one whose genuine intentions are hidden...  Thats just the way real life is.

Adept has said it well.  The student is responsible for his/her own behavior.  Sure, if the instructor is attempting to pass on some of the cultural identity that may go along with his/her art, more power to him/her.  But the student does *not* have to behave as if he/she were from that country/culture/tradition, nor does the instructor need to monitor that students behavior to ensure that the student conducts him/herself responsibly.  Not the teachers job, plain and simple, and it isn't part of our culture as Americans.

Michigan TKDs approach is admirable, but I think he errs when he makes the assumption that his students want to behave as Koreans.  Pass on the info, fine.  Help the students understand the cultural background against which TKD developed.  But remember they are Americans, not Koreans, and expect them to behave as such.  The follow your instructor as you would your father bit is a real stretch, and I think is one of the contributing factors to the close-mindedness of many TKDists.  They believe, hook, line and sinker, what Sabumnim tells them, never questioning whether Sabumnim might not know it all, or whether he might have his own agenda in keeping his students insulated from other thoughts.  Further, he said:



> If they go to another instructor without permission, I will no longer consider them my student, but they can still leave.



Since when does your student need your permission to go someplace else?  As an American businessman, you reserve the right to refuse service to potential customers, but would I need to ask my cable provider, or my internet service provider, to go someplace else for service?  What about my long distance plan?  You assume too much of the burdens from the culture your art originated in, and try too hard to enforce that behavior on people who do not live within that culture.  Again, trying to out-Asian the Asians.  Understand that to a great degree, the traditional notion of not going to other teachers was a mechanism by which the teacher preserved his secrets intact, and prevented others from learning what he knew.  It kept his students subservient to him, prevented their learning anything to challenge his power base, and all in all did more to isolate and undermine the Way than it did to enforce it.  Please, contradict this and cite your proof

M TKD, please qualify this comment:



> Nobody wants a student with no sense of loyalty.



Why is this loyalty important?  I think youll find in short order, your answer(s) will support what I said above, while they will fall short of qualifying any high-minded ideals.

Remember, folks, we don't live in feudal Asia.  We live in the 21st century, an age where cultural identity is what we make of it, an age where "traditional" means only what it is taken to mean.  Heck, music from the 80s is termed "nostalgic" now, Kyokushin is considered a "traditional" style (though it isn't much more than 50 years old yet), and there are folks who argue that even JKD is developing its own "traditions."

Do what you want with your training, learn what you want, and learn it from whomever you choose.  But as teachers we have to know when to draw the line, stop playing make-believe, and stick to doing what we are qualified to do...

Enjoy.


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 14, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> Uuhhh....not really.
> I think you need to investigate why karate uses low stances, punches from the hips and rising blocks.......



[sarcasm]We do Naihanchi so we can fight on rice paddy dikes and up against walls, right?[/sarcasm]


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 14, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> [sarcasm]We do Naihanchi so we can fight on rice paddy dikes and up against walls, right?[/sarcasm]


 OF course....because it was invented by peasants!!!


----------



## MJS (Mar 14, 2005)

IMO, I feel that if a student is training under instructor "A", and he wants to also train under instructor "B" at another school, why not let him?  I strongly encourage cross training or cross referencing, but only once they've had a good base in their first art.  

Something along these same lines has happened to me in the past.  One of my Kenpo instructors was also ranked in Arnis.  I however, had an Arnis instructor that I liked, and I chose to train under him.  My Kenpo inst. could not seem to understand why I'd want to go somewhere else, when he offered the same thing.  My theory was...I was more than loyal to my Kenpo inst.  I taught at the school many hours a week, I always spoke highly of the people there, always helped to promote events that the school was having, etc., but I should also be able to do things in my personal life outside of the school.  I shouldn't have to 'clear' who I train Arnis with by my Kenpo inst.  Again, I was loyal to that school, but I should be able to have a life outside of it too.

There are many different things out there.  That being said, I think that if someone wants to go out and see what else is out there, they should be able to.

Mike


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 14, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

> OF course....because it was invented by peasants!!!



Yeah, I remember them...  The ones that created karotty as a response to the invading samurai.  They engaged the mounted, armed, and armored soldiers from the ground.  They trained their hands and feet to break boards so they could break through the samurai's armor, and they trained to kick far higher than a person's head (including jumping kicks) so they could kick the horseman off his mount...

Fine example of getting info from one source and one source only.  I know some folks (including a KATUSA I served with while in Korea the first time; he'd trained in TKD since he was a small child, and he spouted the jump kicky thing above to me...  Whatever...) who genuinely believe this drivel.

There is a guy I've recently run into who claims that traditional martial arts, specifically TKD, was never taught with contact.  He knows that because his Korean teacher told him so...

Just gotta love that teacher=father relationship.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 14, 2005)

Matt,

You sound just like the know-nothings I went to school with, the ones I would never dream of talking about martial arts with because it was obvious they considered traditional training laughable. 
I am not saying that a traditional instructor needs to know all about life and be a life adviser to students. But you have this superficial attitude that the only thing an instructor is good for is teaching technique. That is not an instructor that is a coach. A coach's job is to bring student's technique to accomplish a mission-usually winning matches.
This is what DO means-a martial art as a Way of Life to better yourself as a student and as a person. You may think of it an outdated anachronism, and your posting suggest more than a little anti-Eastern bigotry. But the practice of traditional martial arts serves an important purpose-a solid foundation to help you through life. I wish there was no need for it. The fact is, for many students in our organization, mine as well as other instructors', this traditional guidance is often the ONLY guidance they have. We provide guidance that many times their parents don't give them. I wish it wasn't like that, but it is. 
Now, I could say "My responsibility to you is only in class teaching technique. Whatever you do outside class is up to you." What happens if that kid gets into trouble with martial arts? Do I still say "He used TKD outside class and it isn't my responsibility?" Of course I don't. I trained him, I am responsible for him. Not just in class, but outside class as well.
Now adults, granted, are a little different. They are responsible for themselves outside class more. However, as my students, I am still responsible for their development and growth as martial arts students, both in and out of class. As far as work, school, family I can give advice if asked or if I know a particular area. But they can also make their own decisions and learn from them.But as far as martial artists, they answer to me.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 14, 2005)

This thread is the funniest thing I've read in years!!!!

 :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1:  :bs1: 

Matt Stone has the correct.  The rest of you have watched Karate Kid a few too many time.


----------



## MJS (Mar 14, 2005)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-MJS
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 14, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

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



Do I really?  Thanks!



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



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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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

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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



> Now adults, granted, are a little different.



Why?



> They are responsible for themselves outside class more.



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



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



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



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



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



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



Which is as it should be...



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



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

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

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

Enjoy.


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 14, 2005)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Matt Stone has the correct.



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



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



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


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Mar 14, 2005)

Matt is correct.

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

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

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

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

 :soapbox:


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 14, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

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


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

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

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

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

    5)The way is found in training.its not found in talking about.

    6)I find that sad.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 14, 2005)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

upnorthkyosa

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


----------



## RRouuselot (Mar 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

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


 
 excellent point!


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 14, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> When we say the dojang/dojo kun what does that mean?
> 
> 1.  I seek perfection of character.
> 2.  I am sincere and honest.
> ...



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



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



Ownership.  Always a neat thing to see...  



> My students don't come to me for pontification.  They come to my dojang and repeat the kun because we share the same way...and then they sweat and fight and learn how to _do _ and _fail _ and _do again differently_.



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



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



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



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



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

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

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

So there you go.

Now back to training...


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 14, 2005)

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


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

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


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


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


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



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

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

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


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Mar 15, 2005)

*Mod. Note.*

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

- MJ 
- MT Moderator -


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 15, 2005)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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

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

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

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

Enjoy.


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Mar 15, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> Original thread issue(s) - If a school is attempting to pass on an undiluted tradition, whatever its purpose (practical self defense, cultural identity, etc.), then having another instructor will be distracting at best, possibly contradictory and disruptive at worst. It could tear that school apart, since the different instructors may have different training philosophies, significantly different training methods, different expectations for their students, and different assumptions about the goal of training in the first place.
> 
> If a school is attempting to provide as many options for training (whether the students are "cross training" or not) for the student as possible, then multiple instructors are a fine idea. Ultimately, though, we are speaking about a public martial arts school running as a business enterprise, aren't we? As such, one sole owner/operator of the business, a CEO of sorts, would need to be identified, and that individual would have the final say in any given situation. Whether his decision makes other subordinate instructors happy or not makes little difference; one final authority would need to exist.
> 
> Six of one, half dozen of the other. The "right" answer doesn't exist, and any answer will depend on your goals and attitudes toward training.


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

MJ :asian:


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 15, 2005)

mj-hi-yah said:
			
		

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



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Sin (Mar 15, 2005)

RRouuselot said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Mar 15, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

> If the instructor is truly a person of quality, the students won't have any issues with his/her authority by seeing him/her acting as a student, making mistakes like any other student, etc., while learning from another teacher.
> 
> If the instructor is a paper tiger, a tin soldier riding on the ego trip derived from controlling his students and their perception of the instructor, then it would be a death knell for him/her to be seen in such a compromising position. His/her authority would be suspect, the students would question everything he/she said, basing their questions on the display of fallibility shown during the other person's instruction.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## mj-hi-yah (Mar 15, 2005)

Sin said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 15, 2005)

Sin said:
			
		

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



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



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



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

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

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

*Modern Arnis* - Guro John Lehmann

*Shuri-te Ha Karate-do* - Sensei Mitsuo Onozaki

*Ryu Te Karate* - Sensei Robert Rousselot

*Judo* - Mr. Brad Ramos

*Systema* - Brian King, Kaizen Taki, Emmanuel Manolakakis

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

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

Enjoy.


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

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

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

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


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 15, 2005)

47MartialMan said:
			
		

> *SNIPPED*



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

Is that close?


----------



## 47MartialMan (Mar 15, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## Sin (Mar 17, 2005)

Matt Stone said:
			
		

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



i hear ya,
    You made the point that i was trying to make, This just being my second year of training, I haven't had a lot of time to have multiple teachers.  But I hope that one day I will  have a lst as extensive as yours.  Although if I quit what i am doing now, I will feel unfinished, this a chapter in my life that never reaches a climax.  So I'm gonna learn everyhing my sensei can teach me, and when I reach a point where i feel unfullfilled with my training (This being years down the road) i will seek out new styles and new systems, always expanding and always learning more.  But would still consider my sensei a friend, and someone I can talk to if needed.  his advice is regarded by me highly, not because hes Sensei, but because hes a friend.


----------



## Paul Smith (Mar 11, 2021)

I trained for many years at one Dojo only. I now train at multiple dojo's. The orginal place of training was JKA after a ten year break for medical reasons I discovered they were now training under Kase Ha. I moved to another Dojo which is purely traditional JKA but 2 sessions a week weren't enough, I started training with Kintora (They are Kase Ha as well) We also have a S.K.I 3rd Dan train with us so when we practice Kata we have the discussion of the differences between S.K.I, JKA & Kintora and the reasons for it & share bunkai techiques. A very informative & very respectful association but there is of course only one person running the class & they are the only one in charge.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 12, 2021)

Sin said:


> Soon my school may be getting another instructor, my sensei now is well versed in many arts.  the Sensei coming to the school is a grappling instructor.  do you guys think its a good idea to have specialized instructors?


Absolutely. Especially if your dojo is a popular one. However, it is important you and your other senseis are on the same page in terms of curriculum, technique etc. The last thing you want is for one sensei's teachings to conflict with yours and confuse your students.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Mar 12, 2021)

Of course its always great to have different instructors and you learn a lot from them.


----------



## dvcochran (Mar 12, 2021)

Sin said:


> Soon my school may be getting another instructor, my sensei now is well versed in many arts.  the Sensei coming to the school is a grappling instructor.  do you guys think its a good idea to have specialized instructors?


Yes. That said, it depends on what a person is looking for.
To be the most well rounded fighter adding a grappling specialist (or other area of deficiency) is a good thing.
To follow traditional roots, not so much.

***It is very interesting to re-read this whole thread.***
You can really see a change in mentality from 15 plus years ago. It supports my belief that styles are and will continue to homogenize.


----------



## Buka (Mar 12, 2021)

Paul Smith said:


> I trained for many years at one Dojo only. I now train at multiple dojo's. The orginal place of training was JKA after a ten year break for medical reasons I discovered they were now training under Kase Ha. I moved to another Dojo which is purely traditional JKA but 2 sessions a week weren't enough, I started training with Kintora (They are Kase Ha as well) We also have a S.K.I 3rd Dan train with us so when we practice Kata we have the discussion of the differences between S.K.I, JKA & Kintora and the reasons for it & share bunkai techiques. A very informative & very respectful association but there is of course only one person running the class & they are the only one in charge.



Welcome to Martial Talk, Paul. Nice to have you.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 12, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Yes. That said, it depends on what a person is looking for.
> To be the most well rounded fighter adding a grappling specialist (or other area of deficiency) is a good thing.
> To follow traditional roots, not so much.
> 
> ...



Yeah. In top mma gyms now it is very common to have specialist coaches.

I have a coach who is a statistics guy. And he is adamant that there is consistently more successful methods.

So say a rear naked choke will submit people more often than a gogo palata. And so people will be better more consistently if they follow those trends.

Which for say self defence where you kind of want reliable stuff as fast and easy as you can get it is a pretty efficient method.


----------



## Directional Harmony (Mar 14, 2021)

At my school we had 2 senseis (both teaching the same art just co-owning the school together). It was fine until they started to not see eye to eye. They would low key argue about business during classes and it was very awkward. Eventually, one left and now we only have one sensei. I think it can work if both see eye to eye. Otherwise, it can create awkwardness and mixed messages to students. Now that we only have one sensei, the direction and philosophy of the school is more clear and consistent. Thankfully in this case, our better sensei is the one who stuck around


----------



## drop bear (Mar 14, 2021)

Directional Harmony said:


> At my school we had 2 senseis (both teaching the same art just co-owning the school together). It was fine until they started to not see eye to eye. They would low key argue about business during classes and it was very awkward. Eventually, one left and now we only have one sensei. I think it can work if both see eye to eye. Otherwise, it can create awkwardness and mixed messages to students. Now that we only have one sensei, the direction and philosophy of the school is more clear and consistent. Thankfully in this case, our better sensei is the one who stuck around



I would suggest that the acknowledgement that they won't see eye to eye is more manageable.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Mar 14, 2021)

Directional Harmony said:


> At my school we had 2 senseis (both teaching the same art just co-owning the school together). It was fine until they started to not see eye to eye. They would low key argue about business during classes and it was very awkward. Eventually, one left and now we only have one sensei. I think it can work if both see eye to eye. Otherwise, it can create awkwardness and mixed messages to students. Now that we only have one sensei, the direction and philosophy of the school is more clear and consistent. Thankfully in this case, our better sensei is the one who stuck around



Few things will hurt a dojo more than friction between sensei.  There can be only one head and it should be clear to all, sensei and students, who that head is (this is assuming just one art is being taught.)  This is where rank and seniority come into play.  The instructors, especially if both are high ranked, may have different views of the art and teaching, but must hash this out privately.  The senior may be open for suggestions, or allow for differences in teaching.  This can be beneficial to the students is some cases.  In others, the senior may have no flexibility in how to do things in his dojo, and of course, his say goes.

The students must know, even if there is some individuality in the instructors (as there should be,) the basic techniques are the same and the general atmosphere fostered is similar regardless of who is teaching.  Consistency is important.  As is mutual respect.  Without these foundations, harmony and proper instructional setting and structure is weakened.  Students don't pay money to experience drama or discord.  They expect more from a MA dojo.


----------



## J. Pickard (Mar 15, 2021)

I have trained this way before and it can be absolutely terrible or the best training you'll ever have in your life! If the instructors never train together to get a feel for each others teaching style, personality, and knowledge level there can be conflict. But if the instructors are good at playing off of each other and are familiar with the other's background and methods then it can be great. A good example of this, we hosted a Uechi Ryu sensei and let her run classes in our facility when she moved and needed a new place to hold classes. We did a few joint workouts and it was great! She would start the class talking about certain body mechanics of a stance/technique and how Uechi Ryu applied it and then I was able to take that same concept and show how it can be applied to TKD and boxing. I had a similar experience training in a BJJ school where one of the instructors was also the kickboxing coach. The two BJJ instructors played off each other really well and showed how to apply a concept purely for grappling, purely for striking, and then in a combination of the two. On the flip side I visited a TKD school that had two instructors (not sure of the full background on them) that were always contradicting each other in their respective classes and never seemed to be on the same page.


----------

