A different perspective

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
One topic that seems to come up frequently in threads discussing various traditional martial arts is the idea of original intent. What was the original purpose of a certain technique? What knowledge wasn't passed down from the old masters to modern practitioners? What was the intention behind particular movements in a kata. Which lineage retains the secret teachings of the founder? Who is qualified to change the way a particular aspect of the art is taught?

It's all very interesting from an outside perspective, but very alien to my personal experience.

I train multiple arts, but my home base is BJJ. And BJJ is an art in a constant state of evolution.

I'm not talking just about the development of new techniques and tactics which are primarily aimed at sport competition under the standard BJJ tournament rules. Since I primarily train BJJ as a fighting art, I could ignore those if I wanted. I'm talking about things like the body mechanics behind fundamental techniques and basic tactical doctrine applicable to both street self-defense and MMA. Much of what I learned when I started BJJ 26 years ago is no longer considered best practices. This is the result of BJJ moving from a niche art dominated by a single family to an art practiced internationally by millions of people worldwide. Those people are continually experimenting, trying everything from minor technical tweaks to established moves, to brand new techniques and tactics, to new ways to conceptualize and teach the movements. And these changes are being tested - in grappling competitions, in MMA, in self-defense, in law-enforcement, and so on. And then the methods which seem to work best are shared via video for practitioners around the world to learn and test and potentially improve on.

All of which leads to a situation where I, having been a BJJ black belt for 11 years now, often feel like an imposter. Not because I didn't learn the details of the original techniques taught by Helio Gracie. But because I can't keep up with the continued development of the art. Honestly, it would be difficult even for someone who trains full time to keep up with everything. But I'm 60 years old with a day job. I'm only on the mats for about 6 hours per week these days and I spend about 1-3 hours per week watching video in an effort to keep up my continuing education on what the worldwide BJJ laboratories are coming up with.

I deal with this by focusing my efforts on the technical details which improve the efficiency of the fundamental movements that I've already been training for years, concepts which help me understand and implement those moves, improved methods for teaching, and new techniques only when they offer a lot of bang for the buck in terms of complementing my existing repertoire and don't require a lot of athleticism or time to make functional. That still leaves a ton of new developments that I try to monitor enough to be sort of aware of, but don't really have any kind of in-depth understanding or mastery of.

It does feel like a bit of a Red Queen's race. (For the non-Carroll fans, that refers to a situation where you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place. ) But at least I'll never have to worry about getting bored or thinking that I know everything.
 
With the change in focus. The role of the black belt has changed.

Where the black belt used to be the font of information. From the founder to the black belt to the student.

The black belt now is a piece in the puzzle. Everyone is responsible for innovation. And the black belt kind of just herds cats.
 
One topic that seems to come up frequently in threads discussing various traditional martial arts is the idea of original intent. What was the original purpose of a certain technique? What knowledge wasn't passed down from the old masters to modern practitioners? What was the intention behind particular movements in a kata. Which lineage retains the secret teachings of the founder?
Good post. As you were writing it, I also just posted (in the Gen. Choi thread responding to Mr. Weiss) touching upon the underlined questions you posed.

Your question regarding what knowledge the old masters didn't pass on is a good one, and of course, one we will never know the answer to. We do know that some masters knew various kata (having cross trained with other masters) that they did not teach their own students. Sometimes they would teach certain kata to one student, and different kata to another student.

Regarding the passing on of "secret" teachings of the founder, or proprietary knowledge unique to the style, I think while once a thing it is largely irrelevant nowadays given the availability of knowledge and numbers of practitioners. While a school may hold back knowledge to all but their senior blackbelts, no doubt some other school/style has the same knowledge that they see fit to teach to mid-level belts and withhold other knowledge the first school may see as basic.

Your perspective on continued learning/training is quite self-centered - just the thing for one in your position. Concentrating on the most bang for your buck based on your existing wealth of knowledge is IMO the way to go. Too much to know. Depth is better than breadth. Being familiar (but not proficient) with things beyond this is fine. I see it as a sign of professionalism as it aids in evaluating your core skills and how they relate to the general art. "Only six hours per week?" You're doing great!
 
With the change in focus. The role of the black belt has changed.

Where the black belt used to be the font of information. From the founder to the black belt to the student.

The black belt now is a piece in the puzzle. Everyone is responsible for innovation. And the black belt kind of just herds cats.
Yep. I tell my students that the dojo is a laboratory and everyone there is responsible for running experiments. Even the new white belts may be junior lab assistants, but that doesn't mean they aren't making valuable discoveries. I tell them that I don't care whether they are "winning" or "losing" their sparring rounds. What I care about is that they are trying things out, seeing what happens, and then reporting back with either discoveries of things that worked or problems they're getting stuck on. I always end class with a short debriefing session after live rounds so that we can debug things that weren't working and share the details of things that did work.
 
This is something I wrestle with from the other side. 3-stripe black belt in TKD, 3-stripe blue belt in BJJ. I'm testing for my 4th degree next month.

TKD definitely tends to have a more "cultish" culture than BJJ does. I feel less comfortable asking the "why" question in TKD. Not just in class, but on forums as well. I ask the question on the forums "why do we do this technique this way?" and the answer I get is, "how do you get to black belt and not know that?" So I get discouraged from asking the question.

Techniques in TKD are either "correct" or "incorrect" as per the Master. I've shared this story before. During my brief stint at another school, the Master asked me and a 2nd degree black belt to both demonstrate a back kick. I did a back kick, he did a spinning side kick. The Master described his as "good", but mine as "correct".

I don't really share the same opinion. There's pros and cons to the back kick and the spinning side kick. Thinking of one as superior to the other limits your options. Then I'm in BJJ classes where BJJ black belts are struggling with techniques and asking questions. My Professor (6'2") sometimes teaches techniques that don't work for me (5'5"), but then some of the brown belts show me different ways of doing similar techniques that do work for me. My Professor, 4th degree black belt who has medaled in Worlds, is asking questions and learning new ways of doing things from another black belt he recently brought into our school (who has won Worlds).

When I open my TKD school, I want to create a culture similar to the BJJ school. That's going to require me to use a different kind of curriculum than the one typically used in TKD. I can't just list techniques and create rote memorized combinations and sequences. If I do that, then the only thing my students will learn is what I decided at the moment I printed my curriculum was the best way of doing things. I wouldn't be able to evolve.
 
I think part of the imposter syndrome from BJJ comes from not having a promotion test to prove your skills and knowledge. I never felt like an imposter in TKD or HKD, but I did feel like an imposter blue belt for quite some time. There was a thread in the BJJ forum joking about it. That thread was all in good fun to share funny stories of stupid things I did. The real imposter syndrome was that I was still getting beaten quite easily by those who were still white belts, even those who weren't close to blue. But I am a lot smaller than they are.

I've heard of Roy Dean's crucibles, and I think something like that would help stave off imposter syndrome. If you have an objective event that certifies you as the next belt, it's hard for anyone (including yourself) to argue with your credentials.
 
Back
Top