It doesn't need them, but it could have them. If I tried doing a fitness workout class, I'd want to know what my instructors experience is, not in MA but in fitness. A lot of people don't seem to care, but that's cause they're sheeple
A Reason Why Rank Might Be Important
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
Steve
Mostly Harmless
If there is purpose in ranks, and they are based on tangible, measurable performance that is grounded in application, this entire discussion is unthinkable. Welders, Carpenters, iron workers, electricians... There is no question whether you are an apprentice, a journeyman, or a master,
In a military unit, there is no philosophical question about why rank exists, whether it is Asian or not.
In a military unit, there is no philosophical question about why rank exists, whether it is Asian or not.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Sure, and they would be just as meaningful as belts in ninjutsu.
Regarding what your jnstructor's experience is... Do you ask them for their resume now?
For MA, sort of. I don't make it an official thing, but when I was looking for a new school, I'd ask them about the history of the style, and pepper in questions about who taught them and how long they've been training, and if they cross-trained. Surprisingly, once I started asking the people I talked to just kinda kept going, and I knew their entire MA history without having to ask. The few that were guarded, I didn't care to go back to.
I'd imagine if I was looking for someone for fitness, I would either need
A: a recommendation from someone I know has spent a lot of time focusing on fitness
B: a recommendation from someone I saw go from zero to hero fitness-wise
C: information from them on where they learned to be a fitness instructor, and how long they've been doing it.
That probably sounds like BS, but if I was going to go to someone to help me with my fitness, I would absolutely want to know I could trust them with it.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Well, I'm not sure why you train ma, but presuming that being able to fight is part of that, I am skeptical that you got a or b. Possible, but unlikely.
Those were for fitness, not fighting.
You're right I didn't get A or B. I do know my instructor's instructor in both BJJ and kali though, his rank in both, and how long he has trained in each. Not sure about for muay thai, but I don't train that so I don't care. Admittedly, I took his word on both, but considering his teachers have come down (up?) for seminars, I'm pretty sure he's not lying.
Forgot to say-the reason I specified this is that I would expect everyone to do something similar. Either go by personal reference, or their credentials (either competition credentials, or who they were trained from, and the validity of their ranks). How they teach is also important, but the background info is important too, again, assuming no personal references.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Why is fitness different from fighting? Lest we get too literal, I mean in the context of vetting an expert who can teach an actual skill.
It's not, that's why I compared them. I just specified that because I don't currently go to a trainer to help with fitness. So I didn't end up going with A or B for fitness or fighting. I went with C for fighting, and nothing for fitness.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
But you were the one who expressed the vetting standard for one that is different from another. I'm asking why that is. I didn't post a and b. You did. Why is that? For argument's sake?
I thought you were making the suggesting that they are different, with your statement about tae bo. So I was explaining how my vetting process for both of them would be the same, by explaining what the vetting process was. I think stuff just got lost in translation...probably because I should have gone to bed a couple hours ago.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
I'm suggesting that when we boil things down, we simply expect that our instructor is competent. How might we know this? When the ranks are associated with objective performance, it's pretty easy.
If fitness is the goal, we look for people who are fit. But if fighting is the goal....
For me at least, I look for two things with both. Are they fit/can the fight, and can they teach it. That's the reason for my list. If I see the evidence that they can teach it, from someone they taught, then I'm good with going to them. Or if they can prove they actually learned it properly (physical trainer course, or from a competent martial artist/style), then I'm good since they won't teach me anything bad, at least. I'm not just going to ask any jacked dude to become my trainer, and I'm not asking any street-fighter to teach me.
But I agree. They need to be fit (for fitness)/be able to fight (for MA), otherwise I don't want to learn from them.
I just read over these, and can't tell if I'm being overly nitpicky right now. Going to look it over in the morning to see.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Can they teach? That is a retrospective determination. Can they fight... How might a budding martial artist judge this?
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Could be either or both of us. I'm watching guy Ritchie's Sherlock and enjoying a well deserved bourbon after long day of scraping snow for several neighbors. Not to mention hurling my neighbor's kids far too fast down the street on sleds.
I don't know the answer to the first, but I'd imagine not. And I don't think any MA really needs belts - they are useful, but not necessary.
I'm not sure where you're going with that pair of questions, though, Steve.
As with MA, I rarely need to ask. I watch a class, and can tell if I like the instructor's approach or not. I've seen very experienced (and very popular) instructors who did a good job of demonstrating the fundamentals, but who changed routines too often and didn't do a good job with beginners (many changes of motion, so slow physical learners like me find themselves always trying to figure out what they're supposed to be doing). I've seen new instructors who were a bit less organized, but who did a great job making sure people were learning to do the movements well and safely. I'm thinking of two, specifically, and both had similar paper qualifications (other than time spent teaching). Each of those instructors will draw a different student, and I think we'd find similar differences in MA training.
The point I was making earlier is "application" in what sense? If I were to teach NGA as a moving meditation, fitness method, etc. (in other words, not really concerned with whether there was fighting application or not), then I might test based on fluidity and precision of the movements, only. And I could grade based on that. Maybe later I'd grade also based on understanding of the mechanics. Those ranks would have a specific meaning, and not one you could necessarily tell from the outside (someone in a middle rank or higher could probably spot those things without the belt).
Then we get back to the question of what rank is meant to be about, within any given system. Judo used to allow ranking entirely by competition. Last I looked, I think they'd changed that so it wasn't possible to rank up quickly by simply going to several competitions and winning. Why? Because being able to beat a Judoka in a competition doesn't mean you should have rank in Judo, unless the rank is only about skill in that competition format. If it's meant to denote skill in Judo (meaning, the techniques and principles as taught in the art), then someone should have to train in the art to get that rank. If I could go to a BJJ school and consistently out-grapple the brown belts (I probably couldn't), that wouldn't make me a BJJ brown belt. It would make me their equivalent in grappling, but there'd be no reason I can think of for me to have that (or any other) rank in BJJ, except as some sort of honorary thing (which is cool, but not the same as a training rank).
That last sentence is more important to me. How they answer me is more important than what they actually tell me. The names they throw out are unlikely to be meaningful (unless it includes one of the handful of senior instructors I know anything about in any given art), and their time training only matters up to a point. But the more they seem to be hedging, or the more they seem to be bragging (like a Kempo guy I was talking to this week here in NC who couldn't stop bragging about how tough he was back in the day and how many fights he used to get into just to "practice"), the less I'm interested.
Similar threads
- paihequan
- General Martial Arts Talk
