At what age do you do your best teaching?

[Bruce7]

The new student is getting the demonstration from a young guy, with the (presumed) wisdom of the old guy. Seems like a workable environment.

I agree with you. The legacy of a great teacher is shown throw his students.That they are able to make his knowledge live throw them.

 

[Bruce7]

If 90 is what you consider old that gives the comment a different perspective. My GM who is 84 is still very fast with his upper body and hands. Yes his legs have slowed down but he can still do a full split. At 64 I did not want to tangle with him. On a side note, he was diagnosed with cancer in his leg in his 60's. You would never know it to see him today.
So to teach a flying side kick he plies his wisdom and uses a younger student to demonstrate the kick and display corrections.

A true grandmaster.

 

[Bruce7]

I think some teachers make a change in what they teach in order to keep the doors open and make there business prosper.

for example:
The GM at Tiger Rock is a good teacher.
The GM at Tiger Rock walks and punches correctly.
He does not teach them how to walk correctly.
Walking correctly is boring, kicking is fun.

Another example:
First thing I was told, do not tighten your muscle only tighten tight just before impact. That tight muscles are slow.
The first Thing I was taught was the H form and how to relax my body, only when I was completely in the front stace did I tighten my body.
Being relax in all movements until just before the moment of impact.
Maybe I was taught this way because I was taking private lesson,
But I don't think so because the more experience students also understood the idea of staying relaxed.
It was a good while before I learn kicks.

Move forward in time the same school teaches new students kicks the first day.

IMO my instruction was better then.

 

[Buka]

I think some teachers make a change in what they teach in order to keep the doors open and make there business prosper.

for example:
The GM at Tiger Rock is a good teacher.
The GM at Tiger Rock walks and punches correctly.
He does not teach them how to walk correctly.
Walking correctly is boring, kicking is fun.

Another example:
First thing I was told, do not tighten your muscle only tighten tight just before impact. That tight muscles are slow.
The first Thing I was taught was the H form and how to relax my body, only when I was completely in the front stace did I tighten my body.
Being relax in all movements until just before the moment of impact.
Maybe I was taught this way because I was taking private lesson,
But I don't think so because the more experience students also understood the idea of staying relaxed.
It was a good while before I learn kicks.

Move forward in time the same school teaches new students kicks the first day.

IMO my instruction was better then.

As time goes by, I think everyone changes how they teach, and what they teach. And when I say "what" they teach.....if you haven't learned a lot more about your own art in 25 years you haven't been paying attention. And that's putting it politely.

You learn a lot by teaching. I could make a list, but I have to go to work today, it would take too long.

 

[Danny T]

I'm not 90 years old yet.

My student has record all my teaching on video. When I look at it, I'm not satisfied with what I can do today compare to what I could do 30 years ago. My speed, balance, flexibility, ... are no longer as good as before.

Of course we cannot doing what we were 30 years ago in the same manner. There is far more to teaching and coaching that demonstrating.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

For me, this is why I want to build a body of "senior students" - people who will be able to help with demonstrating proper technique where I no longer can. Heck, I already make adjustments for my knees and my left foot, and I'm not even 50 yet.

If the teacher doesn't demonstrate the teaching material himself, how do you know that he is teaching the real thing?

I have just finished a new book that recorded letters from an indoor student to his teacher in the past 15 years.

Student: Why do you always watch me when I teach my students?
Teacher: I want to make sure that you don't release my secret to your students.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: step 1: Don't teach the true stuff. step 2: Pretend you will teach the true stuff in the future. step 3: Pretend you are teaching the true stuff right now.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: You can only teach the form. You can not teach the application. If you teach the form, you should not correct your students if they make mistake. You can make the training easier for students even if it may violate the style principles.

This may only happen in the CMA community. Some CMA systems deserve to be dead.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If the teacher doesn't demonstrate the teaching material himself, how do you know that he is teaching the real thing?

I have just finished a new book that recorded letters from an indoor student to his teacher in the past 15 years.

Student: Why do you always watch me when I teach my students?
Teacher: I want to make sure that you don't release my secret to your students.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: step 1: Don't teach the true stuff. step 2: Pretend you will teach the true stuff in the future. step 3: Pretend you are teaching the true stuff right now.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: You can only teach the form. You can not teach the application. If you teach the form, you should not correct your students if they make mistake. You can make the training easier for students even if it may violate the style principles.

This may only happen in the CMA community. Some CMA systems deserve to be dead.

In most systems I've seen, this isn't the practice. Even if it were, seeing someone demonstrate a technique/application, it shouldn't really matter which instructor it is. If a junior instructor/senior student can show a movement better, that's perhaps the better person to do the demonstration - even if they can't explain it as well (so the senior instructor helps with that part).

 

[Flying Crane]

I think some teachers make a change in what they teach in order to keep the doors open and make there business prosper.

for example:
The GM at Tiger Rock is a good teacher.
The GM at Tiger Rock walks and punches correctly.
He does not teach them how to walk correctly.
Walking correctly is boring, kicking is fun.

Another example:
First thing I was told, do not tighten your muscle only tighten tight just before impact. That tight muscles are slow.
The first Thing I was taught was the H form and how to relax my body, only when I was completely in the front stace did I tighten my body.
Being relax in all movements until just before the moment of impact.
Maybe I was taught this way because I was taking private lesson,
But I don't think so because the more experience students also understood the idea of staying relaxed.
It was a good while before I learn kicks.

Move forward in time the same school teaches new students kicks the first day.

IMO my instruction was better then.

If a problem such as you describe with the Tiger Rock teacher exists, that is a problem of ethics. A teacher has a responsibility to teach to the best of his knowledge and ability. If he is not willing to do that, then he should not teach.

If he accepts money for his teaching, then there is an argument that deliberately failing to teach to the best of his knowledge and ability could be a fraudulent action and could open the door to a class action law suit. Such a person should find a different profession.

 

[Flying Crane]

If the teacher doesn't demonstrate the teaching material himself, how do you know that he is teaching the real thing?

I have just finished a new book that recorded letters from an indoor student to his teacher in the past 15 years.

Student: Why do you always watch me when I teach my students?
Teacher: I want to make sure that you don't release my secret to your students.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: step 1: Don't teach the true stuff. step 2: Pretend you will teach the true stuff in the future. step 3: Pretend you are teaching the true stuff right now.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: You can only teach the form. You can not teach the application. If you teach the form, you should not correct your students if they make mistake. You can make the training easier for students even if it may violate the style principles.

This may only happen in the CMA community. Some CMA systems deserve to be dead.

The systems don't deserve to be dead. But some old teachers need to die and get out of the way, so the next generation can do it right.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If a problem such as you describe with the Tiger Rock teacher exists, that is a problem of ethics. A teacher has a responsibility to teach to the best of his knowledge and ability. If he is not willing to do that, then he should not teach.

If he accepts money for his teaching, then there is an argument that deliberately failing to teach to the best of his knowledge and ability could be a fraudulent action and could open the door to a class action law suit. Such a person should find a different profession.

I'm of two minds on this, Michael, and it's largely a matter of nuance.

If someone knows excellent technique, but they have a bunch of people who want them to teach NOT to that level for some reason, I don't see an ethical issue (since it's what the people want). The problem comes with figuring a way to make sure that's what they want - communicating that you're delivering something that has a purpose other than optimal fight training, for instance.

I'd rather have fewer students and get to teach exactly what I want to teach, but I don't have a problem with someone who serves those folks who don't want the longer, likely-less-fun path.

 

[Buka]

If the teacher doesn't demonstrate the teaching material himself, how do you know that he is teaching the real thing?

I have just finished a new book that recorded letters from an indoor student to his teacher in the past 15 years.

Student: Why do you always watch me when I teach my students?
Teacher: I want to make sure that you don't release my secret to your students.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: step 1: Don't teach the true stuff. step 2: Pretend you will teach the true stuff in the future. step 3: Pretend you are teaching the true stuff right now.

Student: How should I teach?
Teacher: You can only teach the form. You can not teach the application. If you teach the form, you should not correct your students if they make mistake. You can make the training easier for students even if it may violate the style principles.

This may only happen in the CMA community. Some CMA systems deserve to be dead.

It's either A or B.

The "A" is that's the craziest thing I've ever read on this forum. And, man, that's saying something. I find this difficult to comprehend.

The "B" is.....you gotta get me some of the buds these people are smoking.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm of two minds on this, Michael, and it's largely a matter of nuance.

If someone knows excellent technique, but they have a bunch of people who want them to teach NOT to that level for some reason, I don't see an ethical issue (since it's what the people want). The problem comes with figuring a way to make sure that's what they want - communicating that you're delivering something that has a purpose other than optimal fight training, for instance.

I'd rather have fewer students and get to teach exactly what I want to teach, but I don't have a problem with someone who serves those folks who don't want the longer, likely-less-fun path.

If they are being honest about it and all parties agree, then it is not a problem.

It is a problem when there is deception, especially when the deception is designed to boost income.

There are nuances in how much is taught how quickly, and recognizing that some students have greater or lesser aptitude than others so the teaching is tailored to those attributes. I do not believe that is deception.

 

[dvcochran]

I'm of two minds on this, Michael, and it's largely a matter of nuance.

If someone knows excellent technique, but they have a bunch of people who want them to teach NOT to that level for some reason, I don't see an ethical issue (since it's what the people want). The problem comes with figuring a way to make sure that's what they want - communicating that you're delivering something that has a purpose other than optimal fight training, for instance.

I'd rather have fewer students and get to teach exactly what I want to teach, but I don't have a problem with someone who serves those folks who don't want the longer, likely-less-fun path.

It gets really hard when you have a mixed bag of students. Pushing each group gets tough. There are times when one group or the other will get the short straw. Sometimes that means the group not really wanting the full extent of learning will get pushed beyond their comfort zone. Sometimes that is a profoundly good thing for the person and they find another gear. Sometimes, if done too often, it may push someone from the other group away. It is just a reality in the process.
It is imperative for an instructor to learn how to realize who is who and work the ones who want more accordingly.

 

[Bruce7]

If a problem such as you describe with the Tiger Rock teacher exists, that is a problem of ethics. A teacher has a responsibility to teach to the best of his knowledge and ability. If he is not willing to do that, then he should not teach.

If he accepts money for his teaching, then there is an argument that deliberately failing to teach to the best of his knowledge and ability could be a fraudulent action and could open the door to a class action law suit. Such a person should find a different profession.

His teaching of kicking techniques is very good. The kids enjoy his school very much.

I do have a problem with teaching of only one form. From speaking with him I know he knows all the Songahm forms.
He said they change from Songahm forms to the one progressive about 10 years ago to make it easier for the kids.

He has probably over 200 young students. Very few adult students.

Only Tiger Rock students may go to their tournaments.

 

[dvcochran]

I don't like or understand that tournament rule. I assume one of their students could go to someone else's if they wish?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I don't like or understand that tournament rule. I assume one of their students could go to someone else's if they wish?

If its a forms-heavy tournament, then it could be for standardization of criteria. And for sparring, not wanting people with the wrong attitude (or "professional tourney fighters") coming to the tourney?

Either way, seems weird to me. But I'd be fine with it, as long as students who enjoy tournamenta are allowed/encouraged to go to tournaments outside the school.

 

[Bruce7]

I don't like or understand that tournament rule. I assume one of their students could go to someone else's if they wish?

I may be wrong, but I think ATA is the same way. Only ATA members spare in ATA tournaments.

 

[dvcochran]

I think that is mostly true but I have seen a few ATA folks at other tourneys. They were not with their school however.

 

[Bruce7]

I think that is mostly true but I have seen a few ATA folks at other tourneys. They were not with their school however.

Best that I can recall I saw a few karate guy at one of Jack Hwang tournaments back in the 70's.
I don't remember any rules on bar other arts.
That is trying to remember something 40 years age. I am not for sure.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Um, how are you defining "teach"? Because the things you say are different to teaching sound a lot like teaching, to me.

Very weirdly. But i was going for the, there are different types and there are people with the information that would more or less show you how to do something than actually teach you how to do it if that makes any sense.

I may be wrong, but I think ATA is the same way. Only ATA members spare in ATA tournaments.

I hate that, if you spar with different martial arts you get more experience than if you spar with your own, its like only sparring with the same 5 people just applied to styles. Hell even if you mix say traditional boxing with only punches vs kick boxers a boxer can adapt to work against kicks eventually even if they don't add kicks to their teaching.

It needs to become more common to do inter style sparring.


If they don't let you go to other tournaments outside of that school thats a big no no though.


Edit: back to the orginal post though, i would addon the whole any age with: Pending what they are teaching you, if they know the fundamentals and are teaching you the basics then so long as they are at least compotent you could get pretty young people who like and are good at teaching, teaching the fundamentals. there may be no mention of high level skill or them making high level sport fighters etc but everyone has to start somewhere and if their sort of motif is getting people in the door then thats acceptable. If you know what you plan to teach and can at least relay how to do it and correct decently enough, you can teach it.

May have been posted before i didn't read all the replies. and some of its self explanatory.